Volume 66, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study investigated the effect of source language interference during English-Chinese simultaneous interpreting (SI) with and without text by examining the relationships between manifestations of language interference and interpreting modes. A corpus-based descriptive approach was used to investigate language interference during English-Chinese interpreting at various sessions of the United Nations General Assembly. An intermodal comparison was carried out in three dimensions, addressing (1) the general linguistic properties of the interpreted texts; (2) the distribution of reformulation strategies; and (3) strategies for interpreting passive constructions and attributive clauses, two structures representing structural asymmetries between English and Chinese. The results indicated that the interpreted texts produced by SI with text and SI without text showed different degrees of language interference.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahn, In-Kyoung
    2005 “Pedagogical considerations of perspective coherence problems in simultaneous interpreting as a result of linguistic structure, illustrated by German-Korean examples”. Meta50 (2): 696–712. doi: 10.7202/011012
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011012 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agrifoglio, Marjorie
    2004 “Sight translation and interpreting: a comparative analysis of constraints and failures”. Interpreting6 (1): 43–67. doi:  10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr [Google Scholar]
  3. De Feo, Nicoletta
    1993 Strategie di riformulazione sintetica nell’interpretazione simultanea dall’inglese in italiano: un contributo sperimentale. M.A. Thesis. Trieste: SSLMIT, University of Trieste.
  4. Donato, Valentina
    2003 “Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: a comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 101–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. El-Sakran, Tharwat
    2010 “The impact of PowerPoint slide shows on interpreters’ performance”. Turjuman: Revue de Traduction et D’interprétation/ Journal of Translation Studies19 (1): 197–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Falbo, Caterina
    1999 “MorfoSI without textassi e riformulazione”. InInterpretazione simultanea e consecutiva. Problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche, ed. byCaterina Falbo; Mariachiara Russo; and Francesco Straniero Sergio, 175–188. Milano: Hoepli.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gile, Daniel
    1995 “Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: an experiment”. Target7 (1): 151–164. 10.1075/target.7.1.12gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.1.12gil [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005 “Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view”. InDirectionality in interpreting. The “retour” or the native?, ed. byRita Godijns; and Michael Hinderdael, 9–26. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009Basic concepts and models of interpreter & translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ivanov, Konstantin; Kate Davies; and Boris Naimushin
    2014 “Teaching simultaneous interpreting with text”. InFighting the fog in multilingualism, ed. bySergey Goncharov; and Angelique Antonova, 48–63. St Petersburg: Herzen University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke; and Kristian TH Jensen
    2008 “Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task”. Copenhagen Studies in Language36: 103–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kader, Stephanie; and Sabine Seubert
    2014 “Anticipation, segmentation… stalling? how to teach interpreting strategies”. InTo know how to suggest…: approaches to teaching conference interpreting, ed. byDörte Andres; and Martina Behr, 125–143. Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kalina, Sylvia
    1998Strategische prozesse beim dolmetschen: Theoretische grundlagen, empirische fallstudien, didaktische konsequenzen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lamberger-Felber, Heike; and Julia Schneider
    2008 “Linguistic interference in simultaneous interpreting with text”. InEfforts and models in interpreting and translation research – A tribute to Daniel Gile, ed. byGyde Hansen; Andrew Chesterman; and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 215–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lambert, Sylvie
    1988 “Information processing among conference interpreters: a test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis”. Meta33 (3): 377–387. doi:  10.7202/003380ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003380ar [Google Scholar]
  16. 2004 “Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation”. Meta49 (2): 294–306. doi:  10.7202/009352ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009352ar [Google Scholar]
  17. Riccardi, Alessandra
    1995 “Language-specific strategies in simultaneous interpreting”. InTeaching translation and interpreting, ed. byCay Dollerup; and Annette Lindegaard, 213–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1999 “Interpretazione simultanea: strategie generali e specifiche”. InInterpretazione simultanea e consecutiva: problemi teorici e metodologie didattiche, ed. byCaterina Falbo; Mariachiara Russo; and Francesco Straniero Sergio, 161–174. Milán: Hoepli.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2010 “Simultaneous interpreting with text”. FTI Interpretation Department Faculty Retreat, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation, Universite de Genève. Conference Presentation.
  20. Seeber, Kilian G; and Kerzel, Dirk
    2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data”. International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2): 228–242. doi:  10.1002/9781119241485.ch25
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  21. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1978Interpreting for international conferences: problems of language and communication. Washington D.C: Pen and Booth.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous interpretation – a cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  23. Setton, Robin; and Manuela Motta
    2007 “Syntacrobatics: quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text”. Interpreting9 (2): 199–230. doi:  10.1075/intp.9.2.04set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.04set [Google Scholar]
  24. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2003 “Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Shreve, Gregory M.; Isabel Lacruz; and Erik Angelone
    2010 “Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption and visual interference in a sight translation task”. InTranslation and cognition, ed. byGregory M. Shreve; and Erik Angelone, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.05shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.05shr [Google Scholar]
  26. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  27. Tsai, Yvonne
    2015 “A learner corpus study of attributive clauses and passive voice in student translations”. InHandbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation, ed. byCui Ying, 85–101. Hershey: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑6615‑3.ch006
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6615-3.ch006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Verspoor, Marjolijn; and Kim Sauter
    2000English sentence analysis: an introductory course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.100 [Google Scholar]
  29. Viezzi, Maurizio
    1990 “Sight translation, simultaneous interpretation and information retention”. InAspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation, ed. byLaura Gran; and Christopher Taylor, 54–60. Udine: Campanotto.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wilss, Wolfram
    1978 “Syntactic anticipation in German English simultaneous interpretation”. InLanguage interpretation and communication. proceedings of the NATO symposium on language interpretation and communication (Venice, 1977), ed. byDavid Gerver; and Wallace H. Sinaiko, 335–343. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Xiao, Richard
    2010 “How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? A corpus-based study of translation universals”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15 (1): 5–35. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 “Source language interference in English-to-Chinese translation”. InYearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics, ed. byRomero-Trillo Jesús, 139–162. Imprint: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Xiao, Richard; Tony McEnery; and Yufang Qian
    2006 “Passive constructions in English and Chinese: a corpus-based contrastive study”. Languages in Contrast6 (1): 109–149. doi:  10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia [Google Scholar]
  34. Zanettin, Federico
    2013 “Corpus methods for descriptive translation studies”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences95: 20–32. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.618
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.618 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error