Translational Challenges in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Case Study
Abstract
Simultaneous interpreting, as a demanding discipline, requires advanced language competencies in both working languages, strong cognitive abilities, and a solid understanding of interpreting techniques. As a complex skill that requires thorough study, it is essential to shed light on its fundamental characteristics through a descriptive method. This paper aims to present the challenges and issues that may arise during the process of simultaneous interpreting. The primary focus of this work is an analysis of an interpreter’s performance while rendering a speech from English to Serbian at a United Nations conference. This research paper examines the challenges observed during the simultaneous (conference) interpretation provided on the national broadcasting service, with a focus on interpreting techniques, cognitive processing, and errors that impact message fidelity. Through a translational analysis based on a product-oriented view of quality, the study identifies errors in simultaneous interpreting and distinguishes them from interpreting techniques. The analysis focuses on the linguistic accuracy and completeness of the interpreted output. Linguistic accuracy refers to the correct and faithful rendering of both grammatical structures and semantic content, ensuring that the meaning and form of the source message are preserved. Completeness, in this context, is defined as the accurate transfer of the entire message, including key ideas, speaker intentions, and discourse structure. Delivery related features such as intonation, voice quality, and prosody fall outside the scope of this study. The descriptive analysis of the interpreted segments of the speech reveals that most problems stem from cognitive skill deficits, indicating that the interpreter’s insufficiently developed memory processes impeded delivery at a high level of accuracy.
References
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Collados-Aís, Á., & García Becerra, O. (2015). Quality. In: H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 371–372). London: Routledge.
Desmet, B., Vandierendonck, M., & Defrancq, B. (2018). Simultaneous interpretation of numbers and the impact of technological support. In: C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and Technology (pp. 13–27). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1493281
Es-sousy, A., Alaoui, Y., & Jalid, K. (2023). The influence of speed on error rates in simultaneous interpreting: An observational study (English to Arabic). International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 6(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt
Falbo, C. (2002). Error analysis: A research tool. In: G. Garzone, P. Mead, & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Perspectives on Interpreting (pp. 111–127). Bologna: CLUEB.
Fernández, I. E. (2016). Interactions between speaker’s speech rate, orality and emotional involvement, and perceptions of interpreting difficulty: A preliminary study. In: C. Calvo Rigual & N. Spinolo (Eds.), Translating Orality (MonTI Special Issue 3trans) (pp. 1–32). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2016.ne3.1
Fortuna, R. S. (2025). English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ speech errors: Implications for English language teaching. Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(3), 1273–1292. https://doi.org/10.55927/fjmr.v4i3.118
Garzone, G. (2003). Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In: Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: investigación (pp. 23–30). Granada: Comares.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. (1999). Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation. HERMES—Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 12(22), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v12i22.25493
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Revised edition). Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. (2018). Simultaneous interpreting. In: C. Sin-Wai (Ed.), An Encyclopedia of Practical Translation and Interpreting (pp. 531–562). Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtzp7q
Hanaoka, O. (2002). Proper names in the media: Problems for translators/interpreters and L2 learners. Interpretation Studies, 2, 28–42.
Horváth, I. (2012). Interpreter Behaviour: A Psychological Approach. Budapest: Hang Nyelviskola Bt.
Ibrahim, M. M., & Habeeb, R. T. (2023). Cultural discrepancies encountered by interpreters in international conferences. Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities, 3(4), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.3.4.13
Li, R., Liu, K., & Cheung, A. K. F. (2023). Interpreter visibility in press conferences: A multimodal conversation analysis of speaker-interpreter interactions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), Article 454. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01974-7
Mankauskienė, D. (2018). Problems and difficulties in simultaneous interpreting from the point of view of skill acquisition. In: S. Barschdorf & D. Renna (Eds.), Translating Boundaries: Constraints, Limits, Opportunities (pp. 1–24). Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43–55.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 69–100.
Plevoets, K., & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.04ple
Pöchhacker, F. (2002). Researching interpreting quality. In: G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century (pp. 95–106). Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010). Interpreting studies. In: Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol 1 (pp. 158–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Quini, H. (1993). English broadcast interpreting (in Japanese). Interpreting Research, 3(1), 38–45.
Riccardi, A. (1999). Attuali metodi di valutazione dell’interpretazione presso la SSLMIT. In: M. Viezzi (Ed.), Quality Forum 1997. Esperienze, problemi, prospettive (pp. 33–50). Trieste: SSLMIT.
Russell, D. (2005). Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. In: T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp. 135–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.10rus
Russo, M. (2010). Simultaneous interpreting. In: Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 333–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seeber, K. G. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive-pragmatic approach. In: H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 79–95). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.03see
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tahir, A. B. M., & Pinilih, M. S. (2023). Errors and problems faced by the students in practicing consecutive interpreting. EDUJ: English Education Journal, 1(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.59966/eduj.v1i1.471
The details about the publication policy, including copyright and licensing, are available at: