Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In psycholinguistics there is an agreement that self-monitoring is part of the speech production system, it serves the repair of speech errors and disfluencies occurring during the process of speech production.

During simultaneous interpreting, where source language speech perception and target language speech production happen simultaneously, the analysis of self-monitoring is of particular importance.

In our study we compare self-monitoring processes in the target language texts, interpreted from English into Hungarian, of professional interpreters and trainee interpreters.

We examine the frequency of incidence of error – type disfluencies, the editing phase of self-repairs, the frequency of incidence of disfluencies, and the editing phases of repetitions and restarts.

Although our data have revealed considerable individual differences between interpreters, some tendencies can be detected. In general, differences can be detected in self-monitoring between professional and trainee interpreters. When compared to data about self-monitoring processes in spontaneous, monolingual Hungarian speech, we can state that there were far fewer phenomena connected to self-monitoring in the target language output of simultaneous interpreters than in monolingual Hungarian texts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakti, Mária and Bóna, Judit
    2014 “The Effect of Source Language Disfluencies on the Target Language Output of Simultaneous Interpreters.” InPapers in Language Acquisition, Language Learning and Speech Research. Studies in Psycholinguistics4., ed. by Bátyi Szilvia , Navracsics Judit and Vígh-Szabó Melinda , 121–129. Budapest-Veszprém: Gondolat Kiadó-Pannon Egyetem MFTK.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bóna, Judit
    2011 “Disfluencies in the Spontaneous Speech of Various Age Groups: Data from Hungarian.” Govor28(2): 95–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, Herbert and Wasow, Thomas
    1998 “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech.” Cognitive Psychology37: 201–242. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 [Google Scholar]
  4. G. Láng, Zsuzsa
    2002Tolmácsolás felsőfokon: a hivatásos tolmácsok képzéséről. Budapest: Scholastica.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gerver, David
    1976 “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model.” InTranslation. Application and Research, ed. by Richard W. Brislin , 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gile, Daniel
    1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  7. 1998 “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of Conference Interpreting.” Target10 (1): 69–93. doi: 10.1075/target.10.1.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.04gil [Google Scholar]
  8. Gósy, Mária
    2005Pszicholingvisztika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2007 “Disfluencies and Self-monitoring.” Govor26: 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gyarmathy, Dorottya
    2009 “A beszélő bizonytalanságának jelzései: ismétlések és újraindítások.” InBeszédkutatás 2009., ed. by Gósy Mária , 196–216. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1989Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Nooteboom, Sieb
    2005 “Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech.” Speech Communication47: 43–58. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Petite, Christelle
    2005 “Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis.” Interpreting7(1): 27–49. doi: 10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet [Google Scholar]
  14. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1995 “Slips and Shifts in Simultaneous Interpreting.” InTopics in Interpreting Research, ed. by Jorma Tommola , 73–90. Turku: The University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Postma, Albert
    2000 “Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models.” Cognition77: 97–131. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00090‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00090-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Postma, Albert and Kolk, Herman
    1993 “The covert repair hypothesis: prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research39: 472–487. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3603.472
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3603.472 [Google Scholar]
  17. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  18. Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie
    1979 “Speech Errors as Evidence for a Serial-Ordering Mechanism in Sentence Production.” InSentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett, ed. by William Cooper and Edward Walker , 295–342. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Spiller-Bosatra, Edith and Daró, Valeria
    1992 “Delayed Auditory Feedback Effects on Simultaneous Interpreters.” The Interpreters’s Newsletter4: 8–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Van Besien, Fred and Meuleman, Chris
    2004 “Dealing with Speakers’ Errors and Speakers’ Repairs in Simultaneous Interpretation.” The Translator10 (1): 59–81. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2004.10799168
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2004.10799168 [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