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
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

Foreign-accented speech is one of the factors that add to the cognitive load exerted during conference interpreting. In the present study, we investigated the effect of different accents on speech processing during this task in addition to the respective roles played by language proficiency and expertise. We therefore designed a pupillometric study in which we tested both students and professional interpreters. The results show that, throughout the trial, the cognitive effort associated with accented speech processing, as measured by proportional pupil size relative to baseline, was greater in the case of the students. Furthermore, only the students seemed to be sensitive to the type of accented speech applied. At the same time, all the participants demonstrated a similar pupil activation pattern in each trial, which suggests the presence of a generalized ‘cognitive rhythm’ that pertains to the interpreting task. Finally, the results point to expertise rather than language proficiency as a major factor in mitigating cognitive effort in simultaneous conference interpreting.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
2025-03-11
2025-03-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/intp.00117.bro.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahrens, B.
    (2005) Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpreting: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting7 (1), 51–76. 10.1075/intp.7.1.04ahr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.04ahr [Google Scholar]
  2. AIIC
    AIIC (2002) Interpreter workload study — full report. aiic.net/page/657 (accessed11 August 2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2015) ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. InM. Ehrensberger-Dow, B. Englund Dimitrova, S. Hubscher-Davidson & U. Norberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation: Acts and events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–62. 10.1075/bct.77.04alb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.77.04alb [Google Scholar]
  4. Alves, F.
    (2005) Ritmo cognitivo, meta-reflexão e experiência: parâmetros de análise processual no desempenho de tradutores novatos e experientes. InA. Pagano, C. Magalhaes & F. Alves (Eds.), Competência em tradução: cognição e discurso. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 109–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R. & Koehler, K.
    (1992) The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning421, 529–555. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1992.tb01043.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01043.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Atagi, E. & Bent, T.
    (2015) Relationship between listeners’ nonnative speech recognition and categorization abilities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1371, EL44–EL50. 10.1121/1.4903916
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4903916 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S.
    (2018) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4. R package (version 1.1–17). cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bent, T. & Bradlow, A.
    (2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1141, 1600–1610. 10.1121/1.1603234
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
    (2022) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. www.praat.org
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boos, M., Kobi, M., Elmer, S. & Jäncke, L.
    (2022) The influence of experience on cognitive load during simultaneous interpretation. Brain & Language2341, 105185. 10.1016/j.bandl.2022.105185
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2022.105185 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chapman, L. R. & Hallowell, B.
    (2015) A novel pupillometric method for indexing word difficulty in individuals with and without aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research581, 1508–1520. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR‑L‑14‑0287
     https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0287 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheung, A.
    (2003) Omission in simultaneous interpreting. Forum10 (2), 19–33. 10.1075/forum.10.2.02che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.10.2.02che [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke, C. M. & Garrett, M. F.
    (2004) Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1161, 3647–3658. 10.1121/1.1815131
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815131 [Google Scholar]
  14. Daguet, I., Bouhassira, D. & Gronfier, C.
    (2019) Baseline pupil diameter is not a reliable biomarker of subjective sleepiness. Frontiers in Neurology101, Art. 108. 10.3389/fneur.2019.00108
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00108 [Google Scholar]
  15. Darò, V., Lambert, S. & Fabbro, F.
    (1996) Conscious monitoring of attention during simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting11, 101–124. 10.1075/intp.1.1.06dar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.06dar [Google Scholar]
  16. De Bot, K.
    (2000) Simultaneous interpreting as language production. InB. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–88. 10.1075/btl.40.06bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.06bot [Google Scholar]
  17. Duanmu, S.
    (2000) The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Eckert, M. A., Teubner-Rhodes, S. & Vaden, K. I.
    (2016) Is listening in noise worth it? The neurobiology of speech recognition in challenging listening conditions. Ear and Hearing37 (Suppl 1), 101S–110S. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000300
     https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000300 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gerver, D.
    (1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. InR. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 165–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gile, D.
    (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  21. (1997) Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. InJ. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 196–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grabbi, L.
    (2010) The repercussions of native and non-native English accents on perceived quality and comprehension in conference interpreting. Master’s thesis, University of Tartu.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., Sarkin, A. J. & Dykes, K. L.
    (1996) Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology33 (4), 457–461. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.1996.tb01071.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb01071.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Gunning, Robert
    (1952) The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hanulíková, A. & Weber, A.
