Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Hesitation and lexical repair markers are part of almost every audibly pronounced sentence. Empirical linguistics generally bases its examinations on spontaneous speech production. This paper uses the discourse analytical approach of empirical linguistics to analyse think-aloud protocols produced by translators and lawyers in a mixed methods study combining thinking aloud and eyetracking. Two expert groups—lawyers and translators, comprising both professionals and students—read complex legal texts in French and summarised them in German, their mother tongue. A mainly qualitative analysis evaluates and categorises the occurrences and functions of various German hesitation and discourse markers. This not only provides information about the use of fillers and repair actions during speech but also insights into reception processes and perceptions of text difficulty. A quantitative analysis of pause fillers suggests that the reception processes of lawyers and translators differ.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amiridze, Nino, Boyd H. Davis, and Margaret Maclagan
    eds. 2010Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.93
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.93 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Maria Fagnano, and Michael K. Tanenhaus
    2003 “Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research32 (1): 25–36. doi:  10.1023/A:1021980931292
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021980931292 [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, Emma
    2017 “Diskursmarker aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht: Prosodisch integriertes ja am Beginn von responsiven Turns.” [‘Discourse markers from the perspective of conversation analysis: Prosodically integrated Ja at the beginning of responsive turns’] InDiskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited byH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 183–206. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borja Albí, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos
    eds. 2013Legal Translation in Context: Professional issues and prospects. New York: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0353‑0433‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0433-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer
    eds. 2016New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition84 (1): 73–111. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H., and T. Wasow
    1998 “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech.” Cognitive Psychology37 (3): 201–42. doi:  10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 [Google Scholar]
  8. Corley, Martin, and Oliver W. Stewart
    2008 “Hesitation Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech: The meaning of um.” Language and Linguistics Compass2 (4): 589–602. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00068.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
    2011Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed.Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Defrancq, Bart, and Koen Plevoets
    2017 “Over-Uh-Load, Filled Pauses in Compounds as a Signal of Cognitive Load.” InMaking Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. Edited byM. C. Russo and C. Bendazzoli, 43–64. Singapore: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dijk, Teun Adrianus van, and Walter Kintsch
    1983Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dullion, Valérie
    2014 “Droit comparé pour traducteurs: De la théorie à la didactique de la traduction juridique.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law28 (1): 91–106. doi:  10.1007/s11196‑014‑9360‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-014-9360-2 [Google Scholar]
  13. guest ed. 2017Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Engberg, Jan
    2012 “Word Meaning and the Problem of a Globalized Legal Order.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Edited byL. M. Solan and P. M. Tiersma, 175–86: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199572120-e-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ericsson, Karl A., and Herbert A. Simon
    1993 [1984]Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data. Rev. ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox, Barbara A.
    2010 “Introduction.” InFillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Edited byN. Amiridze, B. H. Davis, and M. Maclagan, 1–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.93.01fox
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.93.01fox [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox Tree, Jean, and Herbert H. Clark
    1997 “Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking.” Cognition62 (2): 151–67. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00781‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00781-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Göpferich, Susanne
    2008Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven [‘Translation process research: State of the art, methods, perspectives’]. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Griebel, Cornelia
    2017 “Fuzzy concepts in translators’ mind: A cognitive-translational approach to tackling the difficulties of legal translation.” InBetween Specialised texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited byV. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (1): 97–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019 “Rechtstexte unter der Lupe: Lesen Übersetzer anders als Juristen? Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rezeption von Textstrukturmarkern in der institutionalisierten Textsorte des französischen Kassationsgerichtsurteils” [Legal texts in the magnifying glass: Do translators read differently than lawyers?]. InLegal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Edited byI. Simonnæs and M. Kristiansen, 221–42. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grucza, Sambor, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    eds. 2016 “Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics”. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber
    2009 “Uncertainty in the Cognitive Processing of a Legal Scenario: A process study of student translators.” Hermes22 (42): 189–209. doi:  10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96852
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96852 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted
    2018 “Genre Familiarity and Translation Processing: Differences and similarities between literary and LSP translators.” InInnovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Edited byI. Lacruz and R. Jääskeläinen, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.18.04tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.18.04tan [Google Scholar]
  24. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2003 “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision, and Segmentation.” InTriangulating Translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research. Edited byF. Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45.08jak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.08jak [Google Scholar]
  25. Kamensky, Mikhail V.
    2016 “Automated Syntagmatik Analysis of English Discourse Markers.” InCommunicating through the Universe. Edited byN. L. Greidina and Y. R. Kamalipour, 24–32. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuckartz, Udo
    2016Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [‘Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice, computer support’]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
    eds. 2018Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xviii
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xviii [Google Scholar]
  28. Le Cheng, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner
    eds. 2014The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, language and communication. Surrey: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1998 (1989)Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McNamara, Danielle S., and Joe Magliano
    2009 “Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension.” InPsychology of Learning and Motivation, vol.51. Edited byBrian H. Ross, 297–384. London: Academic. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(09)51009‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mead, Peter
    2008 “Exploring Hesitation in Consecutive Interpreting.” InMental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction, vol.43. Edited byT. Oakley and A. Hougaard, 73–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Munday, Jeremy, and Meifang Zhang
    2017 “Introduction.” InDiscourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Edited byJ. Munday and M. Zhang, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.94.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.94.001int [Google Scholar]
  33. Muñoz, Edinson, Noelia Calvo, and Adolfo M. García
    2019 “Grounding Translation and Interpreting in the Brain: What has been, can be, and must be done.” Perspectives27 (4): 483–509. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549575
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549575 [Google Scholar]
  34. Oloff, Florence
    2017 “Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch” [‘Genau as a speech-integrated, responsive, sequence-completing or sequence-structuring confirmation particle in conversation’]. InDiskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited byH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 207–32. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Orlando, Daniele
    2017 “Calling Translation to the Bar: A comparative analysis of the translation errors made by translators and lawyers.” InBetween Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited byV. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts3 (1): 81–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Othman, Zarina
    2010 “The use of okay, right and yeah in Academic Lectures by Native Speaker Lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings.” Discourse Studies12 (5): 665–81. doi:  10.1177/1461445610376365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pfeiffer, Martin
    2015Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen [‘Self-repairs in German’]. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110445961
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110445961 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017 “Über die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen” [‘the function of discourse markers in German’]. InDiskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited byH. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 259–84. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Prieto Ramos, Fernando
    2011 “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An integrative process-oriented approach.” Comperative Legilinguistics—International Journal for Legal Communication (5): 7–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schnadt, Michael J., and Martin Corley
    2006 “The Influence of Lexical, Conceptual and Planning based Factors on Disfluency Production.” InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, vol.28, 750–55. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9337x2hk.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Simonnæs, Ingrid
    2012Rechtskommunikation national und international im Spannungsfeld von Hermeneutik, Kognition und Pragmatik. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Simonnæs, Ingrid, and Marita Kristiansen
    eds. 2019Legal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sun, Sanjun
    2011 “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some methodological considerations.” Meta56 (4): 928–951. doi:  10.7202/1011261ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1011261ar [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