Simultaneous interpreting

Mariachiara Russo
Table of contents

In the early 1940s multilingual events such as the Nuremberg War Crime trials (1945–1946), plenary sessions of international organizations and international conferences all called for the least time-consuming mode of interpreting to allow verbal interaction among participants. After some previously successful trials (such as the International Labour Organization’s assembly in 1927), simultaneous interpreting (SI) established itself as the most effective mode of interpreting in these kinds of interpreter-mediated events (see also Consecutive interpreting). It is also the most commonly used form of interpreting in other events, such as media interpreting. SI requires step-by-step training, which is nowadays provided by academic Schools for Interpreters all over the world, and also suitable working conditions (see below).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Chernov, Ghelly V
2004Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Paul
1992“Segmentation of Japanese Source Language Discourse in Simultaneous Interpretation.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 1: 2–11.Google Scholar
Diriker, Ebru
2004De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fabbro, Franco & Gran, Laura
1997“Neurolinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation.” In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile & Christopher Taylor (eds), 9–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1988“Le partage de l’attention et le ’modèle d’effort’ en interprétation simultanée.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 1: 4–22.Google Scholar
1995/2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (rev. ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
1972/2002“Segmentation of Input in Simultaneous Translation.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, Franz Pöchhacker & Miriam Shlesinger (eds), 68–76. London/New York: Routledge.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia
2002“Quality in Interpreting and its Prerequisites: A Framework for a Comprehensive View.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, Giuliana Garzone & Maurizio Viezzi (eds), 121–132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krick, Christoph, Reith, Wolfgang, Behrent, Sigrid & Franceschini, Rita
2005“Das gläserne Hirn des Dolmetschers.” MDÜ Mitteilungen für Übersetzer und Dolmetscher 51 (6): 6–9. (“Looking into the interpreter’s brain.” ITI bulletin May-June 2006: 8–11).Google Scholar
Lederer, Marianne
1978“Simultaneous Interpretation. Units of meanings and other features.” In Language Interpretation and Communication, David Gerver & H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds), 323–333. New York & London: Plenum Press  TSB DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel
1994“Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10 (3) [29]: 319–335.Google Scholar
2000“Prerequisites for a study of neurolinguistic processes involved in simultaneous interpreting. A synopsis.” In Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds), 17–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica & Lederer, Mariane
2002Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier Erudition.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999/2002“Meaning Assembly in Simultaneous Interpretation.” In The Interpreting Studies Reader, Franz Pöchhacker & Miriam Shlesinger (eds), 178–202. London/New York: Routledge DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
2008“Progression in SI Training.” Forum 6 (2): 173–193 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straniero Sergio, Francesco
1999“The Interpreter on the Talk Show. Analyzing Interaction and Participation Framework.” The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication 5 (2): 303–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar