Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study tested the effects of the consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a simulated police interview, addressing four research questions: (1) Does the consecutive interpreting mode lead to more accurate interpreting than the simultaneous interpreting mode? (2) Do language combinations moderate the performance of similarly qualified interpreters? (3) Does experience in simultaneous interpreting in legal settings increase interpreting accuracy in SI? and (4) Which mode of interpreting do interpreters perceive to require more mental effort? A total of 70 interpreters interpreted a live simulated interview between an English-speaking interviewer and an Arabic-, Mandarin- or Spanish-speaking suspect. Mode was varied within participants, and the order of the mode was counter-balanced across participants. Interpreters rated their perceived mental effort after the task. Independent assessments of performance showed better results for the simultaneous interpreting mode, regardless of language. This effect held for accuracy of style, verbal rapport markers, and interpreting protocol.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barik, Henri 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]
  2. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    1999 “The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions.” Forensic Linguistics6(1): 30–56. 10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.30
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.30 [Google Scholar]
  3. Doherty, Stephen M., Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Sandra Hale
    . forthcoming-a. An eye-movement analysis of visual attention and interpreting performance during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remotely interpreted investigative interview.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. . forthcoming-b. A pupillometric and blink rate analysis of cognitive load and interpreting performance during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remote-interpreted investigative interview.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ewens, Sarah, et al
    2014 “The effect of interpreters on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport.” Legal and Criminological Psychology21(2): 286–304.   10.1111/lcrp.12067
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12067 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gany, Francesca, et al
    2007 “The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors.” Journal of General Internal Medicine22(2): 319–323.   10.1007/s11606‑007‑0361‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0361-7 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerver, David
    1969 “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters.” Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on rate and/or frequency controlled speech.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gile, Daniel
    1995Basic 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]
  9. 2001 “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: which is more accurate?” The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies (1): 8–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 “The effort models and gravitational model: Clarifications and update [PowerPoint].” www.cirinandgile.com/powerpoint/The-Effort-Models-and-Gravitational-Model-Clarifications-and-update.pdf
  12. Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra Hale, and Susan E. Brandon
    2020 “Interpreted police interviews: A review of contemporary research”. InAdvances in psychology and law (Vol. 5), ed. byMonica Miller and Brian H. Bornstein. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑54678‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54678-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra Hale, Stephen M. Doherty, and Mustapha Taibi
    2018 “Interpreter presence, mode and language in investigative interviews.” Research report submitted to the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), USA. Charles Sturt University, Manly.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hale, Sandra
    2007 “The challenges of court interpreting: Intricacies, responsibilities and ramifications.” Alternative Law Journal32(4): 198–202.   10.1177/1037969X0703200402
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X0703200402 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Natalie Martschuk
    2020 “Interactional management in a simulated police interview: Interpreters’ strategies.” InThe Discourse of Police Interviews, ed. byMarianne Mason and Frances Rock, 200–226. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226647821.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226647821.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Mustapha Taibi, and Han Xu
    2020 “Interpreting profanity in police interviews.” Multilingua39(4): 369–393.   10.1515/multi‑2019‑0065
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2019-0065 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern
    2017 “The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting19(1): 69–96. 10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal [Google Scholar]
  18. Hale, Sandra and Ludmila Stern
    2011 “Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice.” Judicial Officers Bulletin23(9): 75–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Henderson, John M.
