1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 27, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Ear–voice span (EVS) has been recognised as reflecting the cognitive processes involved in simultaneous interpreting. This article reports on a study examining the influence on fluctuations in EVS of text-specific factors, interpreter-specific factors and individual variation. We used naturalistic data from the Polish Interpreting Corpus (PINC), a 20,000-token bidirectional Polish–English corpus of interpretations from the European Parliament. We fitted two linear mixed-effects models and analysed the models’ random variance structure. Our findings show that EVS is modulated by interpreting direction, speech delivery type, source and target text speech rate, interpreter experience, selected word types, the position of a sentence in a text and the position of a word in a sentence. Contrary to expectations, we found no effect of interpreter working memory on EVS. Likewise, EVS was not found to be shortened for numbers and proper names and was inconsistently modulated by gender. Finally, we also saw that individual variation was a source of EVS modulation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
2025-02-13
2026-07-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamowicz, A.
    (1989) The role of anticipation in discourse: Text processing in simultaneous interpreting. Polish Psychological Bulletin201, 153–160.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, L.
    (1994) Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. InS. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–120. 10.1075/btl.3.11and
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.11and [Google Scholar]
  3. Ardito, G.
    (1999) The systematic use of impromptu speech in training interpreting students. The Interpreters’ Newsletter91, 177–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barik, H. C.
    (1973) Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech16 (3), 237–270. 10.1177/002383097301600307
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097301600307 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baxter, R. N.
    (2016) Exploring the possible effects of visual presentations on synchronicity and lag in simultaneous interpreting. Sendebar271, 9–23. 10.30827/sendebar.v27i0.3834
     https://doi.org/10.30827/sendebar.v27i0.3834 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D.
    (1993) The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and Humanities261, 331–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chmiel, A.
    (2018) In search of the working memory advantage in conference interpreting — Training, experience and task effects. International Journal of Bilingualism22 (3), 371–384. 10.1177/1367006916681082
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916681082 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chmiel, A., Janikowski, P. & Cieślewicz, A.
    (2020a) The eye or the ear? Source language interference in sight translation and simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting22 (2), 187–210. 10.1075/intp.00043.chm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00043.chm [Google Scholar]
  9. Chmiel, A., Janikowski, P. & Lijewska, A.
    (2020b) Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting with text: Interpreters focus more on the visual than the auditory modality. Target32 (1), 37–58. 10.1075/target.18157.chm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18157.chm [Google Scholar]
  10. Chmiel, A., Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Koržinek, D., Janikowski, P., Jakubowski, D. & Polakowska, D.
    (2022) Fluency parameters in the Polish Interpreting Corpus (PINC). InM. Kajzer-Wietrzny, A. Ferraresi, I. Ivaska & S. Bernardini (Eds.), Empirical investigations into the forms of mediated discourse at the European Parliament. Berlin: Language Science Press, 63–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Christoffels, I. K. & de Groot, A. M. B.
    (2005) Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. InJ. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 454–479.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Collard, C.
    (2019) A corpus-based study of simultaneous interpreting with special reference to sex. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.
  13. Collard, C. & Defrancq, B.
    (2016) Sex differences in ear-voice-span. Paper presented at theEuropean Society for Translation Studies Congress, Aarhus.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2019a) Predictors of ear-voice span, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. Perspectives27 (3), 431–454. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1553199
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1553199 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2019b) Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex. InL. Vandevoorde, J. Daems & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting. New York: Routledge, 264–299.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronbach, L. J.
    (1957) The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist12 (11), 671–684. 10.1037/h0043943
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943 [Google Scholar]
  17. Defrancq, B.
    (2015) Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting17 (1), 26–45. 10.1075/intp.17.1.02def
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.02def [Google Scholar]
  18. Déjean le Féal, K.
    (1982) Why impromptu speech is easy to understand. InN. L. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 221–239.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Díaz Galaz, S.
    (2011) The effect of previous preparation in simultaneous interpreting: Preliminary results. Across Languages and Cultures12 (2), 173–191. 10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P. & Bajo, M. T.
    (2015) The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting17 (1), 1–25. 10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  21. Doi, K., Sudoh, K. & Nakamura, S.
    (2021) Large-scale English–Japanese Simultaneous Interpretation Corpus: Construction and analyses with sentence-aligned data. InM. Federico, A. Waibel, M. R. Costa-jussà, J. Niehues, S. Stuker & E. Salesky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021). Bangkok: Association for Computational Linguistics, 226–235. 10.18653/v1/2021.iwslt‑1.27
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.iwslt-1.27 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S.
    (2019) An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerver, D.
    (1969) The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. InE. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency-Controlled Speech. Louisville: Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville, 162–184.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gile, D.
    (1997) Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. InJ. H. Danks, G. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 196–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2008) Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum6 (2), 59–77. 10.1075/forum.6.2.04gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.04gil [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldman-Eisler, F.
    (1972) Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research1 (2), 127–140. 10.1007/BF01068102
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068102 [Google Scholar]
  28. Good, C. V.
    (1959) Dictionary of education. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. de Groot, A. M. B.
