ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in
simultaneous interpreting
Investigación basada en corpus sobre el uso de VSO-SVO
en la interpretación simultánea
ALADDIN AL ZAHRAN
aalzahran@su.edu.om
Sohar University (Omán)
R
AFIK JAMOUSSI
rjamoussi@su.edu.om
Sohar University (Omán)
Fecha de recepción: 08/03/2022
Fecha de aceptación: 02/12/2022
Abstract: One of the major challenges in English>Arabic simultaneous
interpreting (SI) is the handling of structural asymmetry between subject-verb-
object (SVO) English and the verb-subject-object (VSO) structure in Modern
Standard Arabic (henceforth Arabic). In Arabic, a VSO word order is dominant
although a nominal clause with several variations is also available, including
a marked SVO structure with a preverbal subject followed by a verbal
predicate (VPr.) functioning as its khabar (rheme/comment). This paper
reports on an empirical study of the handling of structural asymmetry between
English SVO and Arabic VSO structures in English>Arabic SI. The study uses
a parallel corpus consisting of the transcription of 10 multiple Arabic SI
versions of three political English speeches. We hypothesize that the Arabic
simultaneous interpreters are more likely to use the English-mimicking SVO
structure since it is easier to process and requires less cognitive load on their
memory. The results of our corpus-based analysis indicate that the marked
SVO structure was used more frequently than the unmarked VSO structure.
These results lead to the conclusion that the use of the SVO clause is a feature
of English>Arabic SI. We also conclude that the Arabic simultaneous
interpreters were effectively engaged in «form-based processing» by opting
for the structure that has the closest match to English SVO structures as a
tactic to cope with syntactic asymmetry. Our conclusions lend support to the
«language-pair specificity» hypothesis since the lack of need for restructuring
is only available in SI between language pairs with similar or flexible
structures.
232 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Keywords: Language-pair specificity, Syntactic asymmetry, VSO-SVO ratio,
Simultaneous interpreting, Corpus analysis
Resumen: Uno de los principales retos de la interpretación simultánea (IS)
inglés>árabe es el manejo de la asimetría estructural entre el sujeto-verbo-
objeto (SVO) inglés y la estructura verbo-sujeto-objeto (VSO) del árabe
moderno estándar (en adelante, árabe). En árabe predomina el orden
sintáctico VSO, aunque también existe una cláusula nominal con diversas
variantes, incluida una estructura SVO marcada con un sujeto preverbal
seguido de un predicado verbal que funciona como su khabar
(rema/comentario). Este trabajo aborda un estudio empírico del manejo de la
asimetría estructural entre las estructuras SVO inglesas y VSO árabes en
interpretación simultánea (IS) inglés>árabe. El estudio utiliza un corpus
paralelo que consiste en la transcripción de 10 versiones múltiples de SI en
árabe de tres discursos políticos en inglés. Nuestra hipótesis es que los
intérpretes simultáneos de árabe son más propensos a utilizar la estructura
SVO que imita el inglés, ya que es más fácil de procesar y requiere menos
carga cognitiva en su memoria. Los resultados de nuestro análisis basado en
el corpus indican que la estructura SVO marcada se utilizó con más
frecuencia que la estructura VSO no marcada. Estos resultados llevan a la
conclusión de que el uso de la cláusula SVO es una característica de la IS
inglés>árabe. También concluimos que los intérpretes simultáneos de árabe
realizaban efectivamente un «procesamiento basado en la forma» al optar
por la estructura que más se aproxima a las estructuras SVO del inglés como
táctica para hacer frente a la asimetría sintáctica. Nuestras conclusiones
apoyan la hipótesis de la «especificidad del par de lenguas», ya que la falta
de necesidad de reestructuración sólo se da en las IS entre pares de lenguas
con estructuras similares o flexibles.
Palabras clave: Especificidad del par de idiomas, Asimetría sintáctica, Ratio
VSO-SVO, Interpretación simultánea, Análisis de corpus.
