Language:specific strategies in simultaneous interpreting

Acquisition of interpreting strategies by student interpreters

“…(13) Preparing: making pre-task preparation for an interpreting task, including but not limited to exploring the background of the speaker and the speech and getting familiar with technical terms or expressions in the speech (Bartłomiejczyk 2006;Kalina 1994;Pöchhacker 2004); (14) Reproduction: using SL expressions directly in the TL (e.g. specific terms like Word, Excel, PowerPoint) when these expressions are more familiar to the audience than their translation equivalents (Bartłomiejczyk 2006;Gile 2009); (15) Skipping: omitting a certain SL segment when failing to understand this segment or failing to find the proper translation (Li 2013;Riccardi 1996); (16) Stalling: buying time to recall SL messages, to read notes, or to look for a proper TL expression by slowing down the speech rate, using filled pauses, adding parentheses or connectives that do not exist in the input, or by employing long translations deliberately (Li 2013;Pöchhacker 2004;Riccardi 2005;Setton 2002; 'delaying the response' as in Gile 2009, 201 and as in;Bartłomiejczyk 2006, 160); (17) Substituting: paraphrasing or repeating previous interpreting output instead of translating the current SL segment so as to avoid embarrassment, when failing to understand the SL message (Kirchhoff 2002;Kohn and Kalina 1996); (18) Taking advantage of cohesive and coherent devices in the SL: making use of cohesive and coherent devices in the SL in order to improve the efficiency of SL comprehension (Kalina 1994); (19) Transformation: departing from the word order, sentence structure or sentence order in the SL and expressing the meaning of the input with a different word order, sentence structure or sentence order in the output (Bertone 2011;Kalina 1994;Kohn and Kalina 1996;Moser-Mercer 2000;Riccardi 1996; 'syntactic transformation' in Bartłomiejczyk 2006, 162); (20) Using formulaic expressions: employing formulaic or routine expressions in the TL so as to improve interpreting efficiency (Riccardi 1996(Riccardi , 2005; (21) Visualisation: generating mental pictures of the SL message in order to recall the SL information more efficiently (Bartłomiejczyk 2006;…”

“…(1) Adaptation: adjusting word choices in TL output on the basis of context when a literal translation of the SL expressions is considered inappropriate in the TL or in the target culture (Kohn and Kalina 1996); (2) Addition: adding words or clauses in the TL output in order to complement an SL message that may be difficult for the audience to understand (Kohn and Kalina 1996;Wang 2012). (3) Anticipation: anticipating upcoming SL information or expressions according to the intralingual or extra-lingual context (Bartłomiejczyk 2006;Kohn and Kalina 1996;Pöchhacker 2004;Riccardi 1996); (4) Approximation: paraphrasing or using an approximate translation when the interpreter cannot access the 'ideal' translation in time (Bartłomiejczyk 2006, 160;Bertone 2011;Kohn and Kalina 1996;Li 2013); (5) Compression: expressing succinctly and concisely in the TL by removing redundancy (Chernov 2002; 'omission' in Bartłomiejczyk 2006, 161;'skipping' or 'to skip' in Moser-Mercer 1997, 257), by compressing loose structure ('reduction' in Wang 2012, 206), or by using pronouns and other pro-forms in the output instead of nouns (Chernov 2002); (6) Explicitation: making what is conveyed in the SL more explicit in the output of the TL by, for example, using connectives to explicitate implicit or vague logic or employing nouns in the TL for a corresponding pronoun in the SL (Baker 1996; 'addition' in Bartłomiejczyk 2006;Kenny 2005;Olohan and Baker 2000;Tang and Li 2016; 'addition of cohesive devices' and 'explicitation of intended meaning' in; Wang 2012, 202-203); (7) Guessing: inventing a speech segment so as not to pause or leave sentences unfinished when failing to catch, comprehend, or recall the original SL message ('parallel reformulation' as in Gile 2009, 211 and in;Bartłomiejczyk 2006, 161); (8) Inferencing: reconstructing SL information according to context, background knowledge, or world knowledge (Bartłomiejczyk 2006;Gile 2009;Seleskovitch 1978b); (9) Informing the client of an interpreting problem: using verbal or non-verbal language to indicate that the interpreter cannot receive or understand the SL or they cannot find a translation equiv...…”

Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data

“…Some claim that factors, such as morphosyntactic asymmetry between source and target language, have repercussions on the simultaneous interpreting process as they increase cognitive workload, whereas others maintain that such factors are irrelevant on condition of sufficient linguistic proficiency in both the source and the target language. This discord is reflected in the interpreting literature, which is replete with personal accounts arguing in favour of the former (e.g., Ilg, 1959;Jörg, 1995;Kirchhoff, 1976;Riccardi, 1996;Riccardi & Snelling, 1997;Zanetti, 1999) and the latter point of view (e.g., Lederer, 1981;Seleskovitch, 1984;Willett, 1974). Furthermore, the bulk of the research addressing the issue of, and making claims about, cognitive processes in simultaneous interpreting has relied on analytical measures (see Gile, 1995;Seeber, 2011) and performance measures, primarily accuracy and speed (see Barik, 1973Barik, , 1975Darò, 1989;Jörg, 1995;Kopczynski, 1980;Lee, 2002;Seeber, 2001Seeber, , 2005Shlesinger, 1995;Van Besien, 1999).…”

A Micro-macro Paradigm to Identify Simultaneous Interpreting Strategies (SISs) with Reference to -taxis Relations in UN Discourse

“…The study of problems-in-interpreting helps map out process-oriented strategies (Riccardi, 1996). Analysing authentic interpreting performance of trainee interpreters reveals their awareness of SISs as a concept that would help in overcoming processing problems in Arabic and English.…”