Testing the Effort Models' Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting - A Contribution

Abstract

In a sample of 10 professionals interpreting the same source speech in the simultaneous mode, errors and omissions (e/o’s) were found to affect different source-speech seg-ments, and a large proportion among them were only made by a small proportion of the subjects. In a repeat performance, there were some new e/o’s in the second version when the same interpreters had interpreted the same segments correctly in the first version. These findings strengthen the Effort Models’ “tightrope hypothesis” that many e/o’s are due not to the intrinsic difficulty of the corresponding source-speech segments, but to the interpreters working close to processing capacity saturation, which makes them vulnerable to even small variations in the available processing capacity for each interpreting component.

Full text

Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – a
Contribution
Daniel Gile
Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
daniel.gile@yahoo.com
www.cirinandgile.com
Edited version from Hermes 23 (1999). 153-172.
Abstract
In a sample of 10 professionals interpreting the same source speech in the simultaneous mode,
errors and omissions (e/o’s) were found to affect different source-speech segments, and a large
proportion among them were only made by a small proportion of the subjects. In a repeat
performance, there were some new e/o’s in the second version when the same interpreters had
interpreted the relevant segments correctly in the first version. These findings are in line with the
Effort Models’ ‘Tightrope Hypothesis’ that many e/o’s are due not to the intrinsic difficulty of
the corresponding source-speech segments, but to the interpreters working close to processing
capacity saturation, which makes them vulnerable to even small variations in the available
processing capacity for each interpreting component.
Keywords: simultaneous interpreting, errors, omissions, cognitive load, Tightrope hypothesis,
cognitive saturation
Author’s introductory note to the 2015 translation of the paper:
This 1999 paper was a first attempt to test the Tightrope Hypothesis, which is explained in the
body of the text. This was done for the Effort Model for simultaneous interpreting between
spoken languages. Meanwhile, an Effort Model for simultaneous interpreting between a spoken
language and a signed language or between two signed languages has also been developed. The
principle is the same, but further Efforts have been identified: Self Management in Space and
Interaction with Deaf Receivers (when working into a sign language). Moreover, the short term
Memory Effort in the model involves a stronger spatial component than in interpreting between
spoken languages (Gile, in press). But the testing procedure should apply equally whatever
interpreting modality is used.
1. The nature of the Effort Models
In the nineteen-seventies, interpreting models based on the information-processing paradigm
(Gerver 1975, Moser 1978) were developed to account for the mental operation of simultaneous
interpreting. More recently, Setton (1997), Paradis (1994) and Mizuno (1994, 1995) have
developed their own models, similarly based on advances in cognitive science. All these are
valuable as theoretical constructs insofar as they take on board relevant developments in
cognitive psychology, neurolinguistics and linguistics. On the practical side, however, over the
past two decades, they have not been subjected to much systematic testing, probably due to the
complexity of the mental operations involved (see for instance Lambert 1995, Moser-Mercer
1972:2, Massaro and Shlesinger 1997:14, Frauenfelder and Schriefers 1997:55) and to the lack
of institutional, human and financial resources for such exploration.
In the early eighties, a set of models were developed in a different mindset, the idea being
not to describe the simultaneous interpreting process, but to account for errors and omissions
observed in the performance of simultaneous and consecutive interpreters which could not be
easily attributed to deficient linguistic abilities, insufficient extralinguistic knowledge or poor

conditions in the delivery of the source text. These ‘Effort Models’ (see for example Gile 1995,
1997) pool together operational components of interpreting into three ‘Efforts’, namely:
L – the Listening and analysis Effort, referring to the interpreter listening to the source speech
P – the Production Effort (speech production in simultaneous, and note production during the
first stage of consecutive, while the interpreter is listening but not interpreting yet). The
Production Effort includes self-monitoring and self-repair.
M – the short-term Memory Effort, which covers memory operations from the time a speech
segment is heard and until it is reformulated in the target speech (or written down as notes in
consecutive), or disappears from memory (note that this short-term Memory Effort is in many
ways similar to various models of Working Memory developed in cognitive psychology, but
should not be equated with any of them, as it is a more holistic concept).
In addition, C, a Coordination Effort, is necessary to coordinate the allocation of attention
between the three Efforts.
Visually, the Effort Model for Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) can be represented as follows:
SI = L + M + P + C
Where the mathematical signs “=” and “+” are used in a very wide sense, not their mathematical
sense, to mean “SI is composed of L, of M, of P and of C”.
For consecutive interpreting, the Effort Model is articulated in two parts:
a. Listening Phase: Listening = L + M + P + C
(Where P refers to the Production of notes, not of speech in the target language)
b. Reformulation Phase: Reformulation = Read + Remembering + P + C
(Where “Read” refers to note reading, “Remembering” refers to retrieval of information about
the speech heard from long-term memory and P refers to the production of the target language
speech)
During the listening phase, operations are paced by the speaker, and the Efforts are in
competition. In the reformulation phase, the interpreter is self-paced and there is much
cooperation between the Efforts, as notes help remember and produce speech. The Tightrope
Hypothesis postulated in this paper applies to the Listening Phase only.
The Effort Models (EM) are models of operational constraints, not architectural models,
insofar as they do not postulate a particular mental structure and information-processing flow as
is the case of the other models mentioned above. The underlying idea is that with minimal
assumptions about cognitive architecture, it is possible to come up with a set of models with
explanatory potential for actual interpreting performance. Therefore, contrary to a widespread
paradigm in cognitive science, their testing and development can focus on their validation as
operational tools rather than on architectural validation and on the addition and/or correction of
components, interactions and/or flows. Because of their distinct nature and objectives, they are
not in direct competition with architectural models, at least as long as these cannot make
operational predictions.

The Effort Models were deliberately designed at a holistic level without going into fine-
grained architectural analysis, but they are based on cognitive concepts and ideas (in particular
the concept of limited attentional resources and the assumption of a strong correlation between
task difficulty and the duration of its implementation), and any cognitive findings invalidating
basic assumptions on which they are built will have to be taken into account.
The most fundamental architectural assumption in the Effort Models is that in spite of the
sharing of some cognitive resources, and in particular working memory and long-term memory,
there are enough unshared components in interpreting to justify the distinction between the three
core Efforts, one revolving around comprehension, one around production of speech (in
simultaneous) or notes (in the first stage of consecutive), and one around short-term memory
operations. The facts that in simultaneous, comprehension is in one language and production in
another, and that in consecutive, what is produced (in the listening stage) are notes, are one
element which justifies separation of these two Efforts. The definition of the Memory Effort as a
distinct component is less evident, since both sensory memory and working memory come in
both in comprehension and in production. Thus, it could be argued that a two-element model
composed of a comprehension phase and a production phase would be sufficient and more
representative of actual cognitive architecture. The case for a distinct place for the Memory
Effort for the models rests on the following:
a. The necessary co-existence in short-term memory (including sensory memory and working
memory) of source-speech elements and target-speech elements in simultaneous interpreting and
of source-speech elements and written representations of words and concepts in the first stage of
consecutive is likely to induce in the interpreter’s short-term memory some operations and
possibly some architectural links and components (separate stores for the source speech and the
target speech, inhibition and activation, links with the mental lexicon in one language or another
etc.), which are not usual in the non-interpreting listener’s, speech producer’s or note producer’s
memory.
b. In strategic terms, interpreters make specific decisions on EVS (Ear-Voice Span, their lag
behind the speaker) on the basis of memory-capacity limitations beyond the automatic memory
operations which occur in speech comprehension and speech production. These limitations and
actions have been a distinct topic of reflection and discussion since the sixties (see inter alia
Fukuii and Asano 1961, Oléron and Nampon 1965, Kade and Cartellieri 1971, Daró and Fabbro
1994, Osaka 1994, Padilla 1995, Gran and Bellini 1996, Chincotta and Underwood 1998).
Besides this architectural assumption, three major operational assumptions underlie the Models:
a. Each of the three Efforts has non-automatic components. Therefore, all three require
attentional resources.
From cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics research, it is known that speech
comprehension and speech production under ordinary conditions include non-automatic
components. In simultaneous interpreting, there is no reason to assume that speech
comprehension is more automatic than in ordinary conditions, while there are many to assume
the opposite. As to speech production, it would become automatic only if it involved automatic
word-for-word replacement, which is clearly not the case. The short-term memory effort is non-
automatic insofar as it involves storing and retrieving ever-changing information elements (for a
more detailed discussion of the non-automatic nature of the three Efforts, see Gile 1995). This
first operational assumption can therefore be considered unproblematic.

b. The three Efforts are at least partly competitive, meaning that even if they share resources and
may be somewhat cooperative, the net result of their coexistence will usually be an increase in
processing capacity requirements (the ‘competition hypothesis’).
In mathematical terms, this ‘competition hypothesis’ can be represented in the following
way, with the total processing capacity consumption TotC associated with interpreting at any
time represented as a ‘sum’ (but not in the pure arithmetic sense) of consumption for L,
consumption for M and consumption for P, with further consumption for ‘coordination’ (C)
between the Efforts, that is, the management of capacity allocation between the Efforts:
(1) TotC = C(L) + C(M) + C(P) + C(C)
And
(2) C(i) ≥0 i = L, M, P
(3) TotC ≥ C(i) i = L, M, P
(4) TotC ≥ (Ci) + C(j) i,j = L, M, P
Where equation (1) represents the total processing capacity consumption
Inequality (2) means that each of the three Efforts requires some processing capacity
Inequality (3) means that the total capacity consumption is at least equal to that of any single
Effort
Inequality (4) means that the total processing capacity consumption is at least equal to that of
any two Efforts performed in conjunction (in other words, adding a third Effort means adding
further capacity consumption).
The competition hypothesis is generally accepted intuitively by practitioners, is explicit in many
anecdotal accounts of difficulties encountered by interpreters, and has not generated any
criticism when presented to cognitive scientists at various interdisciplinary meetings. However, it
cannot be ruled out that in some specific cases, it does not hold.
c. The idea that most of the time, interpreters work near saturation level (the ‘Tightrope
Hypothesis’).
The present study is a partial test of this third hypothesis.
2. Previous theorizing and testing
On the basis of the Effort Models, some further theoretization was possible. Firstly, the existence
of ‘problem triggers’ was hypothesized, in particular speech segments or tasks requiring
heightened attentional resources. The assumption was that if indeed interpreters work near
saturation level, even limited additional attention requirements could lead to failure. Another
hypothesis was that speech segments with low redundancy were also problem triggers, since they
had low tolerance of attentional lapses such as might occur because of attentional
mismanagement. In a simple interpreting task, Gile (1984) found that there was a high rate of
failure in rendering proper names, some with low morphological redundancy (“Cliff”), and some
with heightened attentional requirements (“Pacific Islands Development Commission”).
Conversely, low-density segments in a speech can lower cognitive pressure. Examples of such
low-density segments are pauses, on which Barik and Goldman-Eisler focused (see Gerver 1976),
but also some language-specific constructions. For instance, in a study of Japanese speeches,
Gile (1992) found frequent ‘predictable sentence endings’ of up to more than 10 syllables in
length. Such a pressure drop over more than one second could lead to specific interpreting tactics

when interpreting from Japanese. Unfortunately, no on-line testing of this potential effect has
been completed at this stage.
A further assumption developed from the EM was that these triggers could generate
failure at a distance, when attentional resources were diverted from one Effort to another where
‘reinforcement’ was necessary; this could ‘save’ one speech segment but could jeopardize an
ulterior segment in a ‘failure sequence’ (Gile 1995). In a simple interpreting task with students,
Granacher (1996) listed potential failure triggers he identified in the source-speech segment and
the following segments, trying to detect and explain failures in terms of triggers and ‘failure
sequences’. In most cases, he did find errors and omissions and concluded that triggers were
probably involved. However, the design of the experiment was too loose to allow robust
conclusions to be drawn: much of his inferencing was speculative, and retrospective reports by
subjects did not confirm the conclusions explicitly. Later studies on numbers, names and
idiomatic expressions did show a detrimental effect on performance of these problem triggers
(see for example Mazza 2000, Puková 2006, Cattaneo 2004).
The Effort Models also predict higher attentional requirements when working from
syntactically different languages. Starting with this assumption, Dawrant (1996) hypothesized
that this would lead to specific processing-capacity saving strategies in interpreting. He
identified Chinese constructions requiring word-order modification when interpreting into
English and compared strategies used in interpreting speeches with one such construction, the
coverb structure, to strategies used when translating them rapidly in writing. His findings suggest
that indeed, “interpreters seek to avoid the increased working memory load associated with the
rearrangement of word order in SI through the use of the Processing Capacity-conserving
strategies of anticipation and linearity” (p.84).
In a recent doctoral dissertation, Lamberger-Felber (1998) also tested a number of
hypotheses which she derived from the Effort Models regarding different types of errors and
omissions (in numbers and proper names, “serious meaning errors”, omissions of long segments)
through a three-condition experimental set-up: when interpreters were given the manuscript of
the speech in advance with time for preparation, without time for preparation, and when they
were not given the manuscript. Her findings confirmed expectations regarding the usefulness of
manuscripts in lowering processing capacity requirements.
From a slightly different angle, the EM for consecutive predicts a disruptive effect of
note-taking in untrained interpreters for the following reasons:
- Extra processing capacity is involved in deciding what to write and how to write it
- Extra processing capacity is involved in controlling the writing operations
- Writing generally takes much longer than uttering the same speech segment, hence a lag which
is likely to increase the risk of working memory overload (Gile 1995).
In a simple consecutive interpreting experiment, Gile (1991) found that student interpreters
who took notes failed in their rendering of proper names (taken as indicators because of their
vulnerability to attentional deficit) more often than students who did not.
3. The Tightrope Hypothesis
The present study addresses the third hypothesis mentioned in section 1, one that is more
holistically associated with the Effort Models, namely the idea that most of the time, total
capacity consumption is close to the interpreter’s total available capacity, so that any increase in
processing-capacity requirements and any instance of mismanagement of cognitive resources by
the interpreter can bring about overload or local attentional deficit (in one of the Efforts) and
consequent deterioration of the interpreter’s output. This ‘Tightrope Hypothesis’ is crucial in
explaining the high frequency of errors and omissions that can be observed in interpreting even

when no particular technical or other difficulties can be indentified in the source speech (Gile
1989): if interpreters worked well below saturation level, errors and omissions should occur only
when significant difficulties came up in the source speech.
The precise aim of this investigation was to try to establish, in a sample of professionals
interpreting a speech, whether there are indeed errors and omissions (e/o’s) affecting segments
that present no evident intrinsic difficulty. If there are, it is likely that they can be explained in
terms of processing capacity deficits such as predicted by the EM.
The underlying rationale of this study is the following:
One indication of the existence of such e/o’s would be variability in the segments
affected in the sample (at the level of words or propositions). If all subjects in the sample fail to
reproduce adequately the same ideas or pieces of information, this would suggest the existence
of an intrinsic ‘interpreting difficulty’ of the relevant segments (too specialized, poorly
pronounced, delivered too rapidly, too difficult to render in the target language, etc.), even if
available descriptive tools are not sensitive enough to identify such difficulty beforehand. If
however only a few subjects fail to render them correctly in the target language, this would tend
to weaken this explanation and strengthen the hypothesis that processing capacity deficits are
involved. An analysis of inter-subject variability in the incorrectly-rendered speech segments in
plain interpretation can therefore provide interesting evidence in this respect.
Another indication could come from an exercise in which each subject is asked to
interpret the same speech twice in a row. Having become familiar with the source speech during
their first interpretation, subjects can be expected to correct in their second version many e/o’s
committed in their first version. If, notwithstanding this general improvement of interpreting
performance from the first to the second target-language version, it were possible to find new
e/o’s in the second version whereas the same speech segments were interpreted correctly the first
time, this would be an even stronger indication that processing capacity deficits are involved. It
is difficult to find another explanation: the fact that the segments affected in the second target-
versions were interpreted adequately in the first suggests that the interpreters did understand
them the first time and do possess the necessary linguistic knowledge and knowhow to re-
express them in the target language.
4. Method
The source speech was taken from a video recording of a press conference given by George
Fisher when his position as Kodak’s new Chief Executive Officer was announced. It was
interpreted by myself from a video-cassette during a professional assignment, and I asked for and
obtained permission to use an audio-taped version for teaching and research purposes (Kodak’s
cooperation is gratefully acknowledged). The 245 words extract used here (see the appendix) is
the full answer given by George Fisher to a question put to him by a journalist. It is 1 minute and
40 seconds long, is of a fairly general nature, requires no previous knowledge of the subject and
only contains one specialized term, the word ‘silver halide’. Subjects were professional
conference interpreters who were recruited in the workplace, always during the first half of a
simultaneous interpreting working day, and always after they had time to ‘warm up’ with one or
two turns of interpreting in the booth within the framework of their professional assignment.
They were told they would have to interpret from English into French the answer of Kodak’s
new CEO to a journalist’s question during a press conference held when his appointment to this
position was announced. They were also told how to translate ‘silver halide’ into French
(‘halogénure d’argent’). The experiment was carried out in interpreting booths, with the source
speech coming out of a portable cassette player over standard earphones and the target speech
being recorded on a portable cassette recorder. When they finished interpreting, subjects were
asked to start interpreting the same recording again. Ten subjects were recruited over three
distinct interpretation assignments in which they were on the same team as myself in Paris. All
have either French as their A language (roughly their native tongue) and English as a strong B