I
NTRODUCTION
A significant volume of research on interpreting strategies has
addressed the problem of language-pair-specific factors. One such factor is
structural asymmetry, i.e., when structural elements occur at different places
in the source language (SL) and the target language (TL) segments being
interpreted. Studies have focused on the impact of structural asymmetry on
simultaneous interpreting (SI), especially involving languages with verb-last,
left branching or subject-object-verb (SOV) structures. Interpreting from
German has frequently been reported as an extreme challenge due to the
German verb-last structure and multiple embeddings. The literature has long
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 233
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
identified strategies which interpreters often resort to to cope with these
language-specific features. These include segmentation, waiting, lagging,
restructuring, anticipation, using fillers or padding expressions (see, for
instance, Goldman-Eisler, 1972; Kirchhoff, 1976/2002; Moser, 1978; Van
Besien, 1999; Bevilacqua, 2009; Seeber & Kerzel, 2011). Syntactic
asymmetry also caused difficulties in SI into SOV languages, forcing German
and Dutch interpreters to use extraposition of subordinate clause elements
from the middle field to a post-verbal position as a coping tactic (Collard,
Przybyl & Defrancq, 2018).
Studies on SI involving Chinese discussed similar structural challenges
and coping tactics. The coincidence of syntactic asymmetry and other
variables such as information density or absence of cognitive context
obstructed Chinese>English SI (Setton, 1999, p. 282), and «conflicting
structure» was considered «a source of significant additional cognitive load»
(Setton, 2005, p. 71). Differing «rhetorical patterns» in Chinese<>English SI
may have impacted the choice of interpreting strategies (Chang & Schallert,
2007, p. 172). Strategies identified in Chinese<>English SI include re-
structuring, waiting, segmentation and anticipation, as well as frequent and
exceptionally long pauses (Dawrant, 1996, as cited in Chang & Schallert,
2007, p. 141; Guo, 2011, as cited in Wang & Zou, 2018, p. 67; Wang & Gu,
2016).
In SI from Japanese, predictable sentence endings were considered a
language-specific factor that provided a potential relief of processing capacity
by reducing simultaneity of listening and speaking compared to English,
French and particularly German (Gile, 1992, 2009, p. 174). The
English>Japanese SI of Obama’s 2009 inaugural address was found to be
more difficult than English>French and English>German SI (Gile, 2011).
Frequent segmentation and passivation were used in Japanese<>English to
reduce time lag while memory limitations led to generalizations and omissions
(He et al., 2016).
Other languages were also the subject of investigation in studies of
«language-pair specificity» (Setton, 1999, p. 55). Syntactic transformation
attributed in some cases to language-pair specificity was more common
during Polish>English SI than the opposite direction (Bartłomiejczyk, 2006,
pp. 168-169). Linguistic autonomy of TL text from SL text was not supported
for syntactic-semantic restructuring in an experimental study of
English>French SI-with-text (Setton & Motta, 2007, p. 217). This finding
indicates that when languages have similar structures, interpreters use
reordering less frequently and vice versa. Language-pair specificity led to a
higher frequency of repairs in English>Turkish than English>Lithuanian SI
(Dailidėnaitė, 2009, p. 24). In English>Spanish SI, the Spanish TL renditions
234 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
were partly governed by the syntax, lexis, morphology, and phonology
trademarks of the SL texts. It was thus concluded that SI is mostly a
«language-specific» endeavor (Alonso Bacigalupe, 2010, p. 50).
Arabic has had its own, albeit modest, share of research into syntactic
asymmetries and language-pair specificity as this area remains under-
researched. In what represents one of the rare investigations into English-
Arabic SI, Al-Rubai’i (2004) found that «problematic linear arrangements»,
including such features as pre-modification, noun-phrase and that-clause
subjects, non-finite clauses and the combination of non-finite clauses and
parenthetical sentences forced interpreters to employ «Trackings», a strategy
that consists of closely following the English structures in order to avoid
restructuring (Al-Rubai’i, 2004, pp. 257-258). In another comparative study of
English>Arabic SI performance using the retrospective analysis of 15
postgraduates, it was found that there were reduced awareness levels of
language-pair specific «problem triggers», including word order and passive
structures (Shamy & De Pedro Ricoy, 2017). The co-occurrence of structural
disparity and long/complex source initial subjects caused difficulty, cognitive
overload and information loss in a corpus-analytical study of English>Arabic
SI, providing evidence of language-pair specificity and form-based processing
(Al Zahran, 2021). These studies make recommendations for incorporating
strategy instruction, language-pair specific factors and the lessons learned
into the interpreter educational curriculum.
As can be seen from the survey of the literature, there are only a few
scholarly writings on language-pair specificity in English>Arabic SI. That being
said, the present paper is an attempt to contribute to the scant literature and
fill a gap in this under-researched area. Besides, the results and conclusions
of this study could potentially contribute to existing literature on the challenges
caused by structural asymmetry and the language-pair specificity hypothesis.