    (2012) Sink positive: Linguistic experience with the substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics74 (3), 613–629. 10.3758/s13414‑011‑0259‑7
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0259-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Harms, M. P. M., Finucane, C., Pérez-Denia, L., Juraschek, S. P., van Wijnen, V. K., Lipsitz, L. A., van Lieshout, J. J. & Wieling, W.
    (2021) Systemic and cerebral circulatory adjustment within the first 60 s after active standing: An integrative physiological view. Autonomic Neuroscience2311, 102756. 10.1016/j.autneu.2020.102756
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autneu.2020.102756 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hess, E. H. & Polt, J. M.
    (1964) Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science143 (3611), 1190–1192. 10.1126/science.143.3611.1190
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3611.1190 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jensen, C. & Thøgersen, J.
    (2017) Foreign accent, cognitive load and intelligibility of EMI lectures. Nordic Journal of English Studies16 (3), 107–137. ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/4189. 10.35360/njes.414
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.414 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kadem, M., Herrmann, B., Rodd, J. M. & Johnsrude, I. S.
    (2020) Pupil dilation is sensitive to semantic ambiguity and acoustic degradation. Trends in Hearing241, 2331216520964068. 10.1177/2331216520964068
     https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216520964068 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kahane, E.
    (2013) Thoughts on the quality of interpretation. Is there a consensus on what quality is and how to define and assess it objectively?https://aiic.org/document/364/AIICWebzine_May2000_1_KAHANE_Thoughts_on_the_quality_of_interpretation_EN.pdf (accessed11 August 2023).
  31. Kahneman, D. & Beatty, J.
    (1966) Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science154 (3756), 1583–1585. 10.1126/science.154.3756.1583
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.154.3756.1583 [Google Scholar]
  32. Krämer, M.
    (2009) The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199290796.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199290796.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Laeng, B., Sirois, S. & Gredebäck, G.
    (2012) Pupillometry: A window to the preconscious?Perspectives on. Psychological Science7 (1), 18–27. 10.1177/1745691611427305
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427305 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambert, S.
    (1992) Shadowing. Méta371, 263–273. 10.7202/003378ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003378ar [Google Scholar]
  35. Lenth, R.
    (2019) Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lin, I. I., Chang, F. A. & Kuo, F.
    (2013) The impact of non-native accented English on rendition accuracy in simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting5 (2), 30–44. 10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a03
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a03 [Google Scholar]
  37. Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B.
    (1998) Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing191, 1–36. 10.1097/00003446‑199802000‑00001
     https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lüdecke, D.
    (2018) ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 772. 10.21105/joss.00772
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772 [Google Scholar]
  39. McLaughlin, D. J. & Van Engen, K. J.
    (2020) Task-evoked pupil response for accurately recognized accented speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America147 (2), EL151–EL156. 10.1121/10.0000718
     https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000718 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mirman, D.
    (2014) Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Moser-Mercer, B., Frauenfelder, U., Casado, B. & Künzli, A.
    (2000) Searching to define expertise in interpreting. InB. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 107–132. 10.1075/btl.40.09mos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.40.09mos [Google Scholar]
  42. Oberauer, K.
    (2009) Interference between storage and processing in working memory: Feature overwriting, not similarity-based competition. Memory & Cognition37 (3), 346–357. 10.3758/MC.37.3.346
     https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.3.346 [Google Scholar]
  43. Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J.
    (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist381, 1–4. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Peelle, J.
    (2018) Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear and Hearing39 (2), 204–214. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000494
     https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000494 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C. L., Naylor, G., Phillips, N. A., Richter, M., Rudner, M., Sommers, M. S., Tremblay, K. L. & Wingfield, A.
    (2016) Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: The framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear and Hearing37 (Suppl 1), 5S–27S. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312
     https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312 [Google Scholar]
  46. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D. & Wingfield, A.
    (2010) Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology471, 560–569. 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2009.00947.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00947.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Porretta, V., Tremblay, A. & Bolger, P.
    (2017) Got experience? PMN amplitudes to foreign-accented speech modulated by listener experience. Journal of Neurolinguistics441, 54–67. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. Porretta, V., Tucker, B. V. & Järvikivi, J.
    (2016) The influence of gradient foreign accentedness and listener experience on word recognition. Journal of Phonetics581, 1–21. 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Prior, A. & Gollan, T. H.
    (2011) Good language-switchers are good task switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society171, 682–691. 10.1017/S1355617711000580
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711000580 [Google Scholar]
  50. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Riad, T.
    (2014) The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Richter, M.
