Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 17:2 (2022) ► pp.264–286

The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview

ORCID logo | University of New South Wales
ORCID logo | The University of Newcastle
ORCID logo | Griffith University
ORCID logo | University of New South Wales
This study tested the effects of the consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a simulated police interview, addressing four research questions: (1) Does the consecutive interpreting mode lead to more accurate interpreting than the simultaneous interpreting mode? (2) Do language combinations moderate the performance of similarly qualified interpreters? (3) Does experience in simultaneous interpreting in legal settings increase interpreting accuracy in SI? and (4) Which mode of interpreting do interpreters perceive to require more mental effort? A total of 70 interpreters interpreted a live simulated interview between an English-speaking interviewer and an Arabic-, Mandarin- or Spanish-speaking suspect. Mode was varied within participants, and the order of the mode was counter-balanced across participants. Interpreters rated their perceived mental effort after the task. Independent assessments of performance showed better results for the simultaneous interpreting mode, regardless of language. This effect held for accuracy of style, verbal rapport markers, and interpreting protocol.
Keywords: interpreting mode, simultaneous, consecutive, legal interpreting
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Cognitive differences between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting
    • Differences in accuracy between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting
    • The present study
  • Method
    • Research design
    • Participants
    • Interview simulation materials
      • Interview script
      • Post-interview questionnaire
      • Procedures
    • Data analysis
      • Assessment of interpreting performance
  • Results
    • Performance by interpreting mode using the seven assessment criteria
    • The impact of experience in legal simultaneous interpreting on performance
    • Post-experiment interpreter survey
  • Discussion
    • Strengths and limitations
  • Conclusions and recommendations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 23 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19081.hal
References (45)
References
Barik, Henri C. 1973. “Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data.” Language and Speech 16(3): 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1999. “The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions.” Forensic Linguistics 6(1): 30–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Stephen M., Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Sandra Hale. forthcoming-a. An eye-movement analysis of visual attention and interpreting performance during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remotely interpreted investigative interview.
. forthcoming-b. A pupillometric and blink rate analysis of cognitive load and interpreting performance during consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modes in a remote-interpreted investigative interview.
Ewens, Sarah, et al. 2014. “The effect of interpreters on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 21(2): 286–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gany, Francesca, et al. 2007. “The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 22(2): 319–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David. 1969. “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters.” Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on rate and/or frequency controlled speech.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Consecutive vs. simultaneous: which is more accurate?” The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies (1): 8–20.Google Scholar
. 2018. “The effort models and gravitational model: Clarifications and update [PowerPoint].” [URL]
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra Hale, and Susan E. Brandon. 2020. “Interpreted police interviews: A review of contemporary research”. In Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 5), ed. by Monica Miller and Brian H. Bornstein. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra Hale, Stephen M. Doherty, and Mustapha Taibi. 2018. “Interpreter presence, mode and language in investigative interviews.” Research report submitted to the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), USA. Charles Sturt University, Manly.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2007. “The challenges of court interpreting: Intricacies, responsibilities and ramifications.” Alternative Law Journal 32(4): 198–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Natalie Martschuk. 2020. “Interactional management in a simulated police interview: Interpreters’ strategies.” In The Discourse of Police Interviews, ed. by Marianne Mason and Frances Rock, 200–226. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Mustapha Taibi, and Han Xu. 2020. “Interpreting profanity in police interviews.” Multilingua 39(4): 369–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern. 2017. “The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 19(1): 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra and Ludmila Stern. 2011. “Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice.” Judicial Officers Bulletin 23(9): 75–81.Google Scholar
Henderson, John M. 2011. “Eye movements and scene perception.” In Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements, ed. by Simon P. Liversedge, Iain Gilchrist, and Stefan Everling, 593–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, John C., et al. 1996. “Eliminating language barriers for non-English-speaking patients.” Medical Care 34(8): 845–856. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity. 2017. Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (Canberra). [URL]
Köpke, Barbara and Jean-Luc Nespoulous. 2006. “Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters.” Interpreting 8(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köpke, Barbara and Teresa M. Signorelli. 2012. “Methodological aspects of working memory assessment in simultaneous interpreters.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2): 183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korpal, Paweł. 2016. “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52(2): 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis and Stephen Doherty. 2016. “Measuring cognitive load in the presence of educational video: Towards a multimodal methodology.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 32(6): 19–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Christian, Maud Verdier, and Clair-Antoine Veyrier. 2018. “Voice, power and turn-taking in multi-lingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links.” In Here or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, ed. by R. Skinner, J. Napier and S. Braun, 299–322. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Anne and Mustapha Taibi. 2012. “Complexities of high profile interpreting: The case of the Madrid train bomb trial.” Interpreting 14(2): 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meuleman, Chris and Fred Van Besien. 2009. “Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting 11(1): 20–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1997. “Process models in simultaneous interpretation.” Machine Translation and Translation Theory 1(3): 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Kevin R. and Brett Myors. 1999. “Testing the hypothesis that treatments have negligible effects: Minimum-effect tests in the general linear model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84(2): 234–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. “Consecutive Interpreting.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 325–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Simultaneous Interpreting.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær and Kevin Windle, 275–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Martine B., et al. 2017. “Professionals’ perspectives about the challenges of using interpreters in child sexual abuse interviews.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 24(1): 90–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Razon, Selen, Jasmin Hutchinson, and Gershon Tenenbaum. 2012. “Effort perception.” In Measurement in Sport and Exercise Psychology, ed. by Gershon Tenenbaum, Robert Eklund and Akihito Kamata, 265–275. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rinne, Juha O., et al. 2000. “The translating brain: Cerebral activation patterns during simultaneous interpreting.” Neuroscience Letters 294(2): 85–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Debra. 2002. Interpreting in Legal Contexts: Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation. Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media.Google Scholar
. 2003. “A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom.” International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation 2(1). [URL]
Russell, Debra, and Kayoko Takeda. 2015. “Consecutive interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. by Holly Mikkelson and Renee Jourdenais, 96–111. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. 2015. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods.” In Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research, ed. by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpfrich and Sharon O’Brien, 18–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Sarah A. and Jacqueline R. Evans. 2018. “Interpreters in law enforcement contexts: Practices and experiences according to investigators.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 32(2): 150–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Ludmila. 2012. “What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting?: From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the International Criminal Court.” T & I Review 2(7–30).Google Scholar
Stern, Ludmila, Uldis Ozolins, and Sandra Hale. 2015. “Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill.” Journal of Judicial Administration 25(2): 76–95.Google Scholar
Wong, Wan Kei. 2020. “The role of preparation using case-related materials in court interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Yamada, Hiroko. 2019. “A direct application of simultaneous interpreting training without prior consecutive interpreting work in a university course.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 9(4): 353–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Morrison, Louisa, Zoe Given‐Wilson & Amina Memon
2024. The impact of emotionally evocative information on interpreting accuracy in a mock asylum interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology 38:2 DOI logo
Lu, Rong, Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah & Lay Hoon Ang
2023. Into-A or Into-B, That is a Question: A Systematic Literature Review of Directionality and Performance in Consecutive Interpreting. SAGE Open 13:4 DOI logo
Napier, Jemina & Sandra Hale
2023. Exploring mixed methods in interpreting research. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2024. Manner Matters: Linguistic Equity Through a Court Interpreter in Australia. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique DOI logo
Chmiel, Agnieszka & Nicoletta Spinolo
2022. Testing the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 250 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Julie Lim
2022. Does interpreter location make a difference?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2022. Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
2020. Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research. In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 5], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.