Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 24:1 (2022) ► pp.38–58

Listeners’ perception of the quality of simultaneous interpreting and perceived dependence on simultaneous interpreting

| Hong Kong Polytechnic University
With the rise of the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF), the number of conference speakers and attendees who use English is increasing. Simultaneous interpreting (SI) into and from English may be provided at conferences to meet the needs of individuals with differing levels of English ability. This paper reports on the findings obtained from two sets of experiments that explored the link between listeners’ perceived dependence on SI and their perceptions of its quality. The first set of experiments was conducted onsite and the second using a remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) setting. Native Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking participants were divided into two groups: one with Russian as the source language (SL) (Russian group) and the other with English as the SL (English group). Both groups listened to the same prerecorded simultaneous interpretation into Cantonese performed by a non-native interpreter. In the onsite setting, the Russian group perceived the non-native-accented interpretation more favorably than the English group did. This suggests that in onsite settings, perceived dependence on SI may be associated with perceptions of its quality; the greater the perceived dependence on SI, the higher the perceived SI quality. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the RSI setting. Factors such as the inaudible SL in the background, similar levels of perceived dependence, negative feelings about online learning and tensions in the state-society relationship may contribute to the similar quality perception ratings across the two RSI groups.
Keywords: remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI), perceived dependence, quality perception, English as a lingua franca
Article outline
  • English as a conference language
  • Listeners’ dependence on SI
  • Listeners’ perceptions of the quality of SI
  • Listeners’ perceptions of remote SI
  • Experiment 1
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00070.che
References (68)
References
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2010). Global English and English as a lingua franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. Trans-kom 3 (2), 126–148.Google Scholar
(2013a). Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 101–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2), 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The imaginary invalid: Conference interpreters and English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24 (3), 293–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altano, W. B. (1990). The intricate witness-interpreter relationship. In D. Bowen & M. Bowen. (Eds.), Interpreting: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 96–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Au-Yeung, H. K. C. (2017). Understanding traditional classroom culture and student behaviour: The know-how of being a foreign teacher in Hong Kong. In R. Maclean. (Ed.), Life in schools and classrooms. Singapore: Springer, 337–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. (2012). When Bosnia was a Commonwealth country: British forces and their interpreters in Republika Srpska 1995–2007. History Workshop Journal 74 (1), 131–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2 (2), 113–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, R. N. (2016). Exploring the possible effects of visual presentations on synchronicity and lag in simultaneous interpreting. Sendebar 27 1, 9–23.Google Scholar
Bendazzoli, C. (2020). Translators and interpreters’ voice on the spread of English as a lingua franca in Italy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 9 (2), 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birney, M. E., Rabinovich, A. & Morton, T. A. (2020). Where are you from? An investigation into the intersectionality of accent strength and nationality status on perceptions of nonnative speakers in Britain. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36 (4), 495–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Interpreting 15 (2), 200–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5 (4), 231–235.Google Scholar
Cheung, A. K. (2003). Does accent matter? The impact of accent in simultaneous interpretation into Mandarin and Cantonese on perceived performance quality and listener satisfaction level. In A. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 85–96.Google Scholar
(2013). Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions. Interpreting 15 (1), 25–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters. Interpreting 16 (2), 191–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The hidden curriculum revealed in study trip reflective journals. In D. B. Sawyer, F. Austermühl & V. Enríquez Raído. (Eds.), The evolving curriculum in interpreter and translator education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 393–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Interpreters’ perceived characteristics and perception of quality in interpreting. Interpreting 22 (1), 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiaro, D. (2002). Linguistic mediation on Italian television. When the interpreter is not an interpreter: A case study. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, E. K., Wilson, A. & Fowler, D. (2013). Exploring customer experiential components and the conceptual framework of customer experience, customer satisfaction, and actual behavior. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 16 (4), 347–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christodoulides, G. & Lenglet, C. (2014). Prosodic correlates of perceived quality and fluency in simultaneous interpreting. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on speech prosody, 20–23 May 2014, Dublin, 1002–1006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collados Aís, A. (1998/2002). Quality assessment in simultaneous interpreting: The importance of nonverbal communication. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger. (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge, 327–336.Google Scholar
Dal Fovo, E. (2015). Media interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker. (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge, 245–247.Google Scholar
