Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 23:1 (2021) ► pp.45–75

Explicitation and cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting

Product- and process-oriented analysis of trainee interpreters’ outputs

| University of Silesia
This article investigates the correlation between explicitation and increased cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting by trainee interpreters. It has been hypothesised, on the one hand, that certain explicitating shifts in simultaneous interpreting may be caused by increased cognitive load and they may be performed in an attempt to mask processing problems; and, on the other, that performing explicitating shifts may lead to increased cognitive load and trigger processing problems. The study triangulates product analysis (manual comparison of source and target texts) with process analysis (retrospective protocols of the participants). In the product the correlation between the occurrence of explicitating shifts and increased cognitive load is sought by identifying problem indicators in the form of three types of disfluency: hesitation markers, false starts and anomalous pauses exceeding two seconds (performance measure). Retrospective protocols are analysed in search of reports of explicitating shifts and/or increased cognitive load experienced and/or the cognitive effort expended (subjective measure). The product analysis shows the correlation between explicitating shifts and cognitive load at the level of 31%. The Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient r = 0.48 indicates that there is a positive association between these two variables. This finding is further confirmed by 122 retrospective comments of the subjects in the study.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, explicitation, cognitive load, cognitive effort, process research, retrospective protocols
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Explicitation and interpreting constraints
  • 3.Aims of the study
  • 4.Research design
    • 4.1Materials
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Method and procedure
    • 4.4Data analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Results from product data
    • 5.2Results from process data
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00051.gum
References (53)
References
Bakti, M. (2017). Explicitation in sight-translating into Hungarian texts. In A. Łyda & K. Holewik (Eds.), Interdisciplinary encounters – dimensions of interpreting studies. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 160–173.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, N., Meyer, B. & Özçetin, D. (2008). Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept). Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2), 177–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biernacka, A. (2019). Elementy dodane w tłumaczeniu wypowiedzi w postępowaniu sądowym [Added elements in translation of court proceedings]. In E. Gruszczyńska, M. Guławska-Gawkowska, A. Szczęsny (Eds.), Translatoryczne i dyskursywne oblicza komunikacji. Warszawa: Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej WLS, 153–167.Google Scholar
Biernacka, A. & Kalata-Zawłocka, A. (2019). Techniki w tłumaczeniu bilateralnym: zintegrowane podejście do przekładu języków fonicznych i migowych [Techniques in bilateral interpreting: integrated approach to spoken and sign language interpreting]. In K. Hejwowski, K. Dębska & D. Urbanek (Eds.), Tłumaczenie wczoraj, dziś i jutro Warszawa: Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej UW, 57–82.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M. & Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effect of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech 44 (2), 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. (2017). The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives 25 (4), 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
da Silva, I. A. L. & Pagano, A. S. (2017). Cognitive effort and explicitation in translation tasks. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. Berlin: Language Science Press, 155–175.Google Scholar
Defrancq, B., Plevoets, K. & Magnifico, C. (2015). Connective markers in interpreting and translation: where do they come from. In J. Romero Trillo (Ed.), Corpus pragmatics in translation and contrastive studies, 31. Dordrecht: Springer, 195–222.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. & Tiselius, E. (2014). Retrospection in interpreting and translation: Explaining the process? MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation 11, 177–200.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. E. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage, 196–214.Google Scholar
(1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – a contribution. Hermes 231, 153–172.Google Scholar
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Effort Models, In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 135–136.Google Scholar
Guilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–149.Google Scholar
Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting: A strategy or a by-product of language mediation? Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2), 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Explicitation in conference interpreting. In M. Thelen & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning. Part 7. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 449–456.Google Scholar
(2008). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting – The quest for optimal relevance? In E. Wałaszewska, M. Kisielewska-Krysiuk, A. Korzeniowska & M. Grzegorzewska (Eds.), Relevant worlds: Current perspectives on language, translation and relevance theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 188–205.Google Scholar
(2010). Explicitating political discourse. In Ch. Schaeffner (Ed.). Political discourse, media and translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 94–115.Google Scholar
(2017). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting. A study into explicitating behaviour of trainee interpreters. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
