Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



There is general consensus among interpreting practitioners and scholars that numbers pose particular problems in simultaneous interpreting. Adopting the view that fluency disruptions in interpreters’ renditions are signals of cognitive processing problems, the authors aim to isolate those contextual and textual factors which increase the likelihood of disfluencies when rendering numbers present in a source speech. In the reported study, we analyse data from the European Parliament Translation and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC): we focus on target-text segments whose corresponding source segment contains a number and we find the best predictors of disfluencies by applying a generalized linear mixed model. Our approach is confirmatory and so the model accounts for factors that have been suggested in earlier studies as being associated with interpreting fluency. These factors include the nativeness of the original speaker, the type of number, the frequency of numbers in the same sentence, omission, language pair and whether the text was originally delivered impromptu or read out, and at what pace. The outcomes suggest that important predictors of disfluent renditions include omission, the frequency of numbers in a sentence and the type of number; these can be said to contribute to interpreters’ cognitive load when they process numbers.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68 (3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton, K.
    (2019) MuMIn: Multi-model Inference. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67 (1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, S. & Clarici, A.
    (1996) Inaccuracy for numerals in simultaneous interpretation: Neurolinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. The Interpreters’ Newsletter71, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cecot, M.
    (2001) Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter111, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chmiel, A., Szarkowska, A., Koržinek, D., Lijewska, A., Dutka, Ł., Brocki, Ł. & Marasek, K.
    (2017) Ear–voice span and pauses in intra- and interlingual respeaking: An exploratory study into temporal aspects of the respeaking process. Applied Psycholinguistics38 (5), 1201–1227. 10.1017/S0142716417000108
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000108 [Google Scholar]
  7. Collard, C. & Defrancq, B.
    (2020) Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. InJ. Daems, B. Defrancq & L. Vandevoorde, (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting. Abingdon: Routledge, 264–299. 10.4324/9780429030376‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030376-12 [Google Scholar]
  8. Defrancq, B. & Plevoets, K.
    (2018) Over-uh-load, filled pauses in compounds as a signal of cognitive load. InM. Russo, C. Bendazzoli & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies. Singapore: Springer, 43–64. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Desmet, B., Vandierendonck, M. & Defrancq, B.
    (2018) Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support. InC. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 13–27. CitetononCRdoi: 10.5281/zenodo.1493281
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1493281 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fehringer, C. & Fry, C.
    (2007) Hesitation phenomena in the language production of bilingual speakers: The role of working memory. Folia Linguistica41 (1–2), 37–72. 10.1515/flin.41.1‑2.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.41.1-2.37 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Milicevic Petrovic, M. & Lefer, M.-A.
    (2019) Simplified or not simplified? The different guises of mediated English at the European Parliament. Meta63 (3), 717–738. 10.7202/1060170ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1060170ar [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S.
    (2011) An R companion to applied regression. (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frittella, F. M.
    (2019) “70.6 Billion World Citizens”: Investigating the difficulty of interpreting numbers. Translation and Interpreting11 (1), 79–99. 10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a05
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.111201.2019.a05 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2022) CAI tool-supported SI of numbers: A theoretical and methodological contribution. International Journal of Interpreter Education14 (1), Article 5. 10.34068/ijie.14.01.05
    https://doi.org/10.34068/ijie.14.01.05 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gósy, M.
    (2007) Disfluencies and self-monitoring. Govor24 (2), 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, S. T. & Deshors, S. C.
    (2014) Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora9 (1), 109–136. 10.3366/cor.2014.0053
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2014.0053 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, R.
    (2014) Conference interpreting explained. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760322
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Ivaska, I. & Ferraresi, A.
    (2021) ‘Lost’ in interpreting and ‘found’ in translation: Using an intermodal, multidirectional parallel corpus to investigate the rendition of numbers. Perspectives29 (4), 469–488. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1860097 [Google Scholar]
  19. Korpal, P.
    (2016) Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Korpal, P. & Stachowiak-Szymczak, K.
    (2018) The whole picture: Processing of numbers and their context in simultaneous interpreting. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics54 (3), 335–354. 10.1515/psicl‑2018‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E.
    (1959) Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word15 (1), 19–44. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mazza, C.
    (2001) Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter111, 87–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pellatt, V.
    (2006) Thе trouble with numbers: How linguistic, arithmetical and contextual complexity affect the interpretation of numbers. InM. Chai & J. Zhang (Eds.), Professionalization in interpreting: International experience and development in China. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press, 350–365.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Piccaluga, M., Nespoulous, J.-L. & Harmegnies, B.
    (2005) Disfluencies as a window on cognitive processing. An analysis of silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Paper presented atDiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, Aix-en-Provence, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pinochi, D.
    (2010) Simultaneous interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter141, 33–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B.
    (2016) The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies11 (2), 202–224. 10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple [Google Scholar]
  27. (2018) The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament. Interpreting20 (1), 1–28. 10.1075/intp.00001.ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple [Google Scholar]
  28. Pöchhacker, F.
    (1995) Slips and shifts in simultaneous interpreting. InJ. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 73–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Seleskovitch, D.
    (1975) Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Lettres modernes.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Shlesinger, M.
    (1994) Intonation in the production of and perception of simultaneous interpretation. InS. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–236. 10.1075/btl.3.17shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.17shl [Google Scholar]
  32. Sinclair, J.
    (2003) Reading concordances: An introduction. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tissi, B.
    (2000) Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter101, 103–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Whittingham, M. J., Stephens, P. A., Bradbury, R. B. & Freckleton, R. P.
    (2006) Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour?Journal of Animal Ecology75 (5), 1182–1189. 10.1111/j.1365‑2656.2006.01141.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01141.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Winter, B.
    (2020) Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive effort; fluency; interpreting; multilingual parallel corpus; numbers
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