Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Cognitive load is a major source of processing difficulties in both interpreting and monolingual speech. This article focuses on measurement of cognitive load by examining the occurrence rate of the disfluency in two corpora of naturalistic language: the EPICG, with specific reference to Dutch interpretations of French source texts in the European Parliament; and the sub-corpus of non-interpreted parliamentary speeches from the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In both corpora, the frequency per utterance of was studied, in relation to delivery rate, lexical density, presence of numbers and formulaicity (i.e. the number of N-grams), as a Generalised Additive Mixed-effects Model: the frequency of in interpretations increases with the lexical density of the source text, while it is inversely related to the formulaicity of both the source text and the target text. These findings indicate the maintenance of a cognitive equilibrium between input load and output load.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agresti, A.
    (2013) Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alessandrini, M. S.
    (1990) Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter3, 77–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Altenberg, B.
    (1998) On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combination. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, J. E. , Fagnano, M. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2003) Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research3, 25–36. doi: 10.1023/A:1021980931292
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021980931292 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold, J. E. , Wasow, T. , Losongco, A. & Ginstrom, R.
    (2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language76, 28–55. doi: 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bachy, S. , Dister, A. , Francard, M. , Geron, G. , Giroul, V. , Hambye, P. , Simon, A. -C. & Wilmet, R.
    (2007) Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. [Transcription conventions of the corpora included in the VALIBEL Database] www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/valibel/documents/conventions_valibel_2004.PDF (accessed1 October 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, M.
    (1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker , G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–250. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  9. Barik, H. C.
    (1975) Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech18, 272–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bendazzoli, C.
    (2017) Corpus-based interpreting studies: Past, present and future developments of a (wired) cottage industry. In C. Bendazzoli , M. Russo & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies. Singapore: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D. , Conrad, S. & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics25, 371–405. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bortfeld, H. , Leon, S. D. , Bloom, J. E. , Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E.
    (2001) Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech44, 123–147. doi: 10.1177/00238309010440020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 [Google Scholar]
  14. Broadbent, D. E.
    (1958) Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press. doi: 10.1037/10037‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cecot, M.
    (2001) Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter11, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, Y. -H. & Baker, P.
    (2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology14, 30–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chernov, G. V.
    (2004) Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chmiel, A. & Mazur, I.
    (2013) Eye tracking sight translation performed by trainee interpreters. In C. Way , S. Vandepitte , R. Meylaerts & M. Bartłomiejczyk (Eds.), Tracks and treks in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–205. doi: 10.1075/btl.108.10chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.10chm [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E.
    (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84, 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N.
    (2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers?. Applied Linguistics29, 72–89. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm022
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32, 45–61. doi: 10.1017/S0267190512000074
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dillinger, M.
    (1994) Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–189. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.14dil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.14dil [Google Scholar]
  23. Defrancq, B.
    (2015) Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting17 (1), 26-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eyckmans, J.
    (2007) Taking SLA research to interpreter-training: Does knowledge of phrases foster fluency?In F. Boers , J. Darquennes & R. Temmerman (Eds.), Multilingualism and applied comparative linguistics, Volume 1: Pedagogical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 89–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Faraway, J. J.
    (2006) Extending the linear model with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Flesch, R.
    (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology32 (3), 221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fox, J.
    (2003) Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software8 (15), 1–27. doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gerver, D.
    (1969) The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech. University of Louisville: Centre for Rate-Controlled Recordings, 162–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1975) A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta20 (2), 119–128. doi: 10.7202/002885ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002885ar [Google Scholar]
  30. (1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press, 165–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gibson, T. R.
    (1993) Towards a discourse theory of abstracts and abstracting. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gile, D.
    (1995) Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1997) Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks , G. M. Shreve , S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, 196–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1999) Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – A contribution. Hermes22, 51–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2008) Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum6, 59–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldman-Eisler, F.
    (1967) Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech10 (3), 122–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haeseryn, W. , Romijn, K. , Geerts, G. , De Rooij, J. & Van den Toorn, M. C.
    (1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [General Dutch Grammar] Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hox, J. J.
    (2010) Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Second edition. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hyland, K.