The investigation of these asymmetries and the strategies interpreters employ
to address them provides language-pair particulars that are valuable for
interpreting practice, allowing interpreter training to go beyond generic issues.
The present paper investigates structural asymmetry in SI from English
into Modern Standard Arabic (henceforth Arabic) brought about by the
disparity between the English subject-verb-object (henceforth SVO) and
Arabic verb-subject-object (henceforth VSO) structures. The VSO structure in
Arabic is the basic or normal structure, but not the only one available for Arabic
simultaneous interpreters since a nominal clause presenting itself in several
variations, including an SVO structure, is also possible (see Section 1).
We therefore hypothesize that in English>Arabic SI, interpreters will
more likely opt for subject-initial (henceforth S-initial) nominal clauses
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 235
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
because these are easier to process and require less cognitive load on
memory. We further hypothesize that when the S-initial clause is opted for,
the verbal predicate (VPr.) would be used as its khabar (rheme or comment),
giving rise to an SVO clause that is identical to English SVO structures.
The main objective of this investigation is to determine the structure
predominantly employed by professionals in English>Arabic SI. In other
words, the focus is on how deviant the VSO/S-initial pattern ratio is in SI. The
comparison of structures used across the multiple versions of the Arabic SI
Sub-corpus is expected to provide an insight into the way syntactic asymmetry
is handled by the professional interpreters. As has just been hypothesized, we
anticipate here that our corpus-based analysis will display deviation from the
dominant Arabic word order, VSO structure. We are of the opinion that the S-
initial structure will be more frequently used by the Arabic simultaneous
interpreters to cope with syntactic asymmetry and avoid the difficulties
associated with syntactic asymmetry.
To further assess the validity of the VSO/S-initial distribution results, a
second layer of analysis is conducted to determine the type of khabar used
when an S-initial structure is opted for by the interpreter. If the VPr. is used
more frequently as khabar of the S-initial clauses, the results will indicate a
tendency for using the Arabic structure (SVO) that is easier to process
because it bears the closest resemblance to English SVO structures. It could
help to express the research objectives here as questions:
• Objective 1: What is the VSO/S-initial ratio in individual
performances and overall, in Arabic interpreted speeches
(Arabic SI Sub-corpus)?
• Objective 2: When the S-initial structure is opted for, which type
of khabar is used in the nominal clause?
To that end, we implement a corpus-based analysis of 10 Arabic SI
performances (Arabic SI Sub-corpus) of three original English Speeches
(English Speeches Sub-corpus).
In the following sections, we discuss the structures available for the
Arabic simultaneous interpreter when interpreting from an SVO language, in
this case English. In the methodology section, we briefly review the
contribution of corpus linguistics to the study of translation and interpreting
before we embark on a description of the corpora employed for the present
analysis.
236 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
1. ARABIC VSO AND S-INITIAL STRUCTURES
In Arabic, clauses have two types: verbal (jumla fi’liyya) and nominal
(julma ismiyya). The typical, unmarked verbal sentence starts with the verb,
which is normally followed by the subject and other components. Nominal
clauses feature an S-initial word order, including an SV(O) structure. This SVO
structure appears predominant outside the standard variety of Arabic, that is,
in spoken dialects, although this is conditional on such factors as the
foreground/background distinction, topicalization, focusing, topicality,
animacy, aspect (perfective versus imperfective verbs) and rhythm (Dahlgren,
2009).
The VSO structures are realized through verbal clauses and are
overwhelmingly regarded as the basic Arabic word order. Many designations
have been used to describe the basicness of Arabic VSO structures, including
«unmarked» (Fassi-Fehri, 1993, p. 19; Mohammad, 2000, p. 1) or «normal»,
«most frequent», «neutral», «dominant» structure (Abdul-Raof, 1998, pp. 43-
57). They are also considered as the «default» (Hoyt, 2009, p. 654; Dahlgren,
2009, p. 728) and «discourse neutral» (Mohammad, 2000, p. 1) or
«pragmatically neutral» (Fassi-Fehri, 1993, p. 19) word order. In fact, Hoyt
(2009, p. 654) argues that whenever Standard Arabic is said to have a basic
word order, it is nearly invariably considered to be the VSO structure.