Dan, M. (2016). Romanian conference interpreting market: Educating the client. Revue Internationale d’Études en Langues Modernes Appliquées 9 (2), 50–55.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Tatum, N. T., Beck, A. C. & McAninch, K. (2019). Effects of accent strength expectancy violations on language attitudes. Communication Studies 70 (2), 133–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Albl-Mikasa, M., Andermatt, K., Heeb, A. H. & Lehr, C. (2020). Cognitive load in processing ELF: Translators, interpreters, and other multilinguals. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 9 (2), 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eugeni, C. (2008). A sociolinguistic approach to real-time subtitling: Respeaking vs. shadowing and simultaneous interpreting. In C. J. Kellett Bidoli & E. Ochse. (Eds.), English in international deaf communication. New York: Peter Lang, 357–382.Google Scholar
Garzone, G. (2003). Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In A. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 23–30.Google Scholar
Gentile, P. & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2017). “Everybody speaks English nowadays.” Conference interpreters’ perception of the impact of English as a lingua franca on a changing profession. Cultus 10 1, 53–66.Google Scholar
Gulati, R. & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (1), 32–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holub, E. (2010). Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15 1, 117–126.Google Scholar
Kalina, S. (2015). Measure for measure: Comparing speeches with their interpreted versions. In C. Zwischenberger & M. Behr. (Eds.), Interpreting quality: A look around and ahead. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 15–34.Google Scholar
Katan, D. & Straniero-Sergio, F. (2014). Submerged ideologies in media interpreting. In M. Calzada-Pérez. (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies. London: Routledge, 138–151.Google Scholar
Kim, H. R. (2005). Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean–Chinese, Korean–Japanese interpretation. Meta 50 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl. (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D. L. Hammond. (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 143–148.Google Scholar
(1990). Overcoming language barriers in European television. In D. Bowen & M. Bowen. (Eds.), Interpreting: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Binghamton: State University of New York, 168–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3 1, 13–21.Google Scholar
Kurz, I. & Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Quality in TV interpreting. Translatio: Nouvelles de la FIT-FIT Newsletter 14 (3/4), 350–358.Google Scholar
Lee, F. L. F. & Liang, H. (2020). Perceived threat of a linguistic community and context effect on attitude toward immigration in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Social Science 48 1, 250–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, D. C. (2017). Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, literacies and identities. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. & Xiao, D. (2020). Mandarin discrimination in Hong Kong: Four mainland Chinese sojourn teachers’ experience of symbolic violence. Journal of Education Culture and Society 11 (2), 499–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lo, S. S. H., Hung, S. C. F. & Loo, J. H. C. (2021). The dynamics of peaceful and violent protests in Hong Kong. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ma, X. & Cheung, A. K. (2020). Language interference in English–Chinese simultaneous interpreting with and without text. Babel 66 (3), 434–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Moser, P. (1996). Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting 1 (2), 145–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B. (2003). Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. [URL] (accessed 14 October 2021).
Poon, A. Y. (2010). Language use, and language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning 11 (1), 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. & Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. [URL] (accessed 14 October 2021).
Pradas Macías, M. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 8 (1), 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Intelligibility in English as a lingua franca: The interpreters’ perspective. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 9 (2), 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15 1, 101–115.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Melchor, M. D. & Walsh, A. S. (2020). What does ELF mean for the simultaneous interpreter? An overview of the current situation of the Spanish interpreting market. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 9 (2), 265–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting 12 (1), 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, C. A. & Khan, S. (2016). Instructor accents in online education and their effect on learning and attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 32 1, 494–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanka, T. & Taylor, R. (2005). Assessment of university campus café service: The students’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 10 (3), 329–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1997). Quality in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor. (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Stévaux, E. (2007). La incidencia del parámetro acento. In A. Collados Aís, M. Pradas Macías, E. Stévaux & O. García Becerra. (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Editorial Comares, 17–35.Google Scholar
Straniero Sergio, F. (2003). Norms and quality in media interpreting: The case of Formula One press conferences. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12 1, 135–174.Google Scholar
(2013). Media interpreting. In C. A. Chapelle. (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, A. (1993). Simultaneous interpretation: User experience and expectations. In C. Picken. (Ed.), Translation – the vital link. Proceedings of the XIIIth World Congress of FIT ( Vol. 1 1). London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317–327.Google Scholar
(1998). User responses to simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson. (Eds.), Unity in diversity? Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 184–197.Google Scholar
Wong, R. (2020). When no one can go to school: Does online learning meet students’ basic learning needs? Interactive Learning Environments. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Guo, Wei, Xun Guo, Junkang Huang & Sha Tian
2024. Modeling listeners’ perceptions of quality in consecutive interpreting: a case study of a technology interpreting event. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Melicherčíková, Miroslava & Soňa Hodáková
2023. Prieniky a odlišnosti v kognitívno-osobnostnom profile a tlmočníckom výkone profesionálov a študentov, 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
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
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 5 august 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.