    (2016) The moderating effect of success importance on the relationship between listening demand and listening effort. Ear and Hearing37 (Suppl 1), 111S–117S. 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000295
     https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000295 [Google Scholar]
  53. Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C. D. & Costa, A.
    (2015) Processing changes when listening to foreign-accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience91, Art. 167. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00167
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00167 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schilperoord, J. & Sanders, T.
    (1997) Pauses, cognitive rhythm and discourse structure: An empirical study of discourse production. In: W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 247–268. 10.1075/cilt.151.17sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.17sch [Google Scholar]
  55. Stachowiak-Szymczak, K. & Korpal, P.
    (2019) Interpreting accuracy and visual processing of numbers in professional and student interpreters: An eye-tracking study. Across Languages and Cultures20 (2), 235–251. 10.1556/084.2019.20.2.5
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2019.20.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tiselius, E.
    (2013) Experience and expertise in conference interpreting: An investigation of Swedish conference interpreters. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen.
  57. Tiselius, E. & Sneed, K.
    (2020) Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism — Language and Cognition23 (4), 780–787. 10.1017/S1366728920000309
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000309 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ushey, K.
    (2018) Package “RcppRoll”, Efficient rolling/windowed operations. RcppRoll.pdf (r-project.org).
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Engen, K. & McLaughlin, D.
    (2018) Eyes and ears: Using eye tracking and pupillometry to understand challenges to speech recognition. Hearing Research3691, 56–66. 10.1016/j.heares.2018.04.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Engen, K. J. & Peelle, J. E.
    (2014) Listening effort and accented speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience81, Art. 577. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00577
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00577 [Google Scholar]
  61. Verreyt, N., Woumans, E., Vandelanotte, D., Szmalec, A. & Duyck, W.
    (2015) The influence of language switching experience on the bilingual executive control advantage. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 10.1017/S1366728914000352
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000352 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vieira, L. N.
    (2014) Indices of cognitive effort in machine translation post-editing. Machine Translation28 (3), 187–216. 10.1007/s10590‑014‑9156‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-014-9156-x [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, H., Yu, Z. & Wang, X.
    (2024) Expertise differences in cognitive interpreting: A meta-analysis of eye tracking studies across four decades. Wiley Interdisciplinary Review of Cognitive Science15 (1), e1667. 10.1002/wcs.1667
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1667 [Google Scholar]
  64. Weber, A. & Cutler, A.
    (2004) Lexical competition in non-native spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language501, 1–25. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00105‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00105-0 [Google Scholar]
  65. Whyatt, B., Stachowiak, K. & Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
    (2016) Similar and different: Cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2), 175–208. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0007 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wickham, H.
    (2016) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wieling, W., van Twist, D. J. L., van Wijnen, V. K. & Harms, M. P. M.
    (2021) Spectrum of hemodynamic responses in the first 60 seconds after active standing up: Importance of time course of blood pressure changes and definitions. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association22 (11), 2401–2403. 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.03.035
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.03.035 [Google Scholar]
  68. Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T. & Kuchinsky, S. E.
    (2018) Best practices and advice for using pupillometry to measure listening effort: An introduction for those who want to get started. Trends in Hearing221, 1–32. 10.1177/2331216518800869
     https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216518800869 [Google Scholar]
  69. Xie, X., Weatherholtz, K., Bainton, L., Rowe, E., Burchill, Z., Liu, L. & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2018) Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented speech and its transfer to an unfamiliar talker. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America143 (4), 2013–2031. 10.1121/1.5027410
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5027410 [Google Scholar]
  70. Yagura, H., Tanaka, H. & Nakamura, S.
    (2024) Effects of cognitive load and years of experience on phase-amplitude coupling in simultaneous interpretation. bioRxiv2024.05.03.592346. 10.1101/2024.05.03.592346 (preprint).
     https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.03.592346 [Google Scholar]
  71. Yang, S.
    (2019) Investigating the effect of speech rate on the cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting with text. Doctoral thesis, University of Macau.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Zekveld, A. A. & Kramer, S. E.
    (2014) Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: Insights from pupillometry. Psychophysiology511, 277–284. 10.1111/psyp.12151
     https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12151 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E. & Festen, J. M.
    (2010) Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and Hearing311, 480–490. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251
     https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
Loading
The role of expertise in coping with accents during simultaneous interpreting
Interpreting 27, 52 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00117.bro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accented speech; cognitive effort; cognitive load; expertise; pupillometry; 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