In VSO constructions, the nominal constituent normally occurs in a
postverbal position, and there is a broad consensus among classical and
contemporary Arabic linguists that it is regarded as a syntactic «subject»
irrespective of its semantic or pragmatic function. Sentence (1) in Table 1 has
an unmarked VSO structure with a postverbal subject and is to be contrasted
with (2) and (4), where the nominal constituents fall in a preverbal position,
thus forming marked SVO structures.
Nominal clauses have an S-initial structure and are either verbless or
have a verb that is not in an initial position (SVO) but follows a sentence-initial
nominal constituent and functions as a VPr. Nominal clauses have two core
elements with a nominative form, a mubtada, meaning «that which is begun
with» or «inchoative» and khabar (predicate), which literally means «news,
report [or] comment» (Hoyt, 2009, p. 653) because it communicates
information on the mubtada. Mubtada and khabar have thus been described
in English as topic and comment (Versteegh, 2007, p. 354), and are equated
with theme and rheme (Abdul-Raof, 1998, p. 93), with theme or topic being
the given information and rheme or comment communicating the new
information on the theme.
The S-initial and SVO designations are used in Arabic irrespective of
whether the sentence-initial (preverbal) nominal constituent is analyzed as a
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 237
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
«grammatical subject» or «grammatical topic» (Hoyt, 2009, p. 653). The
question here is whether the verb is used in the normal initial position or has
been delayed. In the latter case, delaying the verb occurs by opting for an
Arabic structure identical to English SVO structures, potentially as a coping
tactic for handling asymmetric word order. Thus, the S-initial and SVO
concepts in Arabic are only used as in juxtaposition to the VSO structure
whether the sentence-initial constituent functions as an agentive subject or
mubtada functioning as a theme or topic.
Khabar has four types: (1) an adjective (adj.); (2) a verbal predicate
(VPr.) with a verbal inflection to reflect agreement in tense, person, number
and gender with the mubtada; (3) noun phrase (NP) with a personal pronoun
or connector that refers back to or is bound by the mubtada; and (4) an
adverbial (AdvP) or prepositional phrase (PP) (Al Afghani, 2003, p. 229; Hoyt,
2008, p. 381). Table 1 contains examples of VSO and S-initial structures with
khabar types from the Arabic SI Sub-corpus used in the present analysis.
It is particularly noticeable that the Arabic S-initial structures in (2) and
(4) consist of preverbal nominal constituents, thus forming with the following
VPr. SVO structures that are identical to English SVO clauses. As will be seen
in the discussion of methodology in Section 2, one layer of analysis of the
Arabic SI Sub-corpus will be to investigate the type of khabar mostly used in
the S-initial structures. If the VPr. is used as khabar more frequently, the
results will indicate a tendency (or coping tactic or strategy for that matter) by
the Arabic simultaneous interpreters to use the structure bearing the closest
similarity to English SVO structures.
No.
Type of
structure
Sentence and its transcription and
word-for-word translation*
Source
(1)
VSO
مﺎﻋ فﻟﻷفﻗو رھزﻷا .مﻼﺳﻹا مﯾﻠﻌﺗﻟ ةرﺎﻧﻣﻛ
līʾalfī ʿāmin ūqfā al-ʾāzhru kāmānārẗin
lītāʿlīmī al-ʾīslām.
For a thousand year(s), stood Al-Azhar
as a beacon for teaching Al-Islam.
Speech I Arabic
SI Version 1
(2)
S-initial / SVO
برﻐﻟا نﯾﺑو مﻼﺳﻹا نﯾﺑ ﺔﻗﻼﻌﻟا لﺧدﯾ نﻣ نورﻗ ﺎﮭﯾﻓ
.شﯾﺎﻌﺗﻟاو نوﺎﻌﺗﻟا
al-ʿlāqẗu bīna al-islāmi ūbīna al-ġarbi
īadẖulu fīhā qurūnun mina al-taʿāūni
wāltaʿāīuš.
Speech I Arabic
SI Version 1
238 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
The relationship between Al-Islam and
the West includes in-it
centuries of
(the) coexistence and (the) cooperation.
Khabar types
in S-initial
clauses
(3)
Khabar as adj.
