Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This corpus-based study explores the effects of relay interpreting at meetings of the United Nations General Assembly by comparing features of disfluency between the outputs of relay and non-relay simultaneous interpreting (SI). The findings are as follows: (1) the output of relay interpreting is shorter and more dispersive than that of non-relay interpreting; (2) filled pauses are the most common type of disfluency; and (3) the relay SI output shows fewer lexical and phonetic E-repairs and more A-repairs for ambiguity, syntactic E-repairs, and D-repairs than the non-relay output. The results suggest that the use of relay vs. non-relay interpreting may affect interpreters’ output.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakti, Maria
    2009Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation. Paper presented at theCETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bendazzoli, Claudio, Sandrelli, Annalisa, & Russo, Mariachiara
    2011 Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: a corpus-based analysis. InA. Kruger, K. Wallmach, & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications (pp.282–306). London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bühler, Hildergund
    1986 Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cecot, Michela
    2001 Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cenoz, Jasone
    1998Pauses and Communication Strategies in Second Language Speech. Retrieved fromhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED426630
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chernov, Ghelly V.
    2004Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dechert, Hans Wilhelm, & Raupach, Manfred
    (Eds.) 1980Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Duez, Danielle
    1982 Silent and non-silent pauses in three speech styles. Language and speech, 25(1), 11–28. 10.1177/002383098202500102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098202500102 [Google Scholar]
  9. Foster, Pauline, Tonkyn, Alan, & Wigglesworth, Gillian
    2000 Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary fndings from a case study. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp.201–218). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1958 The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and speech, 1(3), 226–231. 10.1177/002383095800100308
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383095800100308 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gósy, Mária
    2005Pszicholingvisztika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2007 Disfluencies and self-monitoring. Govor, 24(2), 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hargrove, Patricia M., & McGarr, Nancy S.
    1994Prosody management of communication disorders. Sandiego and California: Singular Publishing Group Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kormos, Judit
    1999 Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language learning, 49(2), 303–342. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00090 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreter’s Newsletter (5), 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levelt, Willem
    1983 Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mackintosh, Jennifer
    1983 Relay interpretation: An exploratory study. (MA thesis), University of London.
  20. Mead, Peter
    2000 Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2005 Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 13, 39–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Künzli, Alexander, & Korac, Marina
    1998 Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (Pilot study). Interpreting, 3(1), 47–64. 10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.03mos [Google Scholar]
  23. Moser, Peter
    1996 Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting, 1(2), 145–178. 10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.2.01mos [Google Scholar]
  24. Petite, Christelle
    2005 Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. Interpreting, 7(1), 27–49. 10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet [Google Scholar]
  25. Plevoets, Koen, & Defrancq, Bart
    2016 The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 202–224. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  26. Pöchhacker, Franz
    1995 “Clinton speaks German”: A case study of live broadcast simultaneous interpreting. InM. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as intercultural communication: selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (Vol.20, pp.207–216). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012Interpreting quality: Global professional standards. Paper presented at theInterpreting in the Age of Globalization: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting, Beijing.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Postma, Albert
    2000 Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77(2000), 97–131. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00090‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00090-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pradas Macías, Macarena
    2006 Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting, 8(1), 25–43. 10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.03pra [Google Scholar]
  30. Riggenbach, Heidi
    1991 Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14(4), 423–441. 10.1080/01638539109544795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schnadt, Michael J., & Corley, Martin
    2006The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Paper presented at theProceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories-new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  33. Seleskovitch, Danica, & Lederer, Marianne
    1989a The problems of relay. InD. Seleskovitch & M. Lederer (Eds.), A systematic approach to teaching interpretation (pp.173–192). Luxembourg: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1989bA systematic aproach to teaching interpretation. Paris: European Communities.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  36. Setton, Robin, & Dawrant, Andrew
    2016Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  37. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2010 Relay interpreting. InY. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol.1, pp.276–278). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hts.1.rel1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.rel1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shreve, Gregory M., Lacruz, Isabel, & Angelone, Erik
    2011 Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation process. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (Vol.93–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/btl.94.09shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.09shr [Google Scholar]
  39. Simone, Raffaele
    1995Fondamenti di linguistica. Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tissi, Benedetta
    2000 Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–127.
    [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