Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Ear–voice span and pauses in intra- and interlingual respeaking: An exploratory study into temporal aspects of the respeaking process


Respeaking involves producing subtitles in real time to make live television programs accessible to deaf and hard of hearing viewers. In this study we investigated how the type of material to be respoken affects temporal aspects of respeaking, such as ear–voice span and pauses. Given the similarities between respeaking and interpreting (time constraints) and between interlingual respeaking and translation (interlingual processing), we also tested whether previous interpreting and translation experience leads to a smaller delay or lesser cognitive load in respeaking, as manifested by a smaller number of pauses. We tested 22 interpreters, 23 translators, and a control group of 12 bilingual controls, who performed interlingual (English to Polish) and intralingual (Polish to Polish) respeaking of five video clips with different characteristics (speech rate, number of speakers, and scriptedness). Interlingual respeaking was found to be more challenging than the intralingual one. The temporal aspects of respeaking were affected by clip type (especially in interpreters). We found no clear interpreter or translator advantage over the bilingual controls across the respeaking tasks. However, interlingual respeaking turned out to be too difficult for many bilinguals to perform at all. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine temporal aspects of respeaking as modulated by the type of materials and previous interpreting/translation experience. The results develop our understanding of temporal aspects of respeaking and are directly applicable to respeaker training.

Corresponding author
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Agnieszka Szarkowska, Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Dobra 55, Warszawa 00-312, Poland. E-mail:
Hide All
AdamowiczA. (1989). The role of anticipation in discourse: Text processing in simultaneous interpreting. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 20, 153160.
AdrianR. (2013). Talking television: Viewer identification of unscripted conversation and scripted television dialogue and their corresponding features (Unpublished bachelor's thesis, University of Groningen).
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BarikH. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16, 237.
BartłomiejczykM. (2006). Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting, 8, 149174. doi:10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
BartłomiejczykM. (2015). Wprowadzenie do tłumaczenia symultanicznego. In Chmiel A. & Janikowski P. (Eds.), Dydaktyka tłumaczenia ustnego (pp. 207226). Katowice, Poland: Stowarzyszenie Inicjatyw Wydawniczych.
BatesD. (2013). Linear mixed model implementation in lme4. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison.
BenestyJ., SondhiM. M., & HuangY. (2007). Springer handbook of speech processing. New York: Springer.
BoersmaP. (2002). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341345.
BoulianneG., BeaumontJ.-F., BoisvertM., BrousseauJ., CardinalP., ChapdelaineC., . . . DumuchelP. (2009). Shadow speaking for real-time closed-captioning of TV broadcasts in French. In Matamala A. & Orero P. (Eds.), Listening to subtitles: Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing (pp. 191208). Bern: Peter Lang.
BrockiŁ., MarasekK., & KoržinekD. (2012). Multiple model text normalization for the Polish language. In Chen L., Felfernig S., Liu J., & Raś Z. W. (Eds.), Foundations of intelligent systems (pp. 143148). Berlin: Springer.
Bros-BrannE. (1994). Interpreting live on television: Some examples taken from French television. Unpublished manuscript, AIIC Technical Committee.
CecotM. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 6385.
ChenL., LiuY., HarperM., MaiaE., & McroyS. (2004). Evaluating factors impacting the accuracy of forced alignments in a multimodal corpus. Paper presented at LREC, Lisbon.
ChernovG. V. (1994). Message redundancy and message anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. In Lambert S. & Moser-Mercer B. (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 139154). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
ChmielA. (2015). Przetwarzanie w tłumaczeniu symultanicznym. In Chmiel A. & Janikowski P. (Eds.), Dydaktyka tłumaczenia ustnego (pp. 227247). Katowice, Poland: Stowarzyszenie Inicjatyw Wydawniczych.
ChristoffelsI. K., & de GrootA. M. B. (2004). Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 227240. doi:10.1017/S1366728904001609
ChristoffelsI. K., de GrootA. M. B., & KrollJ. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 324345. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
DefrancqB. (2015). Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting, 17, 2645. doi:10.1075/intp.17.1.02def
Díaz-GalazS., PadillaP., & BajoM. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting, 17, 125. doi:10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
DonatoV. (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 101134.
EugeniC. (2008a). Respeaking the TV for the deaf: For a real special needs-oriented subtitling. Studies in English Language and Literature, 21, 3747.
EugeniC. (2008b). A sociolinguistic approach to real-time subtitling: Respeaking vs. shadowing and simultaneous interpreting. English in International Deaf Communication, 72, 357382.
GambierY. (2003). Introduction. Translator, 9, 171189. doi:10.1080/13556509.2003.10799152
GarnhamA. (1985). Psycholinguistics: Central topics. London: Routledge.
GerverD. (1969). Effects of grammaticalness, presentation rate, and message length on auditory short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 203208. doi:10.1080/14640746908400214
GileD. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldman-EislerF. (1958). The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and Speech, 1, 226.
Goldman-EislerF. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 127140. doi:10.1007/BF01068102
Goldman-EislerF., DechertH. W., & RaupachM. (1980). Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton.