طﺳوﻷا قرﺷﻟا
يرﺛ
ﺔﯾوﯾﺣ ﺔﻓﺎﻘﺛو ﻲﻌﯾﺑط لﺎﻣﺟﺑ
.ﺔﯾﻌﯾﺑطﻟا زوﻧﻛﻟا نﻣ ةرﯾﺑﻛ تﺎﯾﻣﻛو
al-šarqu al-ʾāūsaṭu ṯarīun biǧamālin
ṭabīʿīin ūṯaqāfẗin ḥaīawīaẗin ūkamīātin
kabīraẗin mina al-kunūzi al-ṭabīʿīaẗ.
The East Middle (is) rich with beauty
natural and culture vibrant and
quantities big of treasures natural.
Speech III
Arabic SI
Version 2
(4)
Khabar as
VPr. (SVO)
لﺎطﺑﻷا اوﻠﺗﻘﯾ ﻻ .ءﺎﯾرﺑﻷا
al-ʾābṭālu lā īaqtulwā al-ʾābrīā.
(The) heroes (do) not kill the innocent.
Speech III
Arabic SI
Version 1
(5)
Khabar as NP
مﻼﺳﻹا
ﺦﯾرﺎﺗ ﮫﻟ
.ﺢﻣﺎﺳﺗﻟا ﻲﻓ ﮫﺑ رﺧﻔﯾ
al-īslāmu lahu tārīẖun īafẖaru bihi fī al-
tasāmuḥ.
Al-Islam to-it [has] (a) history (that)
prides itself in-
it in tolerance (has a
proud tradition of tolerance].
Speech I Arabic
SI Version 2
(6)
Khabar as
AdvP
موﯾﻟا
يدﻧﻋ
نﺎﯾﺑ .بوﺗﻛﻣ
al-īūma ʿindī baīānun maktūb.
Today, at-me
1
[I have] (a) statement
written.
Speech II,
Arabic SI
Version 1
(7)
Khabar as PP
ونﺣﻧ
دادﻌﺗﺳا ﻰﻠﻋ
.ﺎﻣدﻗ رﯾﺳﻧ نأ
wanaḥnu ʿalai aistiʿdādin ān nasīra
qudumān.
And we (are) on readiness [ready] to
move forward.
Speech I, Arabic
SI Version 3
1
This is an example of AdvP functioning as a fronted khabar.
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 239
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
* The verbs in VSO and SVO structures and in khabar as VPr. are in bold type. Subjects or
mubtada constituents are always underlined while other khabar elements are italicized. Word-
for-word translations are provided, and items in brackets in the translations are implied. Items
in square brackets are given to clarify word-for-word translations.
Table 1: Examples of Arabic VSO and S-initial structures and khabar types
from Corpus
Arabic is normally characterized by a relatively high density of
agreement signals between phrase and clause constituents. This agreement
is clearly realized in declensions and the use of lower and upper diacritical
marks to indicate function or case. The presence of declensions and diacritical
marks allows for a great deal of structural flexibility, rendering word order not
to be the primary identifier of grammatical function/case. The «relative
freedom» of Arabic word order can be explained in terms of «basic» and
«derived» word orders (e.g., Abdul-Raof, 1998, Ch. 3). The VSO structure is
regarded as the basic word order while the S-initial variants are the derived
ones. In Arabic, any sentence-initial constituent that is not a verb is used for
«pragmatic (or rhetorical) purposes» (Abdul-Raof, 1998, p. 6). Normally, that
purpose will be the emphasis of the fronted element.
Sentence (1) would be viewed as exhibiting a basic, unmarked word
order not entailing any pragmatic or rhetorical function while (2) and (4) are
exhibiting a derived order with fronted nominal constituents entailing a
pragmatic emphasis of the fronted elements.
In SI from an SVO language, this relative structural flexibility in Arabic
provides simultaneous interpreters with a choice between the basic VSO
structure and any of the four derived S-initial structures realized in sentences
(2) to (7), including the SVO structure. It must be borne in mind that the choice
of the VSO structure would probably entail a risk of cognitive overload and
potential ensuing information loss or even failure. This risk becomes more
serious when syntactic asymmetry is combined with such aggravating factors
as semantic density, syntactic complexity, or a high SL presentation rate.
Opting for the SVO structure, however, would be easier to process but would
have the downside of introducing a shift in register and pragmatic focus.
Outside SI and in carefully conceived and drafted speeches and writings, each
of the structures described above would be used for specific pragmatic,
stylistic or rhetorical purposes. Often in SI, the simultaneous interpreters’
chosen structure will presumably be the one that is easier to process without
much consideration of pragmatic, stylistic or rhetorical purposes. This
assumption is based on the well-documented memory and time constraints
involved in SI. What is meant by ‘easier to process’ here may be explained in
terms of structural similarity that, if it exists between a language pair, it will
impose less or no more of a cognitive load on the simultaneous interpreter.