language (non-native, but strong enough to work into it from an A language), or are ‘double A’
bilinguals. All had regular working experience of 15 years or longer except one whose
experience was 7 years, and all are members of AIIC, the International Association of
Conference Interpreters, and work both in the private sector market and for international
organizations, in particular OECD and UNESCO. They can therefore be considered qualified
professionals.
Target speeches were transcribed, and transcripts were scanned for errors and omissions.
This method is not without pitfalls, both because of high inter-rater variability in the perception
of what is and what is not an error or omission and because what may be identified as an error or
omission in a transcript may be an acceptable rendition in an oral presentation of the speech (as
demonstrated in Gile 1999). To avoid these pitfalls, only instances of what appeared to me as
flagrant errors or omissions were included in the analysis, and at least two further opinions from
other conference interpreters were requested to confirm that the e/o’s I identified were also
considered e/o’s by them. There were no dissenting opinions. Moreover, the likelihood that the
e/o’s identified by me were also considered e/o’s by the subjects themselves is heightened by the
fact that all of them but one (“well enough” – e/o n°4) were corrected in the second version of
the target speech by at least some of the subjects (table 1).
This conservative operational definition of e/o’s may have left out other e/o’s. I decided
to accept this loss of sensitivity of the tool insofar as it preserved validity by reducing the
probability of ‘false positives’ (mistaking text manipulations considered acceptable by the
subjects for e/o’s).
The analysis then proceeded by trying to determine:
a. How many subjects in the sample made an e/o for each affected speech segment.
b. What e/o’s were corrected in the second version of the target speech. (Note that due to a
technical problem, no second version could be recorded for subject D, and a local
technical problem made it impossible to check the second version for subject C as
regards e/o n°16).
5. Results
5.1 List of e/o’s
1. “I’m sure my…”
Subject F: « je suis sûr que c’est possible » (“I am sure it is possible”). Error. Corrected in the
subject’s second version.
2. “I don’t even know these people yet”:
Subject D: « je ne connais même pas ces gens » (“I don’t even know these people”). Omission of
the idea expressed by “yet”. No second version.
Subject E: « que je connais bien » (“that I know well”). Error. Corrected partially in the second
version (« je connais pas ces gens » - “I don’t know these people”)
Subject F: « je connais » (“I know”). Error. Corrected in the second version.
Subject H: « je ne les connais pas encore » (“I don’t know them yet”). Who is “them”? Error.
Corrected in the second version.
Subject J: « je ne connais pas ces gens » (“I don’t know these people”). Omission of the “yet”
idea. Uncorrected in the second version.
3. “scientists and engineers”
Subject B: « le monde scientifique » (“the scientific world”). Corrected in the second version.

Subject I: « les chercheurs » (“researchers”). Corrected in the second version.
4. “well enough”
Subject E: « que je connais bien » (“that I know well”). Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject F: « je connais » (“I know”). Uncorrected in the second version.
5. “since I don’t know…”
Subject A: « dont on ignore encore la nature.. » (“the nature of which is not known yet”).
Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject B: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject F: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject H: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject I: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
6. “I can speak loosely”
Subject B: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject C: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
7. “the imaging side of Kodak”
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject E: « L’image de Kodak » (“Kodak’s image”). Corrected in the second version.
Subject I: « L’image de Kodak » (“Kodak’s image”). Corrected in the second version.
Subject J: « L’image de Kodak » (“Kodak’s image”). Corrected in the second version.
8. “let’s concentrate on that”.
Subject B: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject C: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
9. “for the foreseeable future”
Subject C: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
10. “as far as capture goes”
Subject A: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject J: « marché captif » (“captive market”). Corrected in the second version.
11. “highest resolution”
Subject A: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject B: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject C: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject H: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.

12. “’cause mine sure does with me”
Subject F: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject I: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
13. “the last two nights”
Subject B: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject E: « deux jours » (“two days”). Corrected in the second version.
Subject F: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject H: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
14. “They’re really exciting”
Subject B: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject I: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
15. “ninety percent”, “ten percent’
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject J: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
16. “my ideas”
Subject E: « ces idées » (“these ideas” – no indication in the target speech that these are the
speaker’s ideas). No available second version.
Subject I: « que l’on imagine » (“that one imagines” – no indication in the target speech that
these are the speaker’s ideas). Corrected in the second version.
17. “that will be killers”
Subject A: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject B: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject D: Omission. No available second version.
Subject E: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject F: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject G: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
Subject I: Omission. Corrected in the second version.
Subject J: Omission. Uncorrected in the second version.
5.2 New e/o’s in the second version
Subject A:
I know scientists and engineers well enough
a. « Je connais suffisamment les scientifiques et les ingénieurs pour savoir qu’ils ne… »
(“I know scientists and engineers well enough to know that…”)
b. « mais je parle des scientifiques et des ingénieurs qui ne seraient pas très heureux… »

(“but I am talking about scientists and engineers who would not be very happy…” – omission of
the idea expressed in “well enough”)
let’s concentrate on that
a. «…le côté imagerie chez Kodak concentrons-nous sur cet aspect »
(“The imaging side of Kodak let us concentrate on this aspect…”)
b. « …le domaine imagerie chez Kodak. Il faut reconnaître là que… »
(“…the imaging side of Kodak. Here, we must acknowledge that…” – omission of invitation to
focus on “this aspect” in the second version)
Subject B:
I don’t even know these people yet
a. « Je ne connais pas encore ces gens là »
(“I don’t know these people yet”)
b. « je ne les connais pas encore… »
(“I don’t know them yet” – who is “them”?)
I know scientists and engineers well enough
a. « mais je connais suffisamment bien… »
(“But I know sufficiently well”)
b. « mais je connais bien les… »
(“but I know well the…” – the idea expressed in “well enough” is missing)
In perhaps ways that are totally different
a. « de les diffuser de manière peut-être tout-à-fait différente… »
(“to disseminate them in a way that may be totally different…”)
b. « de les distribuer d’une manière tout-à-fait différente… »
(“to distribute them in a totally different way” – the idea expressed in “perhaps” is missing)
Subject C: (part of the recording is missing – results are taken from the existing part)
I don’t even know these people yet
a. « Je ne les connais pas encore »
(“I don’t know them yet”)
b. « je ne connais suffisamment bien »
(“I do [the French equivalent of “not” is missing, but the sentence is negative nevertheless] know
well enough” – missing reference to “people”)
Subject E:
No instance of new e/o’s in the second version
Subject F:
No instance of new e/o’s in the second version
Subject G
In perhaps ways that are totally different
a. « peut-être d’une manière totalement différente »
(“perhaps in a totally different way”)
b. « certainement être complètement différentes… »
(“certainly be completely different” – the idea expressed in “perhaps” is missing)

Subject H:
let’s concentrate on that
a. « on va se concentrer là-dessus »
(“we are going to concentrate on that”)
b. Omission
Subject I:
No instance of new e/o’s in the second version
Subject J:
scientists and engineers
a. « les scientifiques et les ingénieurs »
(“scientists and engineers”)
b. « les scientifiques et les techniciens »
(“scientists and technicians”)
let’s concentrate on that
a. « si vous voulez on parlera de ça pour l’instant »
(“let us talk about that for a moment, if you will”)
b. Omission
they’re really exciting
a. « c’est tout-à-fait intéressant »
(“it is quite exciting”)
b. Omission

5.3 Quantitative analysis
Subject
Source-speech segment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
e/o’s in 1st
rendition
1
I’m sure my
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
0
0
0
0
1
2
I don’t even know these
people yet
0
0-1
0-1
1
1-0
1-0
0
1-0
0
1-1
5
3
Scientists and engineers
0
1-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
0-1
2
4
Well enough
0-1
0-1
0
0
1-1
1-1
0
0
0
0
2
5
But since I don’t know what
the products are
1-1
1-0
0
1
0
1-1
1-1
1-0
1-1
0
7
6
I can speak loosely
0
1-0
1-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
The imaging side of Kodak
0
0
0
1
1-0
0
0
0
1-0
1-0
4
8
Let’s concentrate on that
0-1
1-0
1-1
1
0
0
0
0-1
0
0-1
3
9
For the foreseeable future
0
0
1-0
0
0
0
1-1
0
0
0
2
10
As far as capture goes
1-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
2
11
Highest resolution
1-1
1-0
1-1
1
0
1-0
1-1
1-1
0
0
7
12
Cause mine sure does with
me
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
1-1
0
1-0
0
3
13
The last two nights
0
1-1
0
1
1-0
1-0
1-1
1-0
0
0
6
14
And they’re really exciting
0
1-1
0
1
0
0
1-1
0
1-0
0-1
4
15
Ninety percent, ten percent
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
2
16
My ideas
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1-0
0
2
17
That will be killers
1-0
1-1
0
1
1-1
1-0
1-1
0
1-0
1-1
8
Perhaps (2nd version only)
0
0-1
0
0
0
0
0-1
0
0
0
Totel e/o’s, in 1st and 2nd
rendition
4-4
8-6
5-3
9
5-2
8-2
7-8
4-2
7-1
5-5
Number of “new”’ e/o’s (in
2nd rendition only)
2
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
Table 1: Errors and omissions in the first and second renditions (0: correct; 1: error or omission)
Table 1 summarizes the quantitative aspects of the analysis. It turns out that out of the 17 e/o’s
that were identified in the first version of the target speech, 8 e/o’s (47%) were made by one or
two interpreters only. Moreover, among them are interpreters who only made a total of 5 e/o’s or
less each (subjects A, C, E, J) and who are therefore among the ‘good performers’ in the sample.
It may therefore be conservatively assumed that at least for these e/o’s, no intrinsic difficulty of
the affected source-speech segments is involved (that no specialty-specific or language-specific
difficulty is involved will appear clearly to readers from the list of segments and e/o’s given
above). This is in line with the Tightrope Hypothesis as explained in section 2.
In the repeat operation, the expected overall performance improvement in the second
version of the target texts was confirmed: the number of e/o’s decreased for 5 subjects (B, E, F,
H, I), remained the same for 2 subjects (A and J), and increased (by one) for one subject (G).
More interestingly for the Tightrope Hypothesis, 6 subjects out of the 9 (66,6%) whose second
rendition was analyzed (as mentioned earlier, only parts of the recording were available for
subject C) made at least one new e/o in the second version of their target text whereas the
relevant source-text segment had been better interpreted in the first version. This suggests that
the phenomenon is not rare and is in line with the tightrope hypothesis as explained in section 2.
6. Discussion and conclusion
As mentioned above, the high detection threshold for e/o definition used here in order to reduce
to the largest possible extent the number of ‘false positives’ means that other phenomena that
could have been used to measure cognitive load were not exploited. In particular, no attempt was
made to look at borderline cases, at the deterioration of linguistic output quality, or at changes in

