Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 26:1 (2024) ► pp.1–23
Fluency in rendering numbers in simultaneous interpreting
Published online: 30 March 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00092.kaj
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00092.kaj
Abstract
There is general consensus among interpreting practitioners and scholars that numbers pose particular problems in
simultaneous interpreting. Adopting the view that fluency disruptions in interpreters’ renditions are signals of cognitive
processing problems, the authors aim to isolate those contextual and textual factors which increase the likelihood of disfluencies
when rendering numbers present in a source speech. In the reported study, we analyse data from the European Parliament Translation
and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC): we focus on target-text segments whose corresponding source segment contains a number and we find
the best predictors of disfluencies by applying a generalized linear mixed model. Our approach is confirmatory and so the model
accounts for factors that have been suggested in earlier studies as being associated with interpreting fluency. These factors
include the nativeness of the original speaker, the type of number, the frequency of numbers in the same sentence, omission,
language pair and whether the text was originally delivered impromptu or read out, and at what pace. The outcomes suggest that
important predictors of disfluent renditions include omission, the frequency of numbers in a sentence and the type of number;
these can be said to contribute to interpreters’ cognitive load when they process numbers.
Keywords: interpreting, fluency, cognitive effort, numbers, multilingual parallel corpus
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Numbers as a problem trigger
- 3.Disfluencies as an indicator of cognitive effort
- 4.Research objectives
- 5.Data and method
- 5.1EPTIC and transcription guidelines
- 5.2Annotation
- 5.3Statistical model
- 6.Results
- Omission
- Type of number
- Frequency of numbers
- Speaker
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (35)
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random
effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and
Language 68 (3), 255–278.
Barton, K. (2019). MuMIn:
Multi-model Inference. [URL]
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting
linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical
Software 67 (1), 1–48.
Braun, S. & Clarici, A. (1996). Inaccuracy
for numerals in simultaneous interpretation: Neurolinguistic and neuropsychological
perspectives. The Interpreters’
Newsletter 71, 85–102.
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses
in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’
performances. The Interpreters’
Newsletter 111, 63–85.
Chmiel, A., Szarkowska, A., Koržinek, D., Lijewska, A., Dutka, Ł., Brocki, Ł. & Marasek, K. (2017). Ear–voice
span and pauses in intra- and interlingual respeaking: An exploratory study into temporal aspects of the respeaking
process. Applied
Psycholinguistics 38 (5), 1201–1227.
Collard, C. & Defrancq, B. (2020). Disfluencies
in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to
sex. In J. Daems, B. Defrancq & L. Vandevoorde, (Eds.), New
empirical perspectives on translation and
interpreting. Abingdon: Routledge, 264–299.
Defrancq, B. & Plevoets, K. (2018). Over-uh-load,
filled pauses in compounds as a signal of cognitive load. In M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making
way in corpus-based interpreting
studies. Singapore: Springer, 43–64.
Desmet, B., Vandierendonck, M. & Defrancq, B. (2018). Simultaneous
interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological
support. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting
and technology. Berlin: Language Science Press, 13–27.
Fehringer, C. & Fry, C. (2007). Hesitation
phenomena in the language production of bilingual speakers: The role of working memory. Folia
Linguistica 41 (1–2), 37–72.
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Milicevic Petrovic, M. & Lefer, M.-A. (2019). Simplified
or not simplified? The different guises of mediated English at the European
Parliament. Meta 63 (3), 717–738.
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2011). An
R companion to applied regression. (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frittella, F. M. (2019). “70.6
Billion World Citizens”: Investigating the difficulty of interpreting numbers. Translation and
Interpreting 11 (1), 79–99.
(2022). CAI
tool-supported SI of numbers: A theoretical and methodological contribution. International
Journal of Interpreter
Education 14 (1), Article
5.
Gries, S. T. & Deshors, S. C. (2014). Using
regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two
suggestions. Corpora 9 (1), 109–136.
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Ivaska, I. & Ferraresi, A. (2021). ‘Lost’
in interpreting and ‘found’ in translation: Using an intermodal, multidirectional parallel corpus to investigate the rendition
of
numbers. Perspectives 29 (4), 469–488.
Korpal, P. (2016). Linguistic
and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. PhD
dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University.
Korpal, P. & Stachowiak-Szymczak, K. (2018). The
whole picture: Processing of numbers and their context in simultaneous interpreting. Poznan
Studies in Contemporary
Linguistics 54 (3), 335–354.
Maclay, H. & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation
phenomena in spontaneous English
speech. Word 15 (1), 19–44.
Pellatt, V. (2006). Thе
trouble with numbers: How linguistic, arithmetical and contextual complexity affect the interpretation of
numbers. In M. Chai & J. Zhang (Eds.), Professionalization
in interpreting: International experience and development in
China. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press, 350–365.
Piccaluga, M., Nespoulous, J.-L. & Harmegnies, B. (2005). Disfluencies
as a window on cognitive processing. An analysis of silent pauses in simultaneous
interpreting. Paper presented at DiSS’05, Disfluency in
Spontaneous Speech Workshop, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Pinochi, D. (2010). Simultaneous
interpretation of numbers: Comparing German and English to Italian. An experimental study. The
Interpreters’
Newsletter 141, 33–57.
Plevoets, K. & Defrancq, B. (2016). The
effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting. Translation and Interpreting
Studies 11 (2), 202–224.
(2018). The
cognitive load of interpreters in the European
Parliament. Interpreting 20 (1), 1–28.
Pöchhacker, F. (1995). Slips
and shifts in simultaneous interpreting. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics
in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting, 73–90.
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and
environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage,
langues et mémoire: Étude de la prise de notes en interprétation
consécutive. Paris: Lettres modernes.
Shlesinger, M. (1994). Intonation
in the production of 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.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent
pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The
Interpreters’
Newsletter 101, 103–127.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Zong, Xueyan, Lei Song & Shanshan Yang
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.