240 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
More importantly, we contend here that the Arabic simultaneous
interpreters’ violation of such discourse conventions should not be viewed as
a language or interpreting error as such, but a tendency or coping tactic to
handle linguistic disparity.
2. M
ETHODOLOGY
The topic of interpreting strategies and language-pair specificity has
been approached using various empirical methods of investigation, including
experiments, retrospective, corpus analytical studies and, more recently,
corpus-based analyses. Our research falls within the last category as it utilizes
a corpus-based analysis to achieve the research goal and underlying
objectives. In her depiction of different translation aspects that can be readily
investigated using corpora, Shlesinger (1998, p. 488) includes grammatical
features of the kind addressed in the present study.
2.1 Corpus design
Just like methodology, corpus design depends on the purpose of the
study (Li, 2017). In our case, the focus is on the ratio of VSO and S-initial
structures in interpreted texts. To achieve this target, a parallel corpus was
built that consists of 10 multiple versions of professional English>Arabic SI of
three original English speeches (see Table 2).
ENGLISH SPEECHES SUB-
CORPUS
Speech I
Speech II
Speech III
Table 2: Multiple corpus composition
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 241
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
The corpus is multiple in the sense that for one source speech, several
interpretations into the same TL are available, instead of only one. This has
the obvious advantage of allowing for a comparison of performances across
interpreters and among interpreters dealing with a given speech (Castagnoli,
2011, p. 2).
2.2 Material selection and sampling
The texts making up the corpus are authentic political speeches. The
English Speeches Sub-corpus consists of three original English speeches.
Speech I was delivered by President Obama at Cairo University (Egypt) on 04
June 2009. Speech II consists of a written statement and question-and-
answer session during a press conference held by the Joint Special
Representative for Syria, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, at the UN Geneva Office on 31
January 2014. Speech III is President Donald Trump’s speech to the Arab
Islamic American Summit in Riyadh on 21 May 2017.
The Arabic SI Sub-corpus consists of multiple professional Arabic SIs
of the English Speeches Sub-corpus as broadcast on several Arabic TV news
channels and the UN Multimedia Website. There are three Arabic SIs for
Speech I (Al Jazeera, Al Arabia and Egyptian Channel One), one version for
Speech II (UN Multimedia) and six for Speech III (Al Jazeera Mubasher, Al
Saudia, Al Arabia, Al Hadath, Al Ghad and France 24 Arabic
2
; see Table 2).
A more detailed description of the three speeches and their Arabic SIs can be
found in Al Zahran (2021, pp. 58-59).
The corpus is believed to be representative of the work of conference
interpreters on several accounts. First, the original English speeches (English
Speeches Sub-corpus) and Arabic SIs (Arabic SI Sub-corpus) are authentic
conference speeches delivered and interpreted simultaneously in real-life
conference settings. Second, at the current stage of its development, the
corpus stands at 44,386 words and 8h 02ʹ 26ʺ (see Table 3). It can thus be
considered a relatively sizeable corpus given the narrow focus and difficulties
associated with compiling corpora of this structure in Interpreting Studies.
2
Since most of the original links to the video recordings of the source English speeches and their
Arabic simultaneous interpretations are no longer active, a link to these recordings can be
provided by the first author upon request.
242 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Materials and sample size
Sub corpora
No. of
texts
No. of
words
No. of
segments
analyzed
Duration
English Speeches Sub-
corpus:
Transcripts of English
Speeches
3
11,488
NA
1h 42ʹ 57ʺ
Arabic SI Sub-corpus:
Transcripts of Arabic SI
Performances
10
32,898
2,449
6h 19ʹ 29ʺ
Totals
13
44,386
2,449
8h 02ʹ 26ʺ
Table 3: Corpus size
Finally, the focus of the study, structural asymmetry, is independent of
text types and genres; therefore, conclusions drawn within the corpus can be
comfortably generalized. On the other hand, political speeches represent a
good percentage of interpreters’ jobs. Investigating the phenomenon of
structural asymmetry as it is manifested in this domain is thought to be doubly
pertinent.
2.3 Data coding
Verbatim records were created from the existing official transcripts of
the speeches making the English Speeches Sub-corpus. The SI
performances were orthographically transcribed verbatim. For validation, the
transcription went through one QA pass that included meticulous audio
checking and proofreading.