the prosody pr the quality of the interpreter’s voice. If the low sensitivity of the tool had made it
impossible to obtain convincing findings, more sensitive tools would have had to be designed,
and reliability could have become a problem. Fortunately, the tool proved to be sufficient,
illustrating the idea that at the beginning of an exploration, it is often possible and even desirable
to use primitive tools rather than resorts to finer and more fragile tools.
The findings of this study strengthen the case for the tightrope hypothesis and thus give
some support to the Effort Models as a conceptual tool to explain the interpreter’s cognitive-
constraints-based limitations. However, the usefulness of the EM as an operational tool and
prospects for further development depend on more precise quantitative measurement possibilities,
in particular on online measurement of attentional resource consumption during interpreting.
When more is known about how close to saturation interpreters work, how much additional
capacity is taken up by triggers, and what the exact time-course of failure sequences is, both
better testing and more powerful uses can be found for the Effort Models. Meanwhile, I can only
agree that the indirect, mostly rather gross methods used so far cannot be said to have led to
systematic testing or validation of the models (see Massaro and Shlesinger 1997:43). On the
other hand, as illustrated in section 2 – also see Schjoldager 1996 and Sabatini 1998 – they have
inspired empirical studies focusing on cognitive issues). They have thus contributed to enhancing
the knowledge we have on the interpreting product, and may give some credibility to the idea
that the usefulness of a concept or model in scientific exploration is not necessarily a function of
its degree of sophistication.

Bibliographical references
Cattaneo, E. 2004. Idiomatic expressions in conference interpreting. Graduation thesis, SSLMIT,
Università degli Studi di Bologna, Sede di Forlì.
Chincotta, Dino & Geoffrey Underwood. 1998. “Simultaneous Interpreters and the effect of
concurrent articulation on immediate memory”. Interpreting 3:1. 1-20.
Daró, Valeria & Franco Faabro. 1994. “Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation.
Effects of phonological interference.” Applied Linguistics 15.365-381.
Dawrant, Andrew. 1996. Word Order in Chinese-English Simultaneous Interpretation. An Initial
Exploration. Unpublished MA thesis, Fu Jen University.
Gerver, David. 1976. “Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model.”
In R.W. Brislin (ed). Translation: Applications and Research. New York: Gardner. 165-
207.
Frauenfelder, Uli & Herbert Schriefers. 1997. “A psycholinguistic perspective on Simultaneous
Interpretation.” Interpreting 2:1-2. 55-89.
Fukuii, Haruhiro & Tasuke Asano. 1961. Eigotsuuyaku no jissai. An English Interpreter’s
Manual. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Gile, Daniel. 1984. « Les noms propres en interprétation simultanée ». Multilingua 3 :2. 79-85.
Gile, Daniel. 1989. La communication linguistique en réunion multilingue. Les difficultés de la
transmission informationnelle en interprétation simultanée. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Université Paris 3.
Gile, Daniel. 1991. « Prise de notes et attention en début d’apprentissage de l’interprétation
consécutive - une expérience-démonstration de sensibilisation ». Meta 36 :2-3. 431-439.
Gile, Daniel. 1992. “Predictable Sentence Endings in Japanese and Conference Interpretation.”
The Interpreters’ Newsletter, Special Issue n°1. 12-23.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, Daniel. 1997. “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” In Danks,
Joseph E., Gregory M Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath (eds).
Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, London and New
York: Sage Publications. 196-214.
Gile, Daniel. 1999. “Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation.”
Hermes 22. 51-80.
Gran, Laura & Beatrice Bellini. 1996. “Short-Term memory and Simultaneous Interpretation: An
Experimental Study on Verbatim Recall.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 7. 103-112.
Granacher, Martin. 1996. Das Modèle d’Efforts des Simultandolmetschens von Daniel Gile.
Versuch einer Evaluierung auf der Grundlage einer Fallstudie. Diplomarbeit,
Universtität Heidelberg.
Kade, Otto & Claus Cartellieri. 1971. “Some methodological aspects of simultaneous
interpreting.” Babel 17:2. 12-16.
Lamberger-Felber, Heike. 1998. Der Einfluss kontextueller Faktoren auf das
Simultandolmetschen. Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel gelesener Reden. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.
Lambert, Sylvie. 1995. “Foreword.” In Lambert, Sylvie & Barbara Moser-Mercer (eds).
Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 5-14.
Massaro, Dominic W. & Miriam Shlesinger. 1997. “Information processing and a computational
approach to the study of simultaneous interpretation.” Interpreting 2:1-2. 13-53.
Mazza, C. 2000. Numbers in Simultaneous Interpretation. Graduation thesis, SSLMIT,
Università degli Studi di Bologna, Sede di Forlì.
Mizuno, Akira. 1994. “The Dynamic Model of Simultaneous Interpretation (I).” Interpreting
Research 7(IV/2). 13-25. (in Japanese).

