Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 32:3 (2020) ► pp.482–506

The effect of cognitive load on temporal and disfluency patterns of speech

Evidence from consecutive interpreting and sight translation

| Eötvös Loránd University
| University of Szeged
This paper investigates how variation in the complexity of speech tasks is reflected in the temporal characteristics and disfluency patterns of speech. We examined temporal characteristics (speech rate, global articulation rate, ratio of pauses, frequency of pauses, and mean duration of pauses) and disfluency markers (overall frequency of disfluencies; frequency of filled pauses, filler words, whole-word repetitions, part-word repetitions, broken words, prolonged sounds, and revisions; frequency of disfluency clusters) in four speech production tasks (consecutive interpreting, sight translation, spontaneous speech and extemporaneous speech) with twelve speakers.
Our hypothesis, according to which the examined parameters will differ across the four tasks, was partly confirmed by the data; even though not all speech tasks differed significantly in all the examined parameters, our investigation revealed that there were significant differences between some tasks in four parameters, and between others in nine out of the fourteen parameters examined. Our data also suggest that in terms of the temporal characteristics and disfluency markers examined, the four tasks can be represented on a continuum based on the cognitive load associated with each task. At one end of the continuum and generating the least cognitive load is spontaneous speech, and at the other, generating the most cognitive load, is sight translation.
Keywords: consecutive interpreting, disfluencies, sight translation, spontaneous speech, extemporaneous speech, temporal patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Cognitive aspects of interpreting
    • 1.2Cognitive load in four different speech tasks: Consecutive interpreting, sight translation, spontaneous speech and extemporaneous speech
    • 1.3Temporal characteristics and disfluencies: Signs of problems in the speech planning and production processes
  • 2.Materials and method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and data-collection procedure
    • 2.3Analysis of the data
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Temporal characteristics
    • 3.2Disfluencies
    • 3.3Summary: A comparison of the four speech production tasks in terms of the parameters investigated
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19041.bon
References (38)
References
Agrifoglio, Marjorie. 2004. “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.1). Accessed June 26, 2020. [URL]
Bóna, Judit. 2014. “Temporal Characteristics of Speech: The Effect of Age and Speech Style.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136 (2): EL116–EL121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bóna, Judit, and Mária Bakti. 2014. “A beszédtervezés és- kivitelezés temporális sajátosságai szinkrontolmácsok beszédprodukcióiban [Temporal characteristics of speech planning and execution in the speech production of simultaneous interpreters].” Fordítástudomány 41 (1): 16–28.Google Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. “The Construct of Cognitive Load in Interpreting and its Measurement.” Perspectives 25 (4): 640–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duchin, Sandra W., and Edward D. Mysak. 1987. “Disfluency and Rate Characteristics of Young Adult, Middle-aged, and Older Males.” Journal of Communication Disorders 20 (3): 245–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Brigitta, and Elisabet Tiselius. 2016. “Cognitive Aspects of Community Interpreting: Toward a Process Model.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Janet. 2010. “The Prosody of Speech: Timing and Rhythm.” In The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, edited by William J. Hardcastle, John Laver, and Fiona E. Gibbon, 521–602. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “The Contributions of Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics to Conference Interpreting: A Critical Analysis.” In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 41–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gósy, Mária. 2005. Pszicholingvisztika [Psycholinguistics]. Budapest: Osiris.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Disfluencies and Self-monitoring.” Govor 24 (2): 91–110.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Sorozatmegakadások mintázata a spontán beszédben [Complex disfluencies in spontaneous speech].” Beszédkutatás 201: 107–131.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François, and Alain Deschamps. 1975. “Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’anglais et du français: vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation [Contrastive analysis of temporal variables of English and French: Speech rate and component variables, hesitation phenomena].” Phonetica 311: 144–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyarmathy, Dorottya. 2015. “Diszharmóniás jelenségek, megakadások a beszédben [Disharmonies and disfluencies in speech].” In Diszharmóniás jelenségek a beszédben [Disharmony phenomena in speech], edited by Mária Gósy, 9–49. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Carol P., and Ehud Yairi. 1988. “Clustering of Disfluencies in the Speech of Stuttering and Nonstuttering Preschool Children.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 31 (2): 228–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo, and Fabio Alves. 2009. “Translation as Cognitive Activity.” In The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Jeremy Munday, 54–73. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacewicz, Ewa, Robert Allen Fox, and Lai Wei. 2010. “Between-speaker and Within-speaker Variation in the Speech Tempo of American English.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128 (2): 839–850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Roderick. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
LaSalle, Lisa R., and Edward G. Conture. 1995. “Disfluency Clusters of Children who Stutter: Relation of Stutterings to Self-repairs.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38 (5): 965–977. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lickley, Robin J. 2015. “Fluency and Disfluency.” In The Handbook of Speech Production, edited by Melissa A. Redford, 445–474. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2000. “Control of Pauses by Trainee Interpreters in their A and B Languages.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 101: 89–102.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Exploring Hesitation in Consecutive Interpreting: An Empirical Study.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Guiliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 73–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010. “On Paradigms in Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plauché, Madelaine C., and Elizabeth E. Shriberg. 1999. “Data-driven Subclassification of Disfluent Repetitions based on Prosodic Features.” In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 21, 1513–1516.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Professor Franz Pöchhacker interviewed at Critical Link 7. Accessed October 5, 2015. [URL]
Ramig, Lorraine A. 1983. “Effects of Physiological Aging on Speaking and Reading Rates.” Journal of Communication Disorders 16 (3): 217–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Patricia M., Ann Meltzer, and Joanne Wilding. 2009. “Disfluencies in Non-stuttering Adults Across Sample Lengths and Topics.” Journal of Communication Disorders 42 (6): 414–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories – New Models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods.” Target 25 (1): 18–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Cognitive Load.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 60–61. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory, Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone. 2011. “Sight Translation and Speech Disfluency: Performance Analysis as a Window to Cognitive Translation Processes.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, edited by Ceilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet. 2018. “Exploring Cognitive Aspects of Competence in Sign Language Interpreting of Dialogues: First Impressions.” Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 571: 49–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D. 1984. “Processing Resources in Attention, Dual Task Performance, and Workload Assessment.” In Varieties of Attention, edited by Raja Parasuraman and David Roy Davies, 63–102. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Zorlu, Beyza Nur & Esra Özkaya
2024. Evaluation of Remote Interpreting in Terms of Stress and Burnout. Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 14:28 ► pp. 139 ff. 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
Moratto, Riccardo & Zhimiao Yang
2023. Probing the cognitive load of consecutive interpreters. Translation and Interpreting Studies DOI logo
Patel, Bindiya, Ziyun Zhang, Carolyn McGettigan & Michel Belyk
2023. Speech With Pauses Sounds Deceptive to Listeners With and Without Hearing Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 66:10 ► pp. 3735 ff. DOI logo
Xiao, Yao, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund & Chen-En Ho
2023. Wearable eye trackers. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:2 ► pp. 164 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
Zhang, Ziyun, Carolyn McGettigan, Michel Belyk & Giuseppe Sartori
2022. Speech timing cues reveal deceptive speech in social deduction board games. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0263852 ff. DOI logo
Chou, Isabelle, Kanglong Liu & Nan Zhao
2021. Effects of Directionality on Interpreting Performance: Evidence From Interpreting Between Chinese and English by Trainee Interpreters. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Ho, Chen-En
2021. What does professional experience have to offer?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 47 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
Ma, Xingcheng, Dechao Li & Yu-Yin Hsu
2021. Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.