(2019). Evidence of cognitive effort in simultaneous interpreting: Process versus product data. Beyond Philology 16 (4), 11–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumul, E. & Łyda, A. (2010). Disambiguating grammatical metaphor in simultaneous interpreting. In J. Maliszewski (Ed.), Diskurs und Terminologie beim Fachübersetzen und Dolmetschen. Discourse and terminology in specialist translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 87–99.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Igras-Cybulska, M., Ziółko, B., Żelasko, P. & Witkowski, M. (2016). Structure of pauses in speech in the context of speaker verification and classification of speech type. Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing 181. <[URL]> (accessed 27 July 2020). DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2012). Interpreting universals and interpreting style. PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lam, P. (2009). The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies 11 (3), 353–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Morselli, N. (2018). Interpreting universals: A study of explicitness in the intermodal EPTIC corpus. inTRAlinea Special Issue: New Findings in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. <[URL]> (accessed 9 July 2019).
Murtisari, E. T. (2013). A Relevance-based framework for explicitation and implicitation in translation. An alternative typology. Trans-kom 6 (2), 315–344.Google Scholar
(2016). Explicitation in translation studies: The journey of an elusive concept. Translation & Interpreting 8 (2), 64–81.Google Scholar
Oviatt, S. (1995). Predicting spoken disfluencies during human–computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language 91, 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. M. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting 8 (1), 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puurtinen, T. (2003). Explicitating and implicitating source text ideology. Across Languages and Cultures 4 (1), 53–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B. & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (3), 362–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, K. G. (2013). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: measures and methods. Target 25 (1), 18–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive load. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 601.Google Scholar
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Models. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 263–268.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1995). Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting. The Translator 1 (2), 193–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, F. (2018). Explicitation in consecutive interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, F. & Li, D. (2016). Explicitation patterns in English–Chinese consecutive interpreting: Differences between professional and trainee interpreters. Perspectives 24 (2), 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). A corpus-based investigation of explicitation patterns between professional and student interpreters in Chinese–English consecutive interpreting. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11 (4), 373–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Wiraszka, Ł. (2015). Kategoria punktu widzenia w przekładzie ustnym z perspektywy językoznawstwa kognitywnego w relacji język polski – język angielski [The category of point of view in interpreting from the cognitive linguistics perspective based on the Polish–English language pair]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. (2009). Explicitation in Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting: A case study. Chinese Translators Journal 30 (5), 77–81.Google Scholar
Sources
Hood, V. L. (2008). Can a physician refuse to help a patient? American perspective. VII Krajowa Konferencja Szkoleniowa Towarzystwa Internistów Polskich, Warszawa, 24 kwietnia 2008 – Sympozjum satelitarne ‘Dylematy etyczne w praktyce lekarskiej – czy lekarz może odmówić pacjentowi pomocy?’ <[URL]> (accessed 16 July 2010).
Radziwiłł, K. (2008). Czy lekarz może odmówić pacjentowi pomocy? VII Krajowa Konferencja Szkoleniowa Towarzystwa Internistów Polskich, Warszawa, 24 kwietnia 2008. Sympozjum satelitarne ‘Dylematy etyczne w praktyce lekarskiej – czy lekarz może odmówić pacjentowi pomocy?’ <[URL]> (accessed 16 July 2010).
Umiastowski, J. (2008). Czy lekarz może odmówić pomocy lekarskiej w sytuacji, gdy nakazuje mu to jego sumienie? VII Krajowa Konferencja Szkoleniowa Towarzystwa Internistów Polskich, Warszawa, 24 kwietnia 2008, Sympozjum satelitarne ‘Dylematy etyczne w praktyce lekarskiej – czy lekarz może odmówić pacjentowi pomocy?’ <[URL]> (accessed 16 July 2010).
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Li, Shu Scott, James Price Dillard & Miriam Brinberg
2024. Campaign-Induced Interpersonal Communication: Identifying Turn Types and Exploring Their Interdependencies. Communication Studies ► pp. 1 ff. 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
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
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Salaets, Heidi & Katalin Balogh
2023. Are interpreters and interpreting technology ready for the post-Covid era?. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Han & Kanglong Liu
2023. Syntactic simplification in interpreted English: Dependency distance and direction measures. Lingua 294 ► pp. 103607 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa
2022. Changing the text through explicitation. How trainee interpreters perceive the role of explicitating shifts. The Translator 28:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa
2023. Interpreters who explicitate talk more. On the relationship between explicitating styles and retrospective styles in simultaneous interpreting. Perspectives 31:4 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa & Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk
2022. Interpreters’ explicitating styles. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 163 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
Valdeón, Roberto A.
2021. Perspectives on interpreting. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.