Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 22:1 (2020) ► pp.1–34

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The impact of simultaneous-interpreting prosody on comprehension

An experiment

 | University of Mons
 | University of Mons
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00032.len
Abstract
Does the particular prosody of simultaneous interpreting have an impact on comprehensibility? This paper presents an experiment that sought to answer this question. Two groups of listeners (47 with relevant contextual knowledge about the subject-matter of the speech and 40 with less contextual knowledge) listened to the interpretation into French of a 20-minute lecture in German under two conditions (the actual interpretation and a read-aloud rendition of the transcript of the interpretation by the same interpreter) and answered comprehension questions. The prosodic features of the two conditions were analysed, and differences regarding the temporal organisation of speech, disfluencies, pitch register and the interface between prosody and syntax emerged. Simultaneous interpreting was found to be more monotonous, to contain a larger number of short and long silent pauses, more hesitations (“euh”) and more non-syntactic pauses as well as to have a more irregular speech rate. The read-aloud version was livelier, with more medium-length silent pauses and almost no hesitation. Results of the comprehension questionnaire do not demonstrate that interpreting-specific prosodic features affect comprehensibility to a significant extent. This is consistent with professional norms of interpreting in specialised conferences, where verbal aspects have priority over non-verbal ones.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1Interpreting quality
    • 2.2Prosody
    • 2.3Comprehension
  • 3.Hypotheses
  • 4.Prosodic and syntactic analysis
    • 4.1Method
      • 4.1.1Material
      • 4.1.2Prosodic analysis
      • 4.1.3Syntactic analysis (BDUs)
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.Testing comprehension
    • 5.1Method
      • 5.1.1Experimental design
      • 5.1.2Hypertext and situation
      • 5.1.3Questionnaire design
      • 5.1.4Pre-test
      • 5.1.5Procedure
      • 5.1.6Scoring
    • 5.2Results
      • 5.2.1Gender
      • 5.2.2Age of participants
      • 5.2.3Participants’ previous exposure to interpreting
      • 5.2.4Note-taking
      • 5.2.5Comprehension scores
    • 5.3Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (83)
References
Abeillé, A., Clément, L. & Toussenel, F. (2003). Building a treebank for French. In A. Abeillé (Ed.), Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahrens, B. (2004). Prosodie beim Simultandolmetschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexieva, B. (1997). A typology of interpreter-mediated events. The Translator 3 (2), 153–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Astésano, C., Bertrand, R., Espesser, R. & Nguyen, N. (2013). Dissociation between prominence and boundary phenomena in French: a perception study. In pS-prominenceS, Viterbo, Italy, 12–14 December 2013.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Avanzi, M. (2012). L’interface prosodie/syntaxe en français. Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Brussels: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Avanzi, M., Goldman, J.-Ph., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Simon, A. C. & Auchlin, A. (2007). Méthodologie et algorithmes pour la détection automatique des syllabes proéminentes dans les corpus de français parlé. Cahiers of French Language Studies 13 (2), 2–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Bilger, M., Rouget, C., Van Den Eynde, K., Mertens, P. & Willems, D. (1990). Le français parlé: Études grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.4.06. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Brennan, S. E. & Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44 (2), 274–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34 (3), 383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buschmeier, H. & Włodarczak, M. (2013). TextGridTools: A TextGrid processing and analysis toolkit for Python. In Proceedings der 24. Konferenz zur Elektronischen Sprachsignalverarbeitung, Bielefeld, Germany. 26–28 March 2013, 152–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, K. (2009). How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (5), 1188–1200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christodoulides, G. (2013a). Prosodic features of simultaneous interpreting. In P. Mertens & A. C. Simon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Prosody-Discourse Interface Conference 2013 (IDP-2013). Leuven, 11–13 September 2013, 33–37. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
(2013b). The prosody of simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based study. Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Praaline: integrating tools for speech corpus research. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Reykjavik, Iceland, 26–31 May 2014, 31–34. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Christodoulides, G., Avanzi, M. & Goldman, J.-Ph. (2014). DisMo: A morphosyntactic, disfluency and multi-word unit annotator. An evaluation on a corpus of French spontaneous and read speech. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Reykjavik, Iceland, 26–31 May 2014, 3902–3907. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Christophe, A., Peperkamp, S., Pallier, C., Block, E. & Mehler, J. (2004). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (4), 523–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Á. (2001). Efectos de la entonación monótona sobre la recuperación de la información en receptores de interpretación simultánea. Trans 51, 103–110. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Collados Aís, Á., Iglesias Fernández, E., Pradas Macías, E. M. & Stévaux, E. (Eds.) (2011). Qualitätsparameter beim Simultandolmetschen. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collados Aís, Á., Pradas Macías, E. M., Stévaux, E. & García Becerra, O. (Eds.) (2007). La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1999). Prosody and intonation, processing issues. In R. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 682–683.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Oahan, D. & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 401, 141–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, L. & Simon, A. C. (2009a). Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How Basic Discourse Units vary across genres. In A. Wichmann, D. Barth-Weingarten & N. Dehé (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface. Bingley: Emerald, 79–105. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
(2009b). On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique (4). [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Degand, L., Simon, A. C., Tanguy, N. & Van Damme, T. (2014). Initiating a discourse unit in spoken French: Prosodic and syntactic features of the left periphery. In S. Pons Borderia (Ed.), Discourse segmentation in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–273.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Cristo, A. (2013). La prosodie de la parole. Paris: De Boeck/Solal.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fónagy, I. & Berard, E. (1972). « Il est huit heures »: contribution à l’analyse sémantique de la vive voix. Phonetica 26 (3), 157–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1989). Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : premières observations. Meta 34 (4), 649–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldman, J.-Ph. (2011). EasyAlign: An automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini (Eds.), Proceedings of InterSpeech, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Florence, 27–31 August 2011. ISCA Archive, 3233–3236. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Goldman, J.-Ph., Auchlin, A., Avanzi, M. & Simon, A. C. (2008). ProsoReport: An automatic tool for prosodic description. Application to a radio style. In Speech Prosody [Campinas, Brazil], 6–8 May 2008, 701–704. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Goldman, J.-Ph., François, T., Roekhaut, S. & Simon, A. C. (2010). Étude statistique de la durée pausale dans différents styles de parole. In Actes des 28èmes journées d’étude sur la parole (JEP) Mons, 25–28 May 2010, 161–164. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Goldman, J.-Ph., Pršir, T. & Auchlin, A. (2014). C-PhonoGenre: A 7-hour corpus of 7 speaking styles in French: Relations between situational features and prosodic properties. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Reykjavik, Iceland, 26–31 May 2014. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence, France, 11–13 April 2002. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 47–57. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Holub, E. & Rennert, S. (2011). Fluency and intonation as quality indicators. Presentation at the Second International Conference on Interpreting Quality, Almuñécar/Spain, 24–26 March 2011.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holub, E. (2010). Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151, 117–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howell, D. C. (2011). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huttunen, K., Keränen, H., Väyrynen, E., Pääkkönen, R. & Leino, T. (2011). Effect of cognitive load on speech prosody in aviation: Evidence from military simulator flights. Applied Ergonomics 42 (2), 348–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jameson, A., Kiefer, J., Müller, C., Grossmann-Hutter, B., Wittig, F. & Rummer, R. (2010). Assessment of a user’s time pressure and cognitive load on the basis of features of speech. In M. Crocker & J. Siekmann (Eds.), Resource-adaptive cognitive processes. Berlin: Springer, 171–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. & Fougeron, C. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 209–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufmann, F. (1993). Interview et interprétation consécutive dans le film Shoah, de Claude Lanzmann. Meta 38(4), 664-673. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Beaugendre, F. (1999). La prosodie du français. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landercy, A. & Renard, R. (1977). Éléments de phonétique. 2e édition. Centre International de Phonétique Appliquée – Mons. Brussels: Didier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le, P. N. & Choi, E. (2012). The use of spectral information in the development of novel techniques for speech-based cognitive load classification. PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Little, D. R., Oehmen, R., Dunn, J., Hird, K. & Kirsner, K. (2012). Fluency profiling system: An automated system for analyzing the temporal properties of speech. Behavior Research Methods 45 (1), 191–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, L. J., Degand, L. & Simon, A. C. (2014). Forme et fonction de la périphérie gauche dans un corpus oral multigenres annoté. Corpus 131, 243–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Ph. (2012). Neurophysiological research explains prosodic structures constraints. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem [UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Minais Gerais] 20 (2), 13–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The structure of spoken language: Intonation in Romance. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mertens, P. & Simon, A. C. (2013). Towards automatic detection of prosodic boundaries in spoken French. In P. Mertens & A. C. Simon (Eds), Proceedings of the Prosody–Discourse Interface Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 11–13 September 2013, 81–87. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Mertens, P. (2004). The Prosogram: Semi-automatic transcription of prosody based on a tonal perception model. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara, Japan, 23–26 March 2004. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Michelas, A. & d’Imperio, M. (2010). Accentual phrase boundaries and lexical access in French. Speech Prosody 2010, 1008821: 1–4. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Moser, P. (1995). Survey on expectations of users of conference interpretation: Final report commissioned by AIIC. Vienna: SRZ Stadt + Regionalforschung GmbH.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (1992). The role of theory in simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 211–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 141, 31–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta 46 (2), 410–425. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Qualität, die man versteht: ein funktional-kognitiver Ansatz. In B. Ahrens, M. Albl-Mikasa & C. Sasse (Eds.), Dolmetschqualität in Praxis, Lehre und Forschung. Festschrift für Sylvia Kalina. Tübingen: Narr, 19–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pradas Macías, E. M. (2009). Identificación del patrón pausístico para la medición de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. In G. Wotjak, V. Ivavona & E. Tabares Plasencia (Eds.), Translatione via facienda. Festschrift für Christiane Nord zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 235–252.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
(2013b). Englisch als Lingua Franca und Dolmetschen. Ein Vergleich zweier Kommunikationsmodi unter dem Aspekt der Wirkungsäquivalenz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Communicative effect. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 151, 101–115.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, M. (1999). L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schriver, K. (1989). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32 (4), 238–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
SCIC, Direction générale de l’interprétation, Commission européenne. (2011). Interpretation tests: how to judge a candidate’s performance. In Commission européenne – SCIC Training for Trainers Seminar – List of handouts. Brussels.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax-phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Setton, R. (2005). Pointing to contexts: A relevance-theoretic approach to assessing quality and difficulty in interpreting. In D. Helle, V., J. Engberg and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Knowledge systems and translation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 275-312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1994). Intonation in the production and perception of simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. (2001). To ‘errrr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31 (01), 153–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, A. C. & Degand, L. (2011). L’analyse en unités discursives de base: Pourquoi et comment? Langue Française 170 (2), 45–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. & Clark, H. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (1), 25–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinbeis, M. (2013). Notenbanken machen Sachwerte alernativlos. FinanceNewsTV, Fondskongress, Mannheim, Germany. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Van Segbroeck, M., Travadi, R., Vaz, C., Kim, J., Black, M. P., Potamianos, A. & Narayanan, S. S. (2014). Classification of cognitive load from speech using an i-vector framework. In Proceedings of Interspeech, Singapore, 14–18 September 2014, 751–755. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Vasilescu, I., Rosset, S. & Adda-Decker, M. (2010). On the functions of the vocalic hesitation euh in interactive man-machine question answering dialogs in French. In DISS-LPSS Joint Workshop/Disfluency, Tokyo, Japan, 25–26 September 2010, 111–114. [URL] (accessed 22 September 2019).
Williams, S. (1995). Observations on anomalous stress in interpreting. The Translator 1 (1), 47–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10), 1559–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfer, S. (2015). Comprehension and comprehensibility. In K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth & S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and comprehensibility. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 34–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2013). Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Hu, Bei
2025. Charting Translation Reception, DOI logo
Luisa Yañez, Gabriela
2025. Subjetividad y género: un estudio prosódico en la interpretación simultánea de conferencias. Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 18:8 DOI logo
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
Gao, Fei
2023. Getting the message in ‘Sound’ across at conference interpreting: a case study on rendering prosodic emphasis. Perspectives 31:6 ► pp. 1033 ff. 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, Xin & Chunli Wang
2023. How Does Interpreter’s Intonation Affect the Pragmatics of Courtroom Questions? A Case Study of Chinese-English Court Interpreting. In New Advances in Legal Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Rojo López, Ana M., Ana-Isabel Foulquié-Rubio, Laura Espín López & Francisco Martínez Sánchez
2021. Analysis of speech rhythm and heart rate as indicators of stress on student interpreters. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 591 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue