Cover not available

Article published In: Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.51–75

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

“Article 1103: oh pff… yes—then concerns… the… um… unilateral contract…”

What do hesitation and repair markers tell us about text reception patterns of translators and lawyers?

ORCiD logo with link | University of Geneva
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00034.gri
Abstract
Hesitation and lexical repair markers are part of almost every audibly pronounced sentence. Empirical linguistics generally bases its examinations on spontaneous speech production. This paper uses the discourse analytical approach of empirical linguistics to analyse think-aloud protocols produced by translators and lawyers in a mixed methods study combining thinking aloud and eyetracking. Two expert groups—lawyers and translators, comprising both professionals and students—read complex legal texts in French and summarised them in German, their mother tongue. A mainly qualitative analysis evaluates and categorises the occurrences and functions of various German hesitation and discourse markers. This not only provides information about the use of fillers and repair actions during speech but also insights into reception processes and perceptions of text difficulty. A quantitative analysis of pause fillers suggests that the reception processes of lawyers and translators differ.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hesitation phenomena in spoken German
  • 3.Methodology and data
    • 3.1Informants, experimental design and material
    • 3.2Coding and analysis of think-aloud protocols
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Qualitative analysis of discourse and hesitations markers
      • 4.1.1Discourse markers genau, okay and ja
      • 4.1.2Emotionally marked discourse markers ah and ach
      • 4.1.3Repair marker nein/nee
      • 4.1.4Discourse marker also with two discursive functions
      • 4.1.5The hesitation marker äh/ähm and repetitions
    • 4.2Quantification of coded discourse markers
      • 4.2.1Number of fillers and repetitions per 100 words
      • 4.2.2Comparison between fillers and repair markers per 100 words
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Amiridze, Nino, Boyd H. Davis, and Margaret Maclagan, eds. 2010. Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Maria Fagnano, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2003. “Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (1): 25–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2017. “Diskursmarker aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht: Prosodisch integriertes ja am Beginn von responsiven Turns.” [‘Discourse markers from the perspective of conversation analysis: Prosodically integrated Ja at the beginning of responsive turns’] In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 183–206. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borja Albí, Anabel, and Fernando Prieto Ramos, eds. 2013. Legal Translation in Context: Professional issues and prospects. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. 2016. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. “Using uh and um in Spontaneous Speaking.” Cognition 84 (1): 73–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and T. Wasow. 1998. “Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech.” Cognitive Psychology 37 (3): 201–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corley, Martin, and Oliver W. Stewart. 2008. “Hesitation Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech: The meaning of um .” Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (4): 589–602. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Defrancq, Bart, and Koen Plevoets. 2017. “Over-Uh-Load, Filled Pauses in Compounds as a Signal of Cognitive Load.” In Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. Edited by M. C. Russo and C. Bendazzoli, 43–64. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun Adrianus van, and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dullion, Valérie. 2014. “Droit comparé pour traducteurs: De la théorie à la didactique de la traduction juridique.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28 (1): 91–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, guest ed. 2017. Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg, Jan. 2012. “Word Meaning and the Problem of a Globalized Legal Order.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Edited by L. M. Solan and P. M. Tiersma, 175–86: Oxford University Press. [URL].
Ericsson, Karl A., and Herbert A. Simon. 1993 [1984]. Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2010. “Introduction.” In Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. Edited by N. Amiridze, B. H. Davis, and M. Maclagan, 1–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean, and Herbert H. Clark. 1997. “Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking.” Cognition 62 (2): 151–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven [‘Translation process research: State of the art, methods, perspectives’]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griebel, Cornelia. 2017. “Fuzzy concepts in translators’ mind: A cognitive-translational approach to tackling the difficulties of legal translation.” In Between Specialised texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited by V. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1): 97–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Rechtstexte unter der Lupe: Lesen Übersetzer anders als Juristen? Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rezeption von Textstrukturmarkern in der institutionalisierten Textsorte des französischen Kassationsgerichtsurteils” [Legal texts in the magnifying glass: Do translators read differently than lawyers?]. In Legal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Edited by I. Simonnæs and M. Kristiansen, 221–42. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grucza, Sambor, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra, eds. 2016. “Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics”. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, and Dorrit Faber. 2009. “Uncertainty in the Cognitive Processing of a Legal Scenario: A process study of student translators.” Hermes 22 (42): 189–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted. 2018. “Genre Familiarity and Translation Processing: Differences and similarities between literary and LSP translators.” In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Edited by I. Lacruz and R. Jääskeläinen, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2003. “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision, and Segmentation.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research. Edited by F. Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamensky, Mikhail V. 2016. “Automated Syntagmatik Analysis of English Discourse Markers.” In Communicating through the Universe. Edited by N. L. Greidina and Y. R. Kamalipour, 24–32. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo. 2016. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [‘Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice, computer support’]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. 2018. Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le Cheng, King Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, eds. 2014. The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Law, language and communication. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1998 (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., and Joe Magliano. 2009. “Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension.” In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 511. Edited by Brian H. Ross, 297–384. London: Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mead, Peter. 2008. “Exploring Hesitation in Consecutive Interpreting.” In Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction, vol. 431. Edited by T. Oakley and A. Hougaard, 73–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy, and Meifang Zhang. 2017. “Introduction.” In Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Edited by J. Munday and M. Zhang, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muñoz, Edinson, Noelia Calvo, and Adolfo M. García. 2019. “Grounding Translation and Interpreting in the Brain: What has been, can be, and must be done.” Perspectives 27 (4): 483–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oloff, Florence. 2017. “Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch” [‘ Genau as a speech-integrated, responsive, sequence-completing or sequence-structuring confirmation particle in conversation’]. In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 207–32. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orlando, Daniele. 2017. “Calling Translation to the Bar: A comparative analysis of the translation errors made by translators and lawyers.” In Between Specialised Texts and Institutional Contexts—Competence and choice in legal translation. Edited by V. Dullion. Special issue, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (1): 81–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Othman, Zarina. 2010. “The use of okay, right and yeah in Academic Lectures by Native Speaker Lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings.” Discourse Studies 12 (5): 665–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin. 2015. Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen [‘Self-repairs in German’]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Über die Funktion der Reparaturmarker im Deutschen” [‘the function of discourse markers in German’]. In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Edited by H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer, and T. Spranz-Fogasy, 259–84. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2011. “Developing Legal Translation Competence: An integrative process-oriented approach.” Comperative Legilinguistics—International Journal for Legal Communication (5): 7–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schnadt, Michael J., and Martin Corley. 2006. “The Influence of Lexical, Conceptual and Planning based Factors on Disfluency Production.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 281, 750–55. [URL].
Simonnæs, Ingrid. 2012. Rechtskommunikation national und international im Spannungsfeld von Hermeneutik, Kognition und Pragmatik. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simonnæs, Ingrid, and Marita Kristiansen, eds. 2019. Legal Translation: Current issues and challenges in research, methods and applications. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sun, Sanjun. 2011. “Think-Aloud-Based Translation Process Research: Some methodological considerations.” Meta 56 (4): 928–951. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Engberg, Jan
2024. Students in the third space: constructions of knowledge of foreign law in legal translations from German into Danish. Comparative Legilinguistics 60 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Dorer, Brita
2022. How useful? How important? How difficult?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo
Griebel, Cornelia
2021. Legal meta-comments in the think-aloud protocols of legal translators and lawyers. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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