Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:1 (2018) ► pp.1–32

The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament

A corpus-based study of predictors for the disfluency uh(m)

| Ghent University
| Ghent University
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.
Keywords: cognitive load, disfluencies, corpus-based interpreting studies, Generalised Additive Mixed-effects Models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive load: Definition and measures
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Method
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Analysis 1: Comparison of input and output in interpreting
    • 5.2Analysis 2: Comparison of output in interpreting and monolingual speech
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple
References (76)
References
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Alessandrini, M. S. (1990). Translating numbers in consecutive interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 31, 77–80.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combination. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A. & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 761, 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachy, S., Dister, A., Francard, M., Geron, G., Giroul, V., Hambye, P., Simon, A. -C. & Wilmet, R. (2007). Conventions de transcription régissant les corpus de la banque de données VALIBEL. [Transcription conventions of the corpora included in the VALIBEL Database] [URL] (accessed 1 October 2015).
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech 181, 272–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendazzoli, C. (2017). Corpus-based interpreting studies: Past, present and future developments of a (wired) cottage industry. In C. Bendazzoli, M. Russo & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 251, 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F. & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech 441, 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 111, 63–85.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. -H. & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology 141, 30–49.Google Scholar
Chmiel, A. & Mazur, I. (2013). Eye tracking sight translation performed by trainee interpreters. In C. Way, S. Vandepitte, R. Meylaerts & M. Bartłomiejczyk (Eds.), Tracks and treks in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 841, 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and non-native speakers?. Applied Linguistics 291, 72–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 321, 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. (2015). Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting 17 (1), 26-45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyckmans, J. (2007). Taking SLA research to interpreter-training: Does knowledge of phrases foster fluency? In F. Boers, J. Darquennes & R. Temmerman (Eds.), Multilingualism and applied comparative linguistics, Volume 1: Pedagogical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 89–105.Google Scholar
Faraway, J. J. (2006). Extending the linear model with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (3), 221–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (15), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech. University of Louisville: Centre for Rate-Controlled Recordings, 162–184.Google Scholar
(1975). A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta 20 (2), 119–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press, 165–207.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. R. (1993). Towards a discourse theory of abstracts and abstracting. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1995). Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
(1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications, 196–214.Google Scholar
(1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – A contribution. Hermes 221, 51–79.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1967). Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech 10 (3), 122–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J. & Van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [General Dutch Grammar] Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Second edition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 271, 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G. & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 141, 158–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, I. (2008). The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–192.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 141, 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazza, C. (2001). Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 111, 87–104.Google Scholar
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 101, 89–102.Google Scholar
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. Proceedings of the NATO symposium, Venice, Italy, September 26-October 1, 1977. New York/London: Plenum Press, 353–368.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and first evaluation. In M. Gravilidou, G. Carayannis, S. Markantonatou, S. Piperidis & G. Stainhaouer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Paris: ELRA, 887–894.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Linguistics 321, 130–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 9 (3), 319–335.Google Scholar
Pinochi, D. (2009). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 141, 33–57.Google Scholar
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 121, 69–100.Google Scholar
Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies 11 (2), 202–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. [URL] (accessed 1 January 2017).
Riccardi, A. (1998). Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Kralova & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting 13 (2), 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. & Kerzel, D. (2012). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2), 228–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1989). Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
(1998). Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta 43 (4), 486–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straniero Sergio, F. & Falbo, C. (Eds.) (2012). Breaking ground in corpus-based interpreting studies. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2007). An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 89–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M. (1998). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 301, 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, W., He, H. & Xin, M. T. (2012). Applied categorical and count data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. (1989). Primary and secondary orality in teaching interpreting technique. In J. M. Dodds (Ed.), Aspects of English: Miscellaneous papers for English teachers and specialists. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 93–102.Google Scholar
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 101, 103–127.Google Scholar
Tommola, J. & Helevä, M. (1998). Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 177–186.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. London/New York: Continuum, 151–173.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 611, 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N. & Galpin, A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Kauter, M., Coorman, G., Lefever, E., Desmet, B., Macken, L. & Hoste, V. (2013). LeTs Preprocess: The multilingual LT3 linguistic preprocessing toolkit. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 31, 103–120.Google Scholar
Van Rietvelde, S., Eyckmans, J. & Bauwens, D. (2010). As time goes by: Phraseological competence and linguistic anticipation in the interpreting performance. Artesis VT Working Papers in Translation Studies. Antwerp: Artesis.Google Scholar
Voor, J. B. & Miller, J. M. (1965). The effect of practice on the comprehension of worded speech. Speech Monographs 321, 452–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., Den, Y. & Minematsu, N. (2008). Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of up-coming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication 501, 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high speed performance ‒ a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology 431, 2–19.Google Scholar
SDL Trados WinAlign (2014). SDL Trados WinAlign Tutorial. [URL] (accessed 1 October 2015).
Wood, S. N. (2017). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (37)

