Tomasz Wiech

Kielce, Poland
tomasz.wiech@interia.pl
Typology of barriers and disturbances in simultaneous interpreting
On the basis of the definition of communication proposed by Jastrzbowska
[1:30] who claims that it is a human interaction of exchanging ideas, thoughts,
feelings or information, as well as the model of communication system introduced by
Shannon and Weaver [2:5], it is firmly believed that the abovementioned process
occurs in simultaneous interpreting. That thesis has been proved by comprehensive
studies conducted by many authors such as Shveitser [3:60], Zimnyaya [4:10] or
Shernov [5:1], therefore, if we make an assumption that the process of interpretation
and communication are characterised by the same regularities, it allows us to claim
that similar barriers and interferences occur in both cases.
In the literature one may find a statement that the barriers and disturbances are
caused by various factors, for example, Ncki [6:136-8] points out determinants like
the efficiency of the speech and hearing organs, perception, motivation, social,
cultural, emotional and environmental, Grimshaw [7:29] - the knowledge of the same
language, attention and correct interpretation, whereas Jaspers [8:237-8] - verbosity,
ambiguity, empty names and language degradation.
Before proceeding any further it must be stressed that according to Kaczmarek
[9:19-20] the typical act of communication consists of two main stages initial and
final. In the former one a speaker encodes information and sends it to a listener,
whereas in the latter the message is received and decoded. On that basis it can be
claimed that interferences arise due to the fault of the speaker or listener. In contrast
to above, Shernov [5:8-9] openly contends that the act of communication in the
rendering is more complicated because the message is sent to the audience from two
sources - the speaker and interpreter; therefore, it can be briefly stated that the
disturbances occur between:

1. the speaker and audience (S-A);

2. the speaker and interpreter (S-I);
3. the interpreter and audience (I-A).
The table below shows the appearance of different barriers and interferences
between individual participants in the simultaneous communication:

Type of

barriers/disturbances in

S-I
language barrier
unclear words
natural disfluencies
sentence structure
memory
prosodic features
stress
perception
psychoactive substances

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

S-A
+

I-A
+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

The meticulous analysis of the communication acts in rendering shows the

appearance of the language barrier. Although it seems completely obvious that the
problem concerns S-A because both participants do not share the same linguistic
code, it is worth stressing that the current issue may also occur between S-I and I-A
when unclear or ambiguous words and phrases are used. It is likely to happen if the
listeners do not recognise the speakers intended meaning. According to Baldick et al.
[10:12], such situations are commonly observed in economics or political speeches.
Another factor is disfluencies regarded as a natural part of speech. Among
them Graham [11:206-208] points out the following: anticipation, perseveration,
omission, omission (haplology), addition, exchange, substitution, substitution
(malapropism), substitution (derivation error) and blend. In turns, Celce-Murcia
[12:195] adds: blends (contaminations), spoonerisms and maskings. It should be
stressed that those disfluencies, which may appear between S-I and I-A, differ across
the languages, personalities and circumstances.

In addition to the aforementioned, some researches pay attention to the

structure of a sentence. Kautz [13:341-345] claims that the syntax is rendered easier
if its linear structure is regular. In irregular ones the whole sentence must be heard
before the word order is changed. In such a case the words are stored in short-term
memory, however, the memory has its limits because the target and source language
differ. Golka [14:19] adds that in the diplomacy speeches there are also deliberately
encoded clauses, although their structure is regular, for example, although the
speaker says I did not understand correctly, he means I do not agree.
Many modern publications devote attention to some prosodic features of the
speech such as pauses, speech rate and intonation. Frequency studies show that they
enable the interpreter to:
understand the semantic organisation of a sentence,
distinguish new or important information in the utterance, questions and turns in
the discourse,
plan the discourse if longer silent moments are made.
It must be stressed that those advantages occur under certain conditions.
Firstly, the length of pauses must be at least 200-270 msec. Secondly, the rate
of speech must stand between 100-120 words per minute because the average shortterm memory storages only 7 2 non-related chunks. Thirdly, the speech should not
be monotonous. According to Pichler [15:56], such a situation is not common and
it can be sometimes observed in read texts mainly. The source texts are usually full
of hesitation pauses, they are read rapidly or/and deprived of full spectrum
of intonation patterns. Those factors lead to many kinds of mistranslation, loss
of information and comprehension difficulties between I-A.
The studies show that the process of communication between S-I, S-A and I-A
is also constantly influenced by stress. The research communities distinguish three
main forms of stress:
psychological - internal factors (e.g.: discomforts, biases and assumptions) which,
according to Kurz [16:201-206], have positive impact;

 physical - external factors (e.g.: temperature, humidity, air quality, etc.) which
distract from receiving the message;
physiological - physical responses to a stressor (e.g.: the increment of heart rate,
blood pressure, respiration rate, digestion problems, etc.) which mobilise the body
for a short period of time.
Grimshaw [6:178], on the other hand, claims that all interferences result of the
perception. A comprehensive description of the problem is presented below.

A considerable number of clinical studies proved that process of

communication is disturbed by psychoactive substances. A research conducted by the
experts from the Bundescriminalamt in Wiesbaden [17:117-118] shows that alcohol
and drugs cause linguistic errors (e. g.: insertions, repetitions, substitutions and
omissions), impaired prosody (e.g.: slow/fast rate of speech, long pauses, incorrect
intonation and nosalisation), semantic errors (e.g.: ungrammatical sentences or
unclear words/phrases) and impaired comprehension.
It should be stressed that other hypothesis of the factors may be found in the
literature of the subject. Nevertheless, the presented barriers and disturbances can be
divided into three main categories:
linguistic improper message decoding as a result of different codes (i.e.
language, words and phrases) and speech disfluencies;

 individual improper message decoding as a result of internal and external factors

like memory, prosodic features, perception, stress and psychoactive substances;
textual improper message decoding as a result of the structure of sentence.
It should be also added that the speaker and interpreter take the tremendously
responsibility for all kind of barriers, except for physical ones.
A careful reader may observe that there is still a limited number of information
about barriers and disturbances in simultaneous interpreting. There are two main
reasons for such a situation. Firstly, many modern publications which actually do
touch on the issue focus on the relation between the speaker and interpreter only and
secondly, it is difficult to propose comprehensive typology because the process of
rendering consists of many inseparable elements. Therefore, the outlined typology
is only initial.

List of References
1. Jastrzbowska G.: Podstawy logopedii dla studentw logopedii, pedagogiki,
psychologii i filologii, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytety Opoloskiego, Opole 1995
2. Shannon C., Weaver W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication, The
University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1848
3. Shevitser A.: Pervod i linguistika, Voenizdat, Moscov 1973
4. Zimnyaya I.S.: The psychology of listening and speaking, Dissertation for a
Doctorate of Psychology, Moscow 1973 (unpublished)
5. Shernov G.: Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting, John
Benjamins B.V., Amsterdam 2004
6. Ncki Z.: Komunikacja midzyludzka, Wydawnictwo Profesjonalnej Szkoy
Bizensu, Krakw 1996
7. Grimshaw A.: Comprehensive Discourse Analysis: An Instance of Profesional
Peer Interaction [in:] Language and Society 11, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1982
8. Jaspers K.: Jzyk, PIW, Warszawa 1990
9. Kaczmarek L.: Nasze dziecko uczy si mowy, Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, Lublin
1977
10. Baldick R., Brown A., Bushnell J., Tierney S., Winter T.: A National Perspective
on Allocating the Costs of New Transmission Investment: Practice and
Principles, WIRES, Washington 2007
11. Garnham A.: Psycholingusitics. Central Topics. Methuen, London 1985
12. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, (ed.) Fromkin V., The Hague Mouton, Los
Angels 1973
13. Kautz U.: Handbuch Didaktik des bersetzens und Dolmetschens, Iudicium,
Mnchen 2000
14. Bariery w komunikowania, ed. Golka M., Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersetu
im. Adama Mickiewicza, Pozna 2000

15. Pichler D.: Analisi vocale durante prove di interpretazione simultanea: un

confronto tra due situazioni stressogene, Universit degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste
1995 (unpublished dissertation)
16. Kurz I.: Interpreters: Stress and Situation-Dependent Control of Anxiety, [in:]
Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting, ed. K. Klaudy, J.
Kohn, Scholastica, Budapest 1997
17. Rzeszotarski J.: Speech disorders and linguistic errors in voice and audio
analysis, [in:] Problems of Forensic Sciences, vol. LIII, Instytut
Ekpertyz Sdowych, Krakw 2003