The transcription system adopted was basic but deemed adequate to
achieve the research purpose and objectives (Setton, 2002, p. 35; Love et al,
2017, p. 333). Standard orthography and punctuation were used, together with
a representation of speech phenomena such as idiosyncratic features
(accent) filled pauses, reproducing hesitations, false starts (Umm, Aah).
However, these filler statements were not normalized.
No markup was used. It is well known that XML markup is the option of
choice for spoken corpora and their transcriptions (Love et al, 2017, p. 338).
Although compiled within the framework of a more encompassing project, the
corpus is not meant as a resource to «support human language technology
research and evaluation» (Glenn et al, 2010, p. 2015). Many of the features
characterizing speech and necessitating XML markup for their transcription
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 243
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
are absent from the corpus. For instance, the speeches do not contain
backchannel acknowledgments («uhhuh»). Time alignment or synchronicity,
temporal or prosodic features were not reflected in the transcripts.
Alignment for the multiple corpus was performed manually. Opting for
manual alignment was motivated by the fact that the two languages involved
are remote, which gets in the way of a reasonably acceptable accuracy rate
(Ma, 2006, p. 489). Another determining factor for the use of manual alignment
is that working on speech, though scripted, makes sentence boundaries
blurred, with noise in the data (Ma, 2006, p. 489), false starts, skipped
sentences, merged sentences, etc. The segmentation relied on units that are
semantically and syntactically cohesive (Glenn et al, 2010, p. 2916).
At present, the corpus features no POS tagging. Only metadata
indicating the structure of choice (‘VSO’ or ‘S-initial’) or ‘Other’ (in the case of
non-clause/missing or incomplete segments) and type of khabar (‘adj.’, ‘VPr.’,
‘NP’ or ‘AdvP’/’PP’) were included. POS tagging represents one of the
common steps in corpus building as it allows for more flexibility in the search
for and identification of patterns. However, tagging is not considered
necessary for the purposes of the current investigation (Kenning, 2010, p.
490). This situation is to be seen as a stage in the development of the corpus,
rather than a final methodological decision about its building.
2.4 Data analysis
As indicated in 2.3, the speeches were segmented into independent
finite clauses making up semantically and syntactically acceptable units.
These units were categorized into VSO and S-initial structures. The S-initial
cases were further categorized according to the type of khabar used. The first
layer of analysis concerned the ratio of VSO and S-initial structures in
interpreted texts.
A further layer of analysis was carried out when an S-initial clause was
opted for by the simultaneous interpreters to determine the type of khabar
used. The results of this analysis could validate the findings of the analysis of
the ratio of VSO to S-initial structures. As indicated in the comment on
Sentences (2) and (4) in Section 1, the type of khabar used can potentially
provide reasonable assumptions on simultaneous interpreters’ strategic
behavior regarding their structure of choice. More specifically, the use of the
VPr. as khabar of the nominal clause will give rise to an SVO clause that bears
the closest similarity to English SVO structures. If the resultant SVO structure
is used more frequently by the Arabic simultaneous interpreters, the findings
will be indicative of a tendency or coping tactic to opt for the structure that is
identical to English SVO structures. In other words, the interpreters will be
opting for the structure that is easier to process in handling syntactic disparity,
244 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
thereby presumably avoiding cognitive overload and consequent information
loss or failure. As a corollary, the interpreters can be said to be engaged in
«form-based» processing (Isham, 1994, p. 207; Dam, 2001, p. 27), that is,
following the structure of the SL speech closely as a tactic to cope with
structural asymmetry.
Considering the oral nature of the Arabic SI Sub-corpus, some
segments contained non-clause items, translation gaps or unfinished
sentences and were coded ‘Other’. These amounted to 906 cases,
representing 27.0% of the corpus segments. They were discarded from the
analysis as they represent noise in the data, and their exclusion will allow for
a more effective comparison of the VSO/S-initial structure ratio.
3. F
INDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This Section presents the results of the data analysis and discussion of
the findings regarding the VSO/S-initial structure ratio and the type of khabar
used when a nominal clause was chosen by the Arabic simultaneous
interpreters.
3.1 VSO/S-initial structure ratio
A total of 2,449 segments qualified for analysis in the Arabic SI
performances (see Table 3). The overall results as summarized in Figure 1
reflect a marked trend indicating that the S-initial structure was the structure
mostly used by Arabic simultaneous interpreters in the majority (1,530) of the
segments identified, thus averaging out at 62.5%. In comparison, the VSO
structure occurred in 37.5% (919) of the total number of segments.
Approximately comparable results are obtained at the level of individual
speeches.
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 245
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Figure 1: Summary of VSO/S-initial structure ratio
A similar trend is observed at the level of individual SI performances as
is clearly demonstrated in Figure 2. This finding applies despite the noticeable
variation in the S-initial structure scores, which range from an outlier of 49.7%
obtained in Arabic SI Version 5 of Speech III, to 71.1% acquired in the Arabic
SI Version 2 of the same speech. The score acquired in the Speech III Arabic
SI Version 5 is an outlier in the sense that it is the only S-initial score that is
exceeded by a VSO score in all Arabic SI versions, albeit very insignificantly.
The findings offer compelling evidence that the S-initial structure is
mostly opted for by professionals in English>Arabic SI overall, as well as at
the levels of speeches and individual performances. The results therefore
provide support for our hypothesis and give a clear answer to the question of
Objective 1 about the structure most frequently used in English>Arabic SI.
The result is significant not only because the S-initial structure was
overwhelmingly opted for by the Arabic simultaneous interpreters, but also
because we know that the basic or default structure in Arabic is the VSO
structure. The VSO structure was expected to be the structure of choice by
the Arabic simultaneous interpreters, but the results have indicated otherwise
since the derived S-initial structure, not the basic VSO structure, was used
more frequently.
62,5%
62,9%
56,9%
62,5%
37,5%
37,1%
43,1%
37,5%
OVERALL RESULTS
SPEECH I
SPEECH II
SPEECH III
S-initial VSO
246 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Our plausible explanation is that the Arabic simultaneous interpreters
opted for the S-initial structure because it is like the source English SVO
structure and therefore easier to process than the VSO structure. Opting for
the asymmetrical VSO structure would require more processing time and
effort and restructuring and may very well impose a cognitive overload on
memory and with potential information loss or total communication failure on
occasions.
It is therefore reasonable to argue that the shift in register and, more
seriously, pragmatic focus by opting for the marked S-initial structure should
not be viewed as an interpreting error as much as a coping tactic. The Arabic
simultaneous interpreters had to choose either a VSO structure and risk
potential information loss or communication failure, or an S-initial structure
and risk violation of discourse conventions. The simultaneous interpreters’
more frequent choice in our analysis was obvious, opting for the S-initial
structure and giving more consideration to the communication of information
over rhetorical purpose.
The results also indicate that the Arabic simultaneous interpreters opted
for the VSO structure in just more than one-third of the cases, apparently trying
as much as possible to use what is known as the basic, default and unmarked
sentence structure.
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 247
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Figure 2: VSO/S-initial structure ratio in the Arabic SI performances of
Speeches I, II and II
68,0%
63,0%
57,4%
56,9%
66,3%
71,1%
66,5%
66,7%
49,7%
54,1%
32,0%
37,0%
42,6%
43,1%
33,7%
28,9%
33,5%
33,3%
50,3%
45,9%
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
VERSION 3
VERSION 1
VERSION 1
VERSION 2
VERSION 3
VERSION 4
VERSION 5
VERSION 6
SPEECH I
SPEECH
II
SPEECH III
S-initial VSO
248 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
3.2 Khabar type
As was discussed in section 1, Arabic nominal clauses have two core
elements, mubtada (theme or topic) and khabar (rheme or comment). Khabar
has four types, which are adj., VPr., NP and AdvP/PP (see Table 1 for
example sentences of the four khabar types from Corpus). A nominal clause
with a VPr. as khabar features an SVO structure and therefore bears the
closest resemblance to English SVO structures. This SVO construction is to
be contrasted with the basic or default VSO word order in Arabic, and its use
could represent a feature of English>Arabic SI.
The S-initial clauses were subjected to a further layer of analysis in a
bid to determine which type of khabar was the most frequently used by the
Arabic simultaneous interpreters. The overall analysis in Subsection 3.1 has
identified 1,530 segments in which the S-initial structure was used. Two
segments were excluded from the current analysis because the khabar was
omitted, bringing the total number of segments to 1,528.
The khabar type analysis indicates that the VPr., which together with
the preverbal constituent bears the closest similarity to English SVO clauses,