    (1997) The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. InJ. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 25–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gumul, E.
    (2005) EVS: czynnik czasu w tłumaczeniu symultanicznym. InJ. Arabski, E. Borkowska & A. Łyda (Eds.), Czas w języku i kulturze. Katowice: Para, 176–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Honnibal, M. & Johnson, M.
    (2015) An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. InL. Màrquez, C. Callison-Burch & J. Su (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1373–1378. 10.18653/v1/D15‑1162
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1162 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jalili Sabet, M., Dufter, P., Yvon, F. & Schütze, H.
    (2020) SimAlign: High quality word alignments without parallel training data using static and contextualized embeddings. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1627–1643. 10.18653/v1/2020.findings‑emnlp.147
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.147 [Google Scholar]
  33. Janikowski, P.
    (2012) Evaluating difficulty of teaching materials for interpreting classes. InŁ. Bogucki & M. Deckert (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Advances and perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 119–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones, R.
    (1998) Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kade, O. & Cartellieri, C.
    (1971) Some methodological aspects of simultaneous interpreting. Babel17 (2), 12–16. 10.1075/babel.17.2.04car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.17.2.04car [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, H.-R.
    (2005) Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean–Chinese, Korean–Japanese interpretation. Meta50 (4), 1–16. 10.7202/019846ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/019846ar [Google Scholar]
  37. Klassen, K.
    (2022) Proper name theory and implications for second language reading. Language Teaching55 (2), 149–155. 10.1017/S026144482100015X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482100015X [Google Scholar]
  38. Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M. & Zhou, X.
    (2011) Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology11, 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Koržinek, D. & Chmiel, A.
    (2021) Interpreter identification in the Polish Interpreting Corpus. Tradumàtica191, 276–288. 10.5565/rev/tradumatica.291
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/tradumatica.291 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kubiński, W.
    (1999) Word order in English and Polish: On the statement of linearization patterns in cognitive grammar. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lamberger-Felber, H.
    (2001) Text-oriented research into interpreting: Examples from a case-study. Hermes261, 39–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lee, T.
    (2002) Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta47 (4), 596–606. 10.7202/008039ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/008039ar [Google Scholar]
  43. (2003) Tail-to-tail span: A new variable in conference interpreting research. Forum1 (1), 41–62. 10.1075/forum.1.1.03lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.1.03lee [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu, M. & Chiu, Y.-H.
    (2009) Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting11 (2), 244–266. 10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu [Google Scholar]
  45. Macizio, P. & Bajo, M. T.
    (2007) Comprehension processes in translation. InD. Alamargot, P. Terrier & J. Cellier (Eds.), Written documents in the workplace. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 193–204. 10.1163/9789004253254_014
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253254_014 [Google Scholar]
  46. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D.
    (2017) Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language941, 305–315. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mellinger, C. D. & Hanson, T. A.
    (2019) Meta-analyses of simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Interpreting21 (2), 165–195. 10.1075/intp.00026.mel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00026.mel [Google Scholar]
  48. Oléron, P. & Nanpon, H.
    (1965) Research into simultaneous translation. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 69–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Ono, T., Tohyama, H. & Matsubara, S.
    (2008) Construction and analysis of word-level time-aligned simultaneous interpretation corpus. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 3383–3387.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Podhajská, K.
    (2008) Time lag in simultaneous interpretation from English into Czech and its dependence on text type. InI. Čeňková (Ed.), Prague translation studies: The next generation. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze — Filozofická fakulta.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rozkrut, P. & Chmiel, A.
    (under review). Number processing in simultaneous interpretation: A corpus-based study on factors affecting interpreters’ accuracy.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz Rosendo, L. & Galván, M. C.
    (2019) Coping with speed: An experimental study on expert and novice interpreter performance in the simultaneous interpreting of scientific discourse. Babel65 (1), 1–25. 10.1075/babel.00081.rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00081.rui [Google Scholar]
  53. Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M.
    (1995) A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. Silver Spring, MD: RID Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.121
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.121 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stachowiak-Szymczak, K.
    (2019) Eye movements and gestures in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑19443‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19443-7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W.
    (2014) Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting16 (2), 139–168. 10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim [Google Scholar]
  57. (2015) Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. InA. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–126. 10.1075/btl.115.05tim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.05tim [Google Scholar]
  58. Timarová, Š., Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. G.
    (2011) Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–146. 10.1075/btl.94.10tim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.10tim [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Besien, F.
    (2002) Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. Meta44 (2), 250–259. 10.7202/004532ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/004532ar [Google Scholar]
  60. Wen, H. & Dong, Y.
    (2019) How does interpreting experience enhance working memory and short-term memory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology31 (8), 769–784. 10.1080/20445911.2019.1674857
     https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1674857 [Google Scholar]
  61. Witkoś, J.
    (1998) The syntax of clitics. Steps towards a minimalist account. Poznań: Motivex.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
Loading
Ear–voice span in simultaneous interpreting
Interpreting 27, 28 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00116.jan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ear–voice span; EVS; individual variation; interpreting corpus; simultaneous interpreting

Most Cited

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