Cited by 37 other publications

Balčiūnienė, Ingrida & Aleksandr N. Kornev
2024. Linguistic disfluencies in Russian-speaking typically and atypically developing children: individual variability in different contexts. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 38:4 ► pp. 287 ff. DOI logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine & Michaela Albl-Mikasa
2024. Interpreting accuracy revisited: a refined approach to interpreting performance analysis. Perspectives 32:2 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Gu, Chonglong & Dechao Li
2024. Interpreter-mediated political communication N-Grammed: a corpus-driven discourse analysis of government interpreters’ (ideological) use of formulaic language. The Translator ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Meng & Lili Han
2024. From manual to machine. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:1 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei, Yue Jiang & Xiaopeng Zhang
2024. Assessing effects of source text complexity on L2 learners’ interpreting performance: a dependency-based approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Li, Yang & Sandra L. Halverson
2024. Lexical bundles in formulaic interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Shao, Zhangminzi & Bart Defrancq
2024. Fundamental frequency as an acoustic mirror of interpreters’ cognitive states. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting DOI logo
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, Danijel Koržinek, Agnieszka Lijewska, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Dariusz Jakubowski & Koen Plevoets
2023. Lexical frequency modulates current cognitive load, but triggers no spillover effect in interpreting. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine & Andrea Hunziker Heeb
2023. Cognitive load and cognitive effort. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Gu, Chonglong & Binhua Wang
2023. From “Within” to “Beyond” in interpreting studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción DOI logo
Huang, Dan Feng, Fang Li & Hang Guo
2023. Chunking in simultaneous interpreting: the impact of task complexity and translation directionality on lexical bundles. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Liu, Nannan
2023. Speaking in the first-person singular or plural. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:2 ► pp. 239 ff. 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
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Shen, Mingxia, Yumeng Lin, Qianxi Lv & Junying Liang
2023. A corpus-based analysis of the effect of syntactic complexity on disfluency in consecutive interpreting. Lingua 291 ► pp. 103562 ff. DOI logo
Arslan, Burcu & Tilbe Göksun
2022. Aging, Gesture Production, and Disfluency in Speech: A Comparison of Younger and Older Adults. Cognitive Science 46:2 DOI logo
ARZİK ERZURUMLU, Özüm & Perihan DEMİR
2022. Taking Stock of the COVID-19 Working Conditions on the Performance of the Interpreters: Rendering the Numbers in the 2020 American Presidential Debates. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi 2022:32 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Coats, Steven
2022. A database of North American double modals and self-repairs from YouTube. Psychology of Language and Communication 26:1 ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
Gagnon, Stéphane & Sabrina Azzi
2022. Semantic Annotation of Parliamentary Debates and Legislative Intelligence Enhancing Citizen Experience. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13429], ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2022. Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Language Testing 39:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Li, Saihong, Yifang Wang & Yubo Zhou Rasmussen
2022. Studying interpreters’ stress in crisis communication: evidence from multimodal technology of eye-tracking, heart rate and galvanic skin response. The Translator 28:4 ► pp. 468 ff. DOI logo
Tang, Fang & Shuzhen Jiang
2022. Four-word lexical bundles in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting—A comparative study between professionals and trainees. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena & Bert Oben
2022. Anticipation and timing of turn-taking in dialogue interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:4 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022. A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Baekelandt, Annelies & Bart Defrancq
2021. Elicitation of particular grammatical structures in speeches for interpreting research: enhancing ecological validity of experimental research in interpreting. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Dayter, Daria
2021. Strategies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting. Effects of directionality, phraseological richness, and position in speech event. Meta 65:3 ► pp. 594 ff. DOI logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine
2021. The impact of visible lip movements on silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 23:2 ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Ilmari Ivaska & Adriano Ferraresi
2021. ‘Lost’ in interpreting and ‘found’ in translation: using an intermodal, multidirectional parallel corpus to investigate the rendition of numbers. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Ilmari Ivaska & Adriano Ferraresi
2024. Fluency in rendering numbers in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Yumeng, Duo Xu & Junying Liang
2021. Differentiating Interpreting Types: Connecting Complex Networks to Cognitive Complexity. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Shao, Zhangminzi & Mingjiong Chai
2021. The effect of cognitive load on simultaneous interpreting performance: an empirical study at the local level. Perspectives 29:5 ► pp. 778 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Baimei, Andrew K.F. Cheung & Jie Xing
2021. Learning Chinese political formulaic phraseology from a self-built bilingual United Nations Security Council corpus. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 67:4 ► pp. 500 ff. DOI logo
胡, 敏霞
2021. Investigating the Cognitive Effects of the Interpreter’s Gestures in Multi-Modal Processing. Modern Linguistics 09:04 ► pp. 912 ff. DOI logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2020. How much noise can you make through an interpreter?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:2 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo
Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
2024. Can you amuse the audience through an interpreter?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 36:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei & Yue Jiang
2020. Effect of dependency distance of source text on disfluencies in interpreting. Lingua 243 ► pp. 102873 ff. DOI logo
Shen, Mingxia, Qianxi Lv & Junying Liang
2019. A corpus-driven analysis of uncertainty and uncertainty management in Chinese premier press conference interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 14:1 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 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.