Interpreting - Volume 20, Issue 1, 2018

Cognitive load is a major source of processing difficulties in both interpreting and monolingual speech. This article focuses on measurement of cognitive load by examining the occurrence rate of the disfluency uh(m) in two corpora of naturalistic language: the EPICG, with specific reference to Dutch interpretations of French source texts in the European Parliament; and the sub-corpus of non-interpreted parliamentary speeches from the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In both corpora, the frequency per utterance of uh(m) was studied, in relation to delivery rate, lexical density, presence of numbers and formulaicity (i.e. the number of N-grams), as a Generalised Additive Mixed-effects Model: the frequency of uh(m) in interpretations increases with the lexical density of the source text, while it is inversely related to the formulaicity of both the source text and the target text. These findings indicate the maintenance of a cognitive equilibrium between input load and output load.

This experimental study examines whether use of a corpus-based terminological preparation procedure, managed by a term extraction tool (Syllabs Tools) and a concordance tool (on the Sketch Engine platform), enables trainee interpreters (Chinese A, English B) to achieve greater accuracy in a simultaneous interpreting (SI) task on a specialised topic. Twenty-two interpreting students on a one-year MA course in the UK were divided into a test group (10 students) and a control group (12 students). Nine days before the experiment, which involved SI from the A into the B language as well as vice versa, both groups were given preparatory documentation in both languages. In addition, the test group received term lists automatically generated by the extraction tool and used the Sketch Engine concordance tool. The control group extracted terms manually and did not have the concordance tool. Terminological accuracy in SI was found to be significantly higher, with fewer omissions, even when terms occurred in rapid succession, in the test group. All students afterwards participated in focus group discussions, providing feedback on the effectiveness of their preparation and an estimate of the time they had dedicated to it. In addition, their recall of terms was tested two months later by completion of a 15-item quiz and was found to be significantly better in the test group.

Over the past decade, interpretation assessment has played an increasingly important role in interpreter education, professional certification, and interpreting research. The time-honored assessment method is based on analysis of (para)linguistic features of interpretation (including such items as omissions, substitutions, un/filled pauses and self-corrections). Recently, use of descriptor-based rating scales to assess interpretation has emerged as a viable alternative (e.g., Angelelli 2009 ; Han 2015 , 2016 ; J. Lee 2008 ; Tiselius 2009 ), arguably providing a basis for reliable, valid and practical assessments. However, little work has been done in interpreting studies to ascertain the assumed benefits of this emerging assessment practice. Based on 17 international peer-reviewed journals over the last twelve years (2004–2015), and other related publications (e.g., scholarly books, reports, documents), this article provides an overview of practices in scale-based interpretation assessment, focusing on four major aspects: (a) rating scales; (b) raters; (c) rating procedures; (d) reporting of assessment outcomes. Problem areas and possible emerging trends in interpretation assessment are examined, identifying a number of future research needs.

This study examines interpreted group work situations involving deaf and hearing senior high school students, using Norwegian Sign Language and spoken Norwegian. The research question is: how does the sign language interpreter explicitly coordinate turn-taking in group work dialogues among deaf and hearing students? Video recordings of authentic learning situations constitute the basis for analysis of how a sign language interpreter uses multimodal actions to convey information that is used by the deaf and hearing students in establishing a shared focus of attention and thus coordinating their turn-taking. Five types of actions were recurrently identified: construction of visual gestures; timing of the interpreter’s input; use of gaze to negotiate for the deaf students’ speaking turns; left-right shifts in body position to convey information about which of the hearing students is speaking; and backward-forward shifts in body position to negotiate for shared attention. The analysis draws mainly on concepts developed by Goffman ( 1959 , 1981 ), Goodwin ( 1994 , 2000 , 2007 ) and Wadensjö (1998) . The discussion examines implications for the educational interpreter’s role set ( Sarangi 2010 , 2011 ), and the dual responsibility s/he fulfils by not only interpreting the students’ utterances, but also explicitly coordinating their interaction.

In response to calls in the literature for more collaborative practice in interpreter training, this paper describes the design, implementation and part of the evaluation of an innovative joint training intervention for interpreting students (Master’s level) and 3rd- and 4th-year medical students at Ghent University. In order to assess the development of the students’ knowledge and skills, we employed self-efficacy questionnaires; the training intervention was evaluated in a debriefing session with trainers from both fields. A development in skills that involve direct interaction with the primary participants and address specific communicative goals was noted. Our initial evaluation suggests that interprofessional education and collaborative practice in interpreter training can create the conditions for interpreting students to develop a more insightful and reflective approach to their interpreting practice.