1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 22, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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 (“”) 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00032.len
2020-04-10
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00032.len
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abeillé, A., Clément, L. & Toussenel, F.
    (2003) Building a treebank for French. InA. Abeillé (Ed.), Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–188. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0201‑1_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0201-1_10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, B.
    (2004) Prosodie beim Simultandolmetschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005) Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpreting: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting7 (1), 51–76. 10.1075/intp.7.1.04ahr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.04ahr [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexieva, B.
    (1997) A typology of interpreter-mediated events. The Translator3 (2), 153–174. 10.1080/13556509.1997.10798996
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1997.10798996 [Google Scholar]
  5. Astésano, C., Bertrand, R., Espesser, R. & Nguyen, N.
    (2013) Dissociation between prominence and boundary phenomena in French: a perception study. InpS-prominenceS, Viterbo, Italy, 12–14December 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Avanzi, M.
    (2012) L’interface prosodie/syntaxe en français. Dislocations, incises et asyndètes. Brussels: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑6282‑7
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-6282-7 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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 Studies13 (2), 2–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
    (2015) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.4.06. https://www.praat.org (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brennan, S. E. & Schober, M. F.
    (2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language44 (2), 274–296. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 Language34 (3), 383. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1017
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1017 [Google Scholar]
  12. Buck, G.
    (2001) Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732959
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732959 [Google Scholar]
  13. Buschmeier, H. & Włodarczak, M.
    (2013) TextGridTools: A TextGrid processing and analysis toolkit for Python. InProceedings der 24. Konferenz zur Elektronischen Sprachsignalverarbeitung, Bielefeld, Germany. 26–28March 2013, 152–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Carlson, K.
    (2009) How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass3 (5), 1188–1200. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00150.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00150.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Christodoulides, G.
    (2013a) Prosodic features of simultaneous interpreting. InP. Mertens & A. C. Simon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Prosody-Discourse Interface Conference 2013 (IDP-2013). Leuven, 11–13September 2013, 33–37. https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/frani​talco/conference/idp2013/proceedings.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013b) The prosody of simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based study. Master’s thesis, Université catholique de Louvain.
  17. (2014) Praaline: integrating tools for speech corpus research. InN. 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, 26–31May 2014, 31–34. hdl.handle.net/2078.1/145310 (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. InN. 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, 26–31May 2014, 3902–3907. hdl.handle.net/2078.1/145306 (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Christophe, A., Peperkamp, S., Pallier, C., Block, E. & Mehler, J.
    (2004) Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language51 (4), 523–547. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Collados Aís, Á.
    (2001) Efectos de la entonación monótona sobre la recuperación de la información en receptores de interpretación simultánea. Trans5, 103–110. www.tra​ns.uma.es/pdf/Trans_5/t5_103-110_AAis.pdf (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Collados Aís, Á., Iglesias Fernández, E., Pradas Macías, E. M. & Stévaux, E.
    (Eds.) (2011) Qualitätsparameter beim Simultandolmetschen. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Crystal, D.
    (2008) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444302776
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cutler, A.
    (1999) Prosody and intonation, processing issues. InR. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 682–683.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cutler, A., Oahan, D. & van Donselaar, W.
    (1997) Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech40, 141–201. 10.1177/002383099704000203
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000203 [Google Scholar]
  26. Degand, L. & Simon, A. C.
    (2009a) Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How Basic Discourse Units vary across genres. InA. Wichmann, D. Barth-Weingarten & N. Dehé (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface. Bingley: Emerald, 79–105. hdl.handle.net/2078.1/83647 (accessed22 September 2019). 10.1163/9789004253223_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253223_005 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009b) On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique (4). hdl.handle.net/2078.1/83355 (accessed22 September 2019). 10.4000/discours.5852
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.5852 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. InS. Pons Borderia (Ed.), Discourse segmentation in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–273.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Di Cristo, A.
    (2013) La prosodie de la parole. Paris: De Boeck/Solal.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fónagy, I. & Berard, E.
