1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article attempts to measure the cognitive or informational load in interpreting by modelling the occurrence rate of the speech disfluency . In a corpus of 107 interpreted and 240 non-interpreted texts, informational load is operationalized in terms of four measures: delivery rate, lexical density, percentage of numerals, and average sentence length. The occurrence rate of the indicated speech disfluency was modelled using a rate model. Interpreted texts are analyzed based on the interpreter’s output and compared with the input of non-interpreted texts, and measure the effect of source text features. The results demonstrate that interpreters produce significantly more s than non-interpreters and that this difference is mainly due to the effect of lexical density on the output side. The main source predictor of s in the target text was shown to be the delivery rate of the source text. On a more general level of significance, the second analysis also revealed an increasing effect of the numerals in the source texts and a decreasing effect of the numerals in the target texts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
2016-07-22
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agresti, Alan
    2013Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alessandrini, Maria S
    1990 “Translating Numbers in Consecutive Interpretation: An Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter3: 77–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, Jennifer E. , Thomas Wasow , Anthony Losongco , and Ryan Ginstrom
    2000 “Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language76 (1): 28–55. doi: 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, Jennifer E. , Maria Fagnano , and Michael K. Tanenhaus
    2003 “Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research2003 (3): 25–36. doi: 10.1023/A:1021980931292
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021980931292 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachy, Sylviane , Anne Dister , Michel. Francard , Geneviève Geron , Vincent Giroul , Philippe Hambye , Anne-Catherine Simon , and Régine Wilmet
    2007Conventions 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
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Mona
    1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker , Gill Francis , and Elena Tognini-Bonelli , 233–250. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  7. Barik, Henri C
    1975 “Simultaneous Interpretation: Qualitative and Linguistic Data.” Language and Speech18 (3): 272–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bortfeld, Heather , Silvia D. Leon , Jonathan E. Bloom , Michael F. Schober , and Susan E. Brennan
    2001 “Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and Gender.” Language and Speech44 (2): 123–147. doi: 10.1177/00238309010440020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 [Google Scholar]
  9. Broadbent, Donald E
    1958Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press. doi: 10.1037/10037‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cecot, Michela
    2001 “Pauses in Simultaneous Interpretation: A Contrastive Analysis of Professional Interpreters’ Performances.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter11: 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chmiel, Agnieszka , and Iwona Mazur
    2013 “Eye Tracking Sight Translation Performed by Trainee Interpreters.” InTracks and Treks in Translation Studies, ed. by Way, Catherine , Sonia Vandepitte , Reine Meylaerts , and Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk , 189–205. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.108.10chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.10chm [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, Herbert H. , and Jean E. Fox Tree
    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]
  13. Dillinger, Mike
    1994 “Comprehension during Interpreting: What do Interpreters know that Bilinguals Don’t?” InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer , 155–189. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.14dil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.14dil [Google Scholar]
  14. Faraway, Julian J
    2006Extending the Linear Model with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flesch, Rudolph
    1948 “A New Readability Yardstick.” Journal of Applied Psychology32 (3): 221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox, John
    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]
  17. Fox, John , and Sanford Weisberg
    2011An R Companion to Applied Regression, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gerver, David
    1969 “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters.” InProceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech, ed. by Emerson Foulke , 162–184. University of Louisville: Centre for Rate-Controlled Recordings.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1975 “A Psychological Approach to Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta20 (2): 119–128. doi: 10.7202/002885ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002885ar [Google Scholar]
  20. 1976 “Empirical Studies of Simultaneous Interpretation: A Review and a Model.” InTranslation: Applications and Research, ed. by Richard W. Brislin , 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibson, Tim. R
    1993Towards a Discourse Theory of Abstracts and Abstracting. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gile, Daniel
    1995Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1997 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks , Gregory M. Shreve , Stephen B. Fountain , and Michael McBeath , 196–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999 “Testing the Effort Model’s Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting – A Contribution.” Hermes22: 51–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Local Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting and its Implications for Empirical Research.” Forum6: 59–77. doi: 10.1075/forum.6.2.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.04gil [Google Scholar]
  26. 2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1967 “Sequential Temporal Patterns and Cognitive Processes in Speech.” Language and Speech10 (3): 122–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haeseryn, Walter , Kirsten Romijn , Guido Geerts , Jaap de Rooij , and Maarten C. van den Toorn
    1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [General Dutch Grammar.] Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kintsch, Walter , Ely Kozminsky , William J. Streby , Gail McKoon , and Janice M. Keenan
    1975 “Comprehension and Recall of Text as a Function of Content Variables.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior14 (2): 158–169. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(75)80065‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80065-X [Google Scholar]
  30. Levelt, Willem
    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]
  31. Mazza, Cristina
    2001 “Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter11: 87–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mead, Peter
    2000 “Control of Pauses by Trainee Interpreters in Their A and B Languages.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter10: 89–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mizuno, Akira
    1999 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Simultaneous Interpretation from English into Japanese.” Interpreting Research8 (2): 31–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    1978 “Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application.” InLanguage interpretation and communication. Proceedings of the NATO symposium, Venice, Italy, September 26–October 1 1977, ed. by David Gerver and Wallace Sinaiko , 353–368. New York and London: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Oostdijk, Nelleke
    2000 “The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and First Evaluation.” InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, ed. by Maria Gravilidou , George Carayannis , Stella Markantonatou , Stelios Piperidis , and Gregory Stainhaouer , 887–894. Paris: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Paradis, Michel
    1994 “Toward a Neurolinguistic Theory of Simultaneous Translation: The Framework.” International journal of psycholinguistics9 (3): 319–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pinochi, Diletta
    2009 “Simultaneous Interpretation of Numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter14: 33–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pio, Sonia
    2003 “The Relation Between St Delivery Rate and Quality in Simultaneous Interpretation.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 69–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Riccardi, Alessandra
    1998 “Interpreting Strategies and Creativity.” InTranslator’s Strategies and Creativity, ed. by Ann Beylard-Ozeroff , Jana Kralova , and Barbara Moser-Mercer . Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.27.24ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27.24ric [Google Scholar]
  40. Seeber, Kilian
    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]
  41. 2013 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods.” Target25 (1): 18–35. doi: 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  42. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  43. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1995 “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Translator1 (2): 193–214. doi: 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. 2003 “Effects of Presentation Rate on Working Memory in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter12: 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Straniero Sergio, Francesco , and Caterina Falbo
    2012Breaking 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]
  47. Swerts, Marc
    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]
  48. Tissi, Benedetta
    2000 “Silent Pauses and Disfluencies in Simultaneous Interpretation: A Descriptive Analyzes.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter10: 103–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tommola, Jorma , and Marketta Helevä
    1998 “Language Direction and Source Text Complexity: Effects on Trainee Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting.” InUnity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by Lynne Bowker , Michael Cronin , Dorothy Kenny , and Jennifer Pearson , 177–186. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Van de Kauter, Marjan , Geert Coorman , Els Lefever , Bart Desmet , Lieve Macken , and Veronique Hoste
    2013 “Lets Preprocess: The Multilingual Lt3 Linguistic Preprocessing Toolkit.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands journal3: 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Voor, John B. , and Joseph M. Miller
    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]
  52. Watanabe, Michiko , Keikichi Hirose , Yasuharu Den , and Nobuaki Minematsu
    2008 “Filled Pauses as Cues to the Complexity of Up-Coming Phrases for Native and Non-Native Listeners.” Speech Communication50 (2): 81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  53. Welford, Alan 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive load , corpus linguistics , disfluencies , interpreting and rate model
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