    2011 “Eye movements and scene perception.” InOxford Handbook of Eye Movements, ed. bySimon P. Liversedge, Iain Gilchrist, and Stefan Everling, 593–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0033 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hornberger, John C.,
    1996 “Eliminating language barriers for non-English-speaking patients.” Medical Care34(8): 845–856. 10.1097/00005650‑199608000‑00011
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199608000-00011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity
    Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity 2017Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (Canberra). jccd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/JCCD-Interpreter-Standards.pdf
  22. Köpke, Barbara and Jean-Luc Nespoulous
    2006 “Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters.” Interpreting8(1): 1–23. 10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop [Google Scholar]
  23. Köpke, Barbara and Teresa M. Signorelli
    2012 “Methodological aspects of working memory assessment in simultaneous interpreters.” International Journal of Bilingualism16(2): 183–197. 10.1177/1367006911402981
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402981 [Google Scholar]
  24. Korpal, Paweł
    2016 “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52(2): 297–316.   10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kruger, Jan-Louis and Stephen Doherty
    2016 “Measuring cognitive load in the presence of educational video: Towards a multimodal methodology.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology32(6): 19–31. 10.14742/ajet.3084
    https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3084 [Google Scholar]
  26. Licoppe, Christian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier
    2018 “Voice, power and turn-taking in multi-lingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links.” InHere or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. byR. Skinner, J. Napier and S. Braun, 299–322. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.14
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2bs3.14 [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, Anne and Mustapha Taibi
    2012 “Complexities of high profile interpreting: The case of the Madrid train bomb trial.” Interpreting14(2): 145–164. 10.1075/intp.14.2.02mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.2.02mar [Google Scholar]
  28. Meuleman, Chris and Fred Van Besien
    2009 “Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting11(1): 20–34. 10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu [Google Scholar]
  29. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    1997 “Process models in simultaneous interpretation.” Machine Translation and Translation Theory1(3): 3–18. 10.1515/9783110802474.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802474.3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Murphy, Kevin R. and Brett Myors
    1999 “Testing the hypothesis that treatments have negligible effects: Minimum-effect tests in the general linear model.” Journal of Applied Psychology84(2): 234–248.   10.1037/0021‑9010.84.2.234
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.234 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2011a “Consecutive Interpreting.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 325–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2011b “Simultaneous Interpreting.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 275–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Powell, Martine B.,
    2017 “Professionals’ perspectives about the challenges of using interpreters in child sexual abuse interviews.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law24(1): 90–101.   10.1080/13218719.2016.1197815
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1197815 [Google Scholar]
  35. Razon, Selen, Jasmin Hutchinson, and Gershon Tenenbaum
    2012 “Effort perception.” InMeasurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology, ed. byGershon Tenenbaum, Robert Eklund and Akihito Kamata, 265–275. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 10.5040/9781492596332.ch‑024
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781492596332.ch-024 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rinne, Juha O.,
    2000 “The translating brain: Cerebral activation patterns during simultaneous interpreting.” Neuroscience Letters294(2): 85–88. 10.1016/S0304‑3940(00)01540‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(00)01540-8 [Google Scholar]
  37. Russell, Debra
    2002Interpreting in Legal Contexts: Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation. Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2003 “A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom.” International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation2(1). www.ijdcr.ca/VOL02_01_CAN/articles/russell.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Russell, Debra, and Kayoko Takeda
    2015 “Consecutive interpreting.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson and Renee Jourdenais, 96–111. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2015 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods.” InInterdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research, ed. byMaureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpfrich and Sharon O’Brien, 18–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.72.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.03see [Google Scholar]
  41. Shaffer, Sarah A. and Jacqueline R. Evans
    2018 “Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators.” Applied Cognitive Psychology32(2): 150–162.   10.1002/acp.3388
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3388 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stern, Ludmila
    2012 “What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting?: From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the International Criminal Court.” T & I Review2(7–30).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stern, Ludmila, Uldis Ozolins, and Sandra Hale
    2015 “Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill.” Journal of Judicial Administration25(2): 76–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wong, Wan Kei
    2020 “The role of preparation using case-related materials in court interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yamada, Hiroko
    2019 “A direct application of simultaneous interpreting training without prior consecutive interpreting work in a university course.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies9(4): 353–363. 10.17507/tpls.0904.01
    https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0904.01 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): consecutive; interpreting mode; legal interpreting; simultaneous
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