Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Research in Language

The Journal of University of Lodz

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.27

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.271
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.453

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2083-4616
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The Time Constraint in Conference Interpreting: Simultaneous vs. Consecutive

Ewa Gumul / Andrzej Łyda
Published Online: 2007-12-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-007-0007-1

The Time Constraint in Conference Interpreting: Simultaneous vs. Consecutive

The present paper focuses on the concept of time constraint in interpreting. The main aim of the study is to compare the two modes of interpreting, i.e. consecutive and simultaneous in terms of the temporal load imposed by the operations constituting each of them. The discussion centres on the issues of external pacing and processing capacity management, the two focal points of The Time Constraint. The paper also examines a range of strategies interpreters resort to in order to minimise the impact of time pressure in both CI and SI, such as EVS regulation, economy of expression, text-editing strategies, and notation techniques.

Keywords: time constraint; simultaneous interpreting; consecutive interpreting; external pacing; processing capacity; interpreting strategies; EVS regulation; economy of expression; text-editing strategies; note taking

  • Agrifoglio, M. 2004. "Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures". Interpreting 6(1), 43-67.Google Scholar

  • Al-Khanji, R, S. El-Shiyab and R. Hussein. 2000. "On the Use of Compensatory Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting". Meta 45(3), 548-557.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, L. 1994. "Simultaneous Interpretation: Contextual and Translation Aspects". In: Lambert S. and B. Moser-Mercer (eds.), 101-120.Google Scholar

  • Arabski, J., E. Borkowska and A. Łyda (eds). 2005. Czas w języku i kulturze. Katowice: Para.Google Scholar

  • Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V. and Vallar, G. 1984. "Exploring the articulatory loop". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36A, 233-252.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Barik, H. C. 1994. "A description of various types of omissions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation", In: Lambert, S. and B. Moser-Mercer (eds), 121-137.Google Scholar

  • Danks, J., G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, and M. K. McBeath (eds). 1997. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

  • Darò, V. and Fabbro, F. 1994. "Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference". Applied Linguistics 15(1), 365-381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davy, D. 1966. Advanced English Course. London: Linguaphone.Google Scholar

  • Garzone, G. 2002. "Quality and norms in interpretation". In: Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (eds), 107-119.Google Scholar

  • Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (eds). 2002. Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gerver, D. 1969 [2002] "The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters", In: Pöchhacker, F. and M. Shlesinger (eds), 52-66.Google Scholar

  • Gerver, D. and H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds). 1978. Language Interpretation and Communication. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 1997. "Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem", In: Danks, J., G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, and M. K. McBeath (eds), 196-214.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 2001. "The Role of Consecutive in Interpreter Training: A Cognitive View". AIIC. Communicate 14, (http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page377.htm). http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page377.htm

  • Gumul, E. 2004. Cohesion in Interpreting, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Silesia.Google Scholar

  • Gumul, E. 2005. "EVS: czynnik czasu w tłumaczeniu symultanicznym", In: Arabski, J. E. Borkowska and A. Łyda (eds), 176-183.Google Scholar

  • Gumul, E. 2007. "Explicitation in Conference Interpreting", In: Thelen M. and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds), 449-456.Google Scholar

  • Gumul, E. Forthcoming. "Conjunctive Cohesive Markers: Translational Shifts in English-Polish SI and CI", In: Thelen M. and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds).Google Scholar

  • Hatim, B. and I. Mason. 1997. Translator as a Communicator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Herbert, J. 1952. The Interpreter's Handbook. Geneve: Librairie de L'Université Georg.Google Scholar

  • Hung, E. (ed.) 2002. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building Bridges. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jones, R. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Kalina, S. 2002. "Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites: A framework for a comprehensive view", In: Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (eds.) 121-130.Google Scholar

  • Kirchhoff, H. 1976 [2002]. "Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdependence of Variables in the Interpreting Process, Interpreting Models and Interpreting Strategies", In: Pöchhacker, F. and M. Shlesinger (eds.) 110-119.Google Scholar

  • Kohn, K. and S. Kalina, 1996. "The Strategic Dimension of Interpreting". Meta 41(1), 118-138.Google Scholar

  • Kurz, I. 1993 [2002]. "Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups", In: Pöchhacker, F. and M. Shlesinger (eds), 312-324.Google Scholar

  • Lambert, S. and B. Moser-Mercer (eds). 1994. Bridging the Gap. Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Le Ny, J-F. 1978. "Introductory report: Semantic aspects". International Journal of Psycholinguistics 5(2), 7-16.Google Scholar

  • Lederer, M. 1978. "Simultaneous Interpretation: Units of Meaning and Other Features", In: Gerver, D. and H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds), 323-332.Google Scholar

  • Łyda, A. 2004. "On causal connectives in English-Polish simultaneous and consecutive interpreting". Linguistica Silesiana 25, 103-116.Google Scholar

  • Łyda, A. and E. Gumul. 2002. "Cohesion in Interpreting", In: Stanulewicz, D. (ed), 349-356.Google Scholar

  • Matysek, H. 1989. Handbuch der Notizentechnik für Dolmetscher: Ein Weg zur sprachunabhängigen Notation. Heidelberg: J. Groos.Google Scholar

  • Mead, P. 2000. "Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages", The Interpreters' Newsletter 10, 89-102.Google Scholar

  • Moser, P. 1996. "Expectations of users of conference interpretation". Interpreting 1(2), 145-178.Google Scholar

  • Oléron, P. and H. Nanpon. 1964. "Recherches sur la traduction simultanée". Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 62-1, 73-94.Google Scholar

  • Pöchhacker, F. 2002. "Researching interpreting quality". In: Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (eds), 95-106.Google Scholar

  • Pöchhacker, F. and M. Shlesinger (eds). 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Riccardi, A. 2002. "Evaluation in Interpretation: Macrocriteria and Microcriteria", In: Hung, E. (ed.), 115-126.Google Scholar

  • Rozan, J. F. 2002. Note-taking in Consecutive Interpreting. Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar

  • Seleskovitch, D. 1978. Interpreting for International Conferences. Problems of Language and Communication. Washington: Library of Congress.Google Scholar

  • Stanulewicz, D. (ed). 2002. PASE Papers in Language Studies. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar

  • Thelen, M. and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds). 2007. Translation and Meaning. Part 7. Maastricht: Department of Translation and Interpreting, Maastricht School of International Communication, Zuyd University.Google Scholar

  • Thelen, M. and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds). Forthcoming. Translation and Meaning. Part 8. Maastricht: Department of Translation and Interpreting, Maastricht School of International Communication, Zuyd University.Google Scholar

  • Van Hoof, H. 1962. Théorie et pratique de la traduction. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar

  • Viaggio, S. 2002. "The quest for optimal relevance: The need to equip students with a pragmatic compass", In: Garzone, G. and M. Viezzi (eds), 229-244.Google Scholar

  • Wei, L. 2002. "Positive Transfer: A Neuropsychological Understanding of Interpreting and the Implications for Interpreter Training". Translation Journal 6, 3 (http://accurapid.com/journal/21interpret.htm). http://www.accurapid.com/journal/21interpret.htm

  • Yagi, S. M. 2000. "Studying Style in Simultaneous Interpretation". Meta 45(3), 520-547.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2007-12-18

Published in Print: 2007-01-01


Citation Information: Research in Language, ISSN (Online) 2083-4616, ISSN (Print) 1731-7533, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-007-0007-1.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in