    (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes27, 4–21. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kintsch, W. , Kozminsky, E. , Streby, W. J. , McKoon, G. & Keenan, J. M.
    (1975) Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior14, 158–169. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80065‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80065-X [Google Scholar]
  42. Kurz, I.
    (2008) The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance. In G. Hansen , A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levelt, W.
    (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition14, 41–104. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mazza, C.
    (2001) Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter11, 87–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mead, P.
    (2000) Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10, 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Moser, B.
    (1978) Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. Proceedings of the NATO symposium, Venice, Italy, September 26-October 1 1977 New York/London: Plenum Press, 353–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Oostdijk, N.
    (2000) The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and first evaluation. In M. Gravilidou , G. Carayannis , S. Markantonatou , S. Piperidis & G. Stainhaouer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: ELRA, 887–894.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Paquot, M. & Granger, S.
    (2012) Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Linguistics32, 130–149. doi: 10.1017/S0267190512000098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098 [Google Scholar]
  49. Paradis, M.
    (1994) Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics9 (3), 319–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Pinochi, D.
    (2009) Simultaneous interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter14, 33–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pio, S.
    (2003) The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12, 69–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B.
    (2016) The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies11 (2), 202–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org (accessed1 January 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Riccardi, A.
    (1998) Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff , J. Kralova & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–180. doi: 10.1075/btl.27.24ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27.24ric [Google Scholar]
  55. Seeber, K.
    (2011) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting13 (2), 176–204. doi: 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  56. Seeber, K. & Kerzel, D.
    (2012) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2), 228–242. doi: 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  57. Setton, R.
    (1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  58. Shlesinger, M.
    (1989) Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (1998) Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta43 (4), 486–493. doi: 10.7202/004136ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004136ar [Google Scholar]
  60. Straniero Sergio, F. & Falbo, C.
    (Eds.) (2012) Breaking ground in corpus-based interpreting studies. Bern: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0377‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0377-9 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stubbs, M.
    (2007) An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 89–105. doi: 10.1163/9789401204347_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401204347_007 [Google Scholar]
  62. Swerts, M.
    (1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics30, 485–496. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tang, W. , He, H. & Xin, M. T.
    (2012) Applied categorical and count data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Taylor, C.
    (1989) Primary and secondary orality in teaching interpreting technique. In J. M. Dodds (Ed.), Aspects of English: Miscellaneous papers for English teachers and specialists. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 93–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tissi, B.
    (2000) Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10, 103–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tommola, J. & Helevä, M.
    (1998) Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker , M. Cronin , D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 177–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tremblay, A. & Baayen, R. H.
    (2010) Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London/New York: Continuum, 151–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Tremblay, A. , Derwing, B. , Libben, G. & Westbury, C.
    (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning61, 569–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00622.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Underwood, G. , Schmitt, N. & Galpin, A.
    (2004) The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–172. doi: 10.1075/lllt.9.09und
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.09und [Google Scholar]
  70. Van de Kauter, M. , Coorman, G. , Lefever, E. , Desmet, B. , Macken, L. & Hoste, V.
    (2013) LeTs Preprocess: The multilingual LT3 linguistic preprocessing toolkit. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal3, 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Rietvelde, S. , Eyckmans, J. & Bauwens, D.
    (2010) As time goes by: Phraseological competence and linguistic anticipation in the interpreting performance. Artesis VT Working Papers in Translation Studies. Antwerp: Artesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Voor, J. B. & Miller, J. M.
    (1965) The effect of practice on the comprehension of worded speech. Speech Monographs32, 452–455. doi: 10.1080/03637756509375469
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637756509375469 [Google Scholar]
  73. Watanabe, M. , Hirose, K. , Den, Y. & Minematsu, N.
    (2008) Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of up-coming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication50, 81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  74. Welford, A. T.
    (1952) The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high speed performance ‒ a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology43, 2–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. SDL Trados WinAlign
    SDL Trados WinAlign (2014) SDL Trados WinAlign Tutorial. www.translationzone.com/resources/downloads/winalign-tutorial.html (accessed1 October 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wood, S. N.
    (2017) Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [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