Self-repair and motivation in legal and medical simultaneous interpreting: reflections from student Interpreters
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.25.1.3Keywords:
simultaneous interpreting, self-repair, student interpreters, case study, Effort ModelAbstract
The present study examines the similarities and differences in the use of self-repairs by student interpreters during simultaneous interpreting of two different speech types, medical and legal, as well as the underlying motivations behind these repairs. With this aim in mind, this case study involves an English-to-Turkish simultaneous interpreting experiment with 7 senior student interpreters enrolled in Simultaneous Interpreting course at a major university in İzmir, Türkiye, and corroborated with a post-experiment questionnaire and student reflective reports within the scope of Schön’s concept of “reflection”. Shen and Liang’s taxonomy of self-repair strategies was used for data analysis, and findings were then discussed in line with Daniel Gile’s Effort Model. The findings revealed that challenges arising from syntactic asymmetries, cognitive load, and short-term memory triggered student interpreters’ self-repairs during the interpreting process. As for the self-repair strategies, repetition comes forward as the most commonly used type in both speech types, yet there is a statistical difference between the total number used in the legal and the medical speech. Furthermore, the students’ statements showed no correlation between the number of self-repairs, speech difficulty, and perceived interpreting performance. This finding suggests that self-repair is not always an indicator of poor interpreting performance and error correction; instead, it can serve as a cognitive strategy to manage time, achieve semantic clarity, and enhance the comprehensibility of renditions.
References
Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds), The Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 2. (pp. 89-195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Baker, M. (2001). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. Routledge.
Boud, D., Keogh, M., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.
Cattaneo, A.A.P. & Motta, E. (2021). “I reflect, therefore I am… a good professional”. On the relationship between reflection-on-Action, reflection-in-action and professional performance in vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 14, 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09259-9
Chen, S. (2017). The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives, 25(4), 640- 657. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026
Chereji, R. (2024). What makes a medical translator? A survey on medical translators’ profiles, work-related challenges and use of computer-assisted translation and automatic speech recognition tools. The Journal of Specialized Translation, 42, 39- 63. https://doi.org/10.26034/cm.jostrans.2024.5979
Dailidėnaitė, A. (2009). Directionality: Types and frequency of repairs in simultaneous interpretation. VertimoStudijos, 2, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.15388/vertstud.2009.2.10600
Dean, R. (2021). Reflection-in-action: Measuring “context” in medical interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 20, 248–266. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v20i.608
ELIA, EMT, EUATC, FIT EUROPE, GALA, LIND & Women in Localization (2023). 2023 European language industry survey. Trends, expectations and concerns of the European language industry. https://elis-survey.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ELIS-2023-report.pdf
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model. In R.W. Brislin (Ed), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165- 207). Gardner.
Gilabert, R. (2013) Self-repair. In P. J. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp.575–577). Routledge.
Gile, D. (1999). Testing effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – A contribution. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, 23, 153-172. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v12i23.25553
Gile, D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view. In R. Godijns & M. Hinderdael (Eds.), Directionality in interpreting the 'retour' or the native? (pp. 9–26). Communication & Cognition.
Gile, D. (2008). Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research, Forum, 6, 59- 77. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.04gil
Gile, D. (2009). Basic ioncepts and ;odels for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Continuum.
Grbić, N. & Wolf, M. (2012). Common grounds in translation and interpreting (studies). In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (pp. 7–16). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3.comm4
Gumul, E. (2017). Explicitation in simultaneous interpreting. A study into explicitating behaviour of trainee interpreters. University of Silesia Press.
Hong, S. (2023). Analyzing the motivations for self-repairs among Russian police interpreters in South Korea. In R. Moratto &H. Lim (Eds), The Routledge handbook of Korean interpreting (pp. 279- 295). Routledge.
Huang, D. F., & Fang, L., & Hang, G. (2023). Chunking in simultaneous interpreting: The impact of task complexity and translation directionality on lexical bundles, Front. Psychol. 14:1252238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252238
Kohn, K., & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 41(1), 118-138. https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Levelt, W. J. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.
Magnifico, C., & Defrancq, B. (2019). Self-repair as a norm-related strategy in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for gendered approaches to interpreting. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 31(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18076.mag
Manrique, M., & Sánchez Abchi, V. (2015). Teachers’ practices and mental models: Transformation through reflection on action. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n6.2
Mirek, J. (2022). Translational self-repairs in trainee conference interpreters: Preliminary findings from a pilot study. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 9, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.51287/cttl20221
Mirek, J. (2023). Self-repairs in simultaneous interpreting: A study into repair mechanisms of trainee interpreters [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lublin.
Moghaddam, R. G., Davoudi, M., Adel, S. M. R., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). Reflective teaching through journal writing: A study on EFL teachers’ reflection-for-action, reflection-in-action, and reflection-on-action. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00041-2
Moser, B. (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 (pp. 353-368). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_31
Moser-Mercer, B. (2000). Simultaneous interpreting: Cognitive potential and limitations. Interpreting, 5(2), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.03mos
Owen, W.F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383697
Paice, E. (2022). The influence of sex on self-repair disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ghent University.
Paradis, M. (1994). Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation. The framework. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10(3), 319-335.
Petite, C. (2004). Repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting. A corpus-based analysis of interpreters’ deployment of processing resources (English/French/German) [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Heriot-Watt University
Petite, C. (2005). Evidence of repair mechanisms in simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based analysis. Interpreting, 7, 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.03pet
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802
Rasouli, F. (2022). The impact of developing short-term memory on the interpretation performance of students, Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 64-68. https://doi.org/10.24086/cuejhss.v6n1y2022.pp64-68
Robin, Y. R. (2006). Repair in web-based conversation: A case of Chinese academic discussion [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Leicester.
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research methodologies in translation studies. St. Jerome. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760100
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating reflective practitioners. Jossey-Bass.
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: existing theories - new models. Interpreting, 13, 176–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
Setton, R. (1997). A pragmatic theory of simultaneous interpretation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Shen, M., & Liang, J. (2021). Self-repair in consecutive interpreting: Similarities and differences between professional interpreters and student interpreters. Perspectives, 29(5), 761-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907 676x.2019.1701052
Tang, F. (2020). Repair strategies in consecutive interpreting: Comparing professional interpreters and interpreting trainees. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 12(2), 36-46.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103-127.
Vranjes, J. & Defranq, B. (2024). To repair or not to repair? Repairs and risk taking in video remote interpreting. Perspectives, 32(5), 867- 888. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2194546
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
Zhao, X. & Huang, J. (2025). Interpreter mediation as other-initiated self-repair in court: Effects on the defence in Chinese bilingual criminal trials. Lingua, 313, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103850
Zhang, W. & Song, Z. (2019). The effect of self-repair on judged quality of consecutive interpreting: Attending to content, form, and delivery. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 11(1), 4-19.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Olcay Şener Erkırtay
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don't have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Exceptions to copyright policy
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.