GorszczyńskaP. (2015). Produkcja w tłumaczeniu symultanicznym. In Chmiel A. & Janikowski P. (Eds.), Dydaktyka tłumaczenia ustnego (pp. 248288). Katowice, Poland: Stowarzyszenie Inicjatyw Wydawniczych.
JelinekF. (1997). Statistical methods for speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JonesR. (2002). Conference interpreting explained (2nd ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome.
JurafskyD., & MartinA. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New York: Prentice Hall.
KadeO. (1967). Zu einigen Besonderheiten des Simultandolmetschens. Fremdsprachen, 11, 817.
KadeO., & CartellieriC. (1971). Some methodological aspects of simultaneous interpreting. Babel, 17, 1216.
KatsamanisA., BlackM., GeorgiouP. G., GoldsteinL., & NarayananS. (2011). SailAlign: Robust long speech-text alignment. Paper presented at the Workshop on New Tools and Methods for Very-Large Scale Phonetics Research, University of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
KurzI. (2002). Physiological stress responses during media and conference interpreting. In Garzone G. & Viezzi M. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century (pp. 195202). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Lamberger-FelberH. (2001). Text-oriented research into interpreting: Examples from a case-study. Hermes, 26, 3963.
LambourneA. (2006). Subtitle respeaking: A new skill for a new age. Intralinea, 8.
LedererM. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: Units of meaning and other features. In Gerver D. & Sinaiko H. W. (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 323332). New York: Plenum Press.
LedererM. (1981). La traduction simultanée: Expérience et théorie. Paris: Minard.
LeeT.-H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 47, 596606.
LevenshteinV. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707710.
LuyckxB., DelbekeT., Van WaesL., LeijtenM., & RemaelA. (2010). Live subtitling with speech recognition causes and consequences of text reduction. Across Languages and Cultures, 14, 1546.
MarshA. (2004). Simultaneous interpreting and respeaking: A comparison (Unpublished master's thesis, University of Westminster, London).
MarshA. (2006). Respeaking for the BB. Intralinea, 8.
MazzaC. (2001). Numbers in simultaneous interpretation. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 87104.
MeadP. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89102.
MikulC. (2014). Caption quality: Approaches to standards and measurement. Sydney: Media Access Australia. Retrieved from
MyersE. W. (1986). AnO (ND) difference algorithm and its variations. Algorithmica, 1, 251266.
Ofcom. (2015). Measuring live subtitling quality: Results from the fourth sampling exercise. Retrieved from
OléronP., & NanponH. (2002). Research into simultaneous translation. In Pöchhacker F. & Shlesinger M. (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 4350). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1965)
PanethE. (1957). An investigation into conference interpreting (with special reference to the training of the interpreter). (Unpublished master's thesis, University of London Institute of Education).
PiccalugaM., NespoulousJ.-L., & HarmegniesB. (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.
PignataroC. (2011). Skilled-based and knowledge-based strategies in television interpreting. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 16, 8198.
PöchhackerF. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
PöchhackerF. (2010). Media interpreting. In Gambier Y. & van Doorslaer L. (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 224226). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
QuaglioP. (2009). Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
RabinerL. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Paper presented at the 1989 IEEE Conference.
RäsänenO. J., LaineU. K., & AltosaarT. (2009). An improved speech segmentation quality measure: The r-value. Paper presented at the 2009 Interspeech conference.
Development Core Team R. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
RemaelA. (2008). Screenwriting, scripted and unscripted language: What do subtitlers need to know? In Diaz-Cintas J. (Ed.), The didactics of audiovisual translation (pp. 5767). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Romero-FrescoP. (2011). Subtitling through speech recognition: Respeaking. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Romero-FrescoP. (2012). Respeaking in translator training curricula: Present and future prospects. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 6, 91112.
RussoM. (2005). Simultaneous film interpreting and users' feedback. Interpreting, 7, 126. doi:10.1075/intp.7.1.02rus
Schweda-NicholsonN. (1987). Linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects of simultaneous interpretation. Applied Linguistics, 8, 194.
SergioF. S. (2013). Media interpreting. In Chapelle C. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. London: Wiley–Blackwell.
SettonR. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
ShlesingerM. (1994). Intonation in the production and perception of simultaneous interpretation. In Lambert S. & Moser-Mercer B. (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 225236). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
TimarováŠ., ČeňkováI., & MeylaertsR. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. In Ferreira A. & Schwieter J. W. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting (pp. 101126). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
TimarováŠ., ČeňkováI., MeylaertsR., HertogE., SzmalecA., & DuyckW. (2014). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16, 139168. doi:10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim
TimarováŠ., DragstedB., & HansenI. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In Alvstad C., Hild A., & Tiselius E. (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 121146). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
TissiB. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103127.
TóthA. (2011). Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A mirror on cognitive processes. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 5, 2331.
TóthA. (2013). The study of pauses and hesitations in conference interpreters’ target language output (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eötvös Lorańd University, Budapest).
WarrenP. (2013). Introducing psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Applied Psycholinguistics
  • ISSN: 0142-7164
  • EISSN: 1469-1817
  • URL: /core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 43 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 251 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th May 2017 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.