    (1972) « Il est huit heures »: contribution à l’analyse sémantique de la vive voix. Phonetica26 (3), 157–192. 10.1159/000259408
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000259408 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gile, D.
    (1989) Les flux d’information dans les réunions interlinguistiques et l’interprétation de conférence : premières observations. Meta34 (4), 649–660. 10.7202/002900ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/002900ar [Google Scholar]
  32. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldman, J.-Ph.
    (2011) EasyAlign: An automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. InP. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini (Eds.), Proceedings of InterSpeech, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Florence, 27–31August 2011 ISCA Archive, 3233–3236. www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2011 (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldman, J.-Ph., Auchlin, A., Avanzi, M. & Simon, A. C.
    (2008) ProsoReport: An automatic tool for prosodic description. Application to a radio style. InSpeech Prosody [Campinas, Brazil], 6–8May 2008, 701–704. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00334664 (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldman, J.-Ph., François, T., Roekhaut, S. & Simon, A. C.
    (2010) Étude statistique de la durée pausale dans différents styles de parole. InActes des 28èmes journées d’étude sur la parole (JEP) Mons, 25–28May 2010, 161–164. cental.fltr.ucl.ac.be/team/tfrancois/articles/goldmanetal2010.pdf (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. InN. 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, 26–31May 2014 www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec​2014/index.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Grbić, N.
    (2008) Constructing interpreting quality. Interpreting10 (2), 232–257. 10.1075/intp.10.2.04grb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.2.04grb [Google Scholar]
  38. Gussenhoven, C.
    (2002) Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. InB. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence, France, 11–13April 2002 Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 47–57. https://isca-speech.org​/archive/sp2002/sp02_047.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Holub, E. & Rennert, S.
    (2011) Fluency and intonation as quality indicators. Presentation at theSecond International Conference on Interpreting Quality, Almuñécar/Spain, 24–26March 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Holub, E.
    (2010) Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 117–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Howell, D. C.
    (2011) Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 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 Ergonomics42 (2), 348–357. 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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. InM. Crocker & J. Siekmann (Eds.), Resource-adaptive cognitive processes. Berlin: Springer, 171–204. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑89408‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89408-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jun, S.-A. & Fougeron, C.
    (2000) A phonological model of French intonation. InA. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling and technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 209–242. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4317‑2_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4317-2_10 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kaufmann, F.
    (1993) Interview et interprétation consécutive dans le film Shoah, de Claude Lanzmann. Meta38(4), 664-673. 10.7202/003290ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003290ar [Google Scholar]
  46. Lacheret-Dujour, A. & Beaugendre, F.
    (1999) La prosodie du français. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Landercy, A. & Renard, R.
    (1977) Éléments de phonétique. 2e édition. Centre International de Phonétique Appliquée – Mons. Brussels: Didier.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 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.
  49. 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 Methods45 (1), 191–202. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0222‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0222-0 [Google Scholar]
  50. Martin, L. J., Degand, L. & Simon, A. C.
    (2014) Forme et fonction de la périphérie gauche dans un corpus oral multigenres annoté. Corpus13, 243–265.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. (2015) The structure of spoken language: Intonation in Romance. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139566391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139566391 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mertens, P. & Simon, A. C.
    (2013) Towards automatic detection of prosodic boundaries in spoken French. InP. Mertens & A. C. Simon (Eds), Proceedings of the Prosody–Discourse Interface Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 11–13September 2013, 81–87. https://www.arts.ku​leuven.be/ling/franitalco/conference/idp2013/proceedings.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mertens, P.
    (2004) The Prosogram: Semi-automatic transcription of prosody based on a tonal perception model. InB. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara, Japan, 23–26March 2004 https://isca-speech.org/archive/sp2004/sp04_549.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Michelas, A. & d’Imperio, M.
    (2010) Accentual phrase boundaries and lexical access in French. Speech Prosody 2010, 100882: 1–4. https://www.speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100882.pdf (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Moser, P.
    (1995) Survey on expectations of users of conference interpretation: Final report commissioned by AIIC. Vienna: SRZ Stadt + Regionalforschung GmbH.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Pöchhacker, F.
    (1992) The role of theory in simultaneous interpreting. InC. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 211–220. 10.1075/z.56.33poc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.33poc [Google Scholar]
  58. (1995) Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics14, 31–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2001) Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta46 (2), 410–425. 10.7202/003847ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar [Google Scholar]
  60. (2012) Qualität, die man versteht: ein funktional-kognitiver Ansatz. InB. Ahrens, M. Albl-Mikasa & C. Sasse (Eds.), Dolmetschqualität in Praxis, Lehre und Forschung. Festschrift für Sylvia Kalina. Tübingen: Narr, 19–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pradas Macías, E. M.
    (2009) Identificación del patrón pausístico para la medición de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. InG. 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]
  62. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Reithofer, K.
    (2013a) Comparing modes of communication: The effect of English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting. Interpreting15 (1), 48–73. 10.1075/intp.15.1.03rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.03rei [Google Scholar]
  64. (2013b) Englisch als Lingua Franca und Dolmetschen. Ein Vergleich zweier Kommunikationsmodi unter dem Aspekt der Wirkungsäquivalenz. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2015) Communicative effect. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rennert, S.
    (2010) The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter15, 101–115.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rossi, M.
    (1999) L’intonation, le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Schriver, K.
    (1989) Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication32 (4), 238–255. 10.1109/47.44536
     https://doi.org/10.1109/47.44536 [Google Scholar]
  69. SCIC, Direction générale de l’interprétation, Commission européenne
    SCIC, Direction générale de l’interprétation, Commission européenne (2011) Interpretation tests: how to judge a candidate’s performance. InCommission européenne – SCIC Training for Trainers Seminar – List of handouts. Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Selkirk, E.
    (2011) The syntax-phonology interface. InJ. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 435–483. 10.1002/9781444343069.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  71. Setton, R.
    (2005) Pointing to contexts: A relevance-theoretic approach to assessing quality and difficulty in interpreting. InD. Helle, V., J. Engberg and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Knowledge systems and translation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 275-312. 10.1515/9783110924305.275
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924305.275 [Google Scholar]
  72. Shlesinger, M.
    (1994) Intonation in the production and perception of simultaneous interpretation. InS. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–236. 10.1075/btl.3.17shl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.17shl [Google Scholar]
  73. Shriberg, E.
    (2001) To ‘errrr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association31 (01), 153–169. 10.1017/S0025100301001128
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100301001128 [Google Scholar]
  74. Simon, A. C. & Degand, L.
    (2011) L’analyse en unités discursives de base: Pourquoi et comment?Langue Française170 (2), 45–59. 10.3917/lf.170.0045
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.170.0045 [Google Scholar]
  75. Smith, V. L. & Clark, H. H.
    (1993) On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language32 (1), 25–38. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1002
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1002 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
    (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Steinbeis, M.
    (2013) Notenbanken machen Sachwerte alernativlos. FinanceNewsTV, Fondskongress, Mannheim, Germany. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LefOfkMS7k (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 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. InProceedings of Interspeech, Singapore, 14–18September 2014, 751–755. https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2014/i14_0751.html (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 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. InDISS-LPSS Joint Workshop/Disfluency, Tokyo, Japan, 25–26September 2010, 111–114. www.quaero.org/media/files/bibliographie/diss_lpss_2010_vasilescu_euh.pdf (accessed22 September 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Williams, S.
    (1995) Observations on anomalous stress in interpreting. The Translator1 (1), 47–64. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798949
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798949 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson, D. & Wharton, T.
    (2006) Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics38 (10), 1559–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  82. Wolfer, S.
    (2015) Comprehension and comprehensibility. InK. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth & S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and comprehensibility. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 34–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Zwischenberger, C.
    (2013) Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00032.len
Loading
The impact of simultaneous-interpreting prosody on comprehension
Interpreting 22, 1 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00032.len
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00032.len
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00032.len
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): comprehension; prosody; quality; simultaneous interpreting

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error