Cover not available
Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 17:1 (2019) ► pp.1–19

Disfluency in relay and non-relay simultaneous interpreting

An initial exploration

| Hong Kong Polytechnic University & Qufu Normal University
| Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This corpus-based study explores the effects of relay interpreting at meetings of the United Nations General Assembly by comparing features of disfluency between the outputs of relay and non-relay simultaneous interpreting (SI). The findings are as follows: (1) the output of relay interpreting is shorter and more dispersive than that of non-relay interpreting; (2) filled pauses are the most common type of disfluency; and (3) the relay SI output shows fewer lexical and phonetic E-repairs and more A-repairs for ambiguity, syntactic E-repairs, and D-repairs than the non-relay output. The results suggest that the use of relay vs. non-relay interpreting may affect interpreters’ output.
Keywords: relay interpreting, disfluency, repairs, filled pauses, United Nations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research background
    • 2.1Disfluencies as predictors
    • 2.2Disfluency in simultaneous interpreting
    • 2.3Effects of relay interpreting
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data source
    • 3.2Controlled variables
    • 3.3Annotation
  • 4.Data analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Overview of annotation statistics
    • 4.2Analysis of disfluencies in SI output
      • 4.2.1Overview of disfluency distribution
      • 4.2.2Disfluency in relay and non-relay interpreting
      • 4.2.3Probing into repairs
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.18016.che
References (40)
References
Bakti, Maria. 2009. Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation. Paper presented at the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008, Leuven.
Bendazzoli, Claudio, Sandrelli, Annalisa, & Russo, Mariachiara. 2011. Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: a corpus-based analysis. In A. Kruger, K. Wallmach, & J. Munday (Eds.), Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications (pp. 282–306). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bühler, Hildergund. 1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.Google Scholar
Cecot, Michela. 2001. Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 111, 63–85.Google Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone. 1998. Pauses and Communication Strategies in Second Language Speech. Retrieved from [URL]
Chernov, Ghelly V. 2004. Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dechert, Hans Wilhelm, & Raupach, Manfred (Eds.). 1980. Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duez, Danielle. 1982. Silent and non-silent pauses in three speech styles. Language and speech, 25(1), 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, Pauline, Tonkyn, Alan, & Wigglesworth, Gillian. 2000. Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary fndings from a case study. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 201–218). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1958. The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and speech, 1(3), 226–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gósy, Mária. 2005. Pszicholingvisztika. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2007. Disfluencies and self-monitoring. Govor, 24(2), 91–110.Google Scholar
Hargrove, Patricia M., & McGarr, Nancy S. 1994. Prosody management of communication disorders. Sandiego and California: Singular Publishing Group Inc.Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit. 1999. Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language learning, 49(2), 303–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreter’s Newsletter (5), 13–21.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer. 1983. Relay interpretation: An exploratory study. (MA thesis), University of London.Google Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2000. Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 101, 89–102.Google Scholar
. 2005. Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 131, 39–63.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Künzli, Alexander, & Korac, Marina. 1998. Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress (Pilot study). Interpreting, 3(1), 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Peter. 1996. Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting, 1(2), 145–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petite, Christelle. 2005. Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. Interpreting, 7(1), 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, Koen, & Defrancq, Bart. 2016. The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 202–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1995. “Clinton speaks German”: A case study of live broadcast simultaneous interpreting. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as intercultural communication: selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995 (Vol. 201, pp. 207–216). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
. 2012. Interpreting quality: Global professional standards. Paper presented at the Interpreting in the Age of Globalization: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting, Beijing.
Postma, Albert. 2000. Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 771(2000), 97–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pradas Macías, Macarena. 2006. Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting, 8(1), 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, Heidi. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14(4), 423–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnadt, Michael J., & Corley, Martin. 2006. The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah.
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories-new models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica, & Lederer, Marianne. 1989a. The problems of relay. In D. Seleskovitch & M. Lederer (Eds.), A systematic approach to teaching interpretation (pp. 173–192). Luxembourg: Didier.Google Scholar
. 1989b. A systematic aproach to teaching interpretation. Paris: European Communities.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin. 1999. Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, & Dawrant, Andrew. 2016. Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 2010. Relay interpreting. In Y. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol. 11, pp. 276–278). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Lacruz, Isabel, & Angelone, Erik. 2011. Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation process. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (Vol. 931–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 1995. Fondamenti di linguistica. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Tissi, Benedetta. 2000. Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 101, 103–127.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Götz, Andrea
2023. Chapter 3. Adding connectives to manage interpreted discourse. In Pragmatics and Translation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 337], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Han, Lili, Jing Lu, Zhisheng (Edward) Wen & Yuan Tian
2023. Momentary engagement in simultaneous versus consecutive interpreting: through the lens of translanguaging and CDST. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Liu, Zhibo & Juhua Dou
2023. Lexical density, lexical diversity, and lexical sophistication in simultaneously interpreted texts: a cognitive perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Tian, Sha, Lingxiao Jia & Zhining Zhang
2023. Investigating students’ attitudes towards translation technology: The status quo and structural relations with translation mindsets and future work self. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2022. Remote Simultaneous Interpreting from Home or Hub: Accuracy of Numbers from English into Mandarin Chinese. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2024. Editorial: Cognition and language contact: interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Liu, Kanglong & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2022. Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19: Challenges and Opportunities. In Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19 [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 9], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pięta, Hanna, Laura Ivaska & Yves Gambier
2022. What can research on indirect translation do for Translation Studies?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:3 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Pięta, Hanna, Laura Ivaska & Yves Gambier
2023. Structured literature review of published research on indirect translation (2017–2022). Perspectives 31:5 ► pp. 839 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2022. Relay interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:3 ► pp. 489 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Yifan & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2022. A corpus-based study of modal verbs in Chinese–English governmental press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.