Mizuno, Akira. 1995. “The Dynamic Model of Simultaneous Interpretation (II): A Pilot Study on
the Convergence of Translation Patterns.” Interpreting Research 8(V/1). 9-26. (in
Japanese).
Moser, Barbara. 1978. “Simultaneous Interpretation: a Hypothetical Model and its Practical
Application.” In Gerver, David D. & H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds). Language Interpretation
and Communication. NATO Conference Series, Series III: Human Factors. New York
and London: Plenum Press. 353-368.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1997. “Methodological issues in interpreting research: An introduction
to the Ascona workshops.” Interpreting 2:1-2. 1-11.
Oléron, P. & H. Nanpon. 1965. « Recherches sur la traduction simultanée ». Journal de
psychologie normale et pathologique 62. 73-94.
Osaka, Mariko. 1994. “Riidingu supan no kenkyuu (5) – Doujitsuuyaku tesuto to waakingu
memory” (Simultaneous interpreting tests and working memory). Nihon shinri gakkai dai
58 kai taikai ronbunshuu (Proceedings of the 58th Convention of the Japan Psychological
Society). 710.
Padilla, Presentación. 1995. Procesos de memoria y atención en la interpretación de lenguas.
Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Filología Inglesa.
Puková, Z. 2006. Daniel Gile’s Effort Model and its application to simultaneous interpreting of
texts with a high concentration of numerical data and enumerations (in Czech). Master’s
thesis, Charles University, Prague.
Paradis, Michel. 1994. “Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation. The
framework.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10:3. 319-335.
Sabatini, Elisabetta. 1998. Comprehension difficulties in simultaneous interpretation from “non
standard” English. Graduation thesis, SSLMIT, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Sede
di Forlì.
Schjoldager, Anne. 1996. Simultaneous Interpreting: Empirical Investigation into Target-text
Source-text Relations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aarhus School of Business,
Faculty of Modern Languages.
Setton, Robin. 1997. A Pragmatic Theory of Simultaneous Interpretation. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Graduate Division of
English/Applied Linguistics.
Appendix – Source speech
Subjects were instructed to listen to the question and interpret the answer only.
Question:
You suggested that through Kodak you can manipulate technology and fit in with this
information revolution. Can you be more specific about the kind of products that Kodak will
eventually be able to produce?
Answer:
I’m sure my… I don’t even know these people yet but I know scientists and engineers well
enough to know that they would not be very happy if I pre-announced products, but since I don’t
know all about what the product are, I can speak loosely I guess. I think when you look at the
imaging side of Kodak, let’s concentrate on that, and recognize that for the not, for the
foreseeable future, as far as capture goes, that the silver halide capture media is probably the
most cost-effective, highest resolution means of capturing visual memories, or visual images,
that one could ask for. So to me, you want to put that in the context of being a very effective way
of getting the information to begin with, then you’ve got to talk about how you get that
information into a digital form to use over information networks, I think you can begin to think

of a whole array of possibilities. Once you start thinking in a broader context of Kodak’s
imaging business really being to preserve visual memories, and to communication them, and to
distribute them, in perhaps ways that are totally different than people envision today, then I’ll let
your imagination run off with you, cause mine sure does with me. I laid awake the last two
nights thinking about those possibilities, and they’re really exciting but ninety percent of my
ideas may never work, but there’s ten percent that will be killers.
Silver halide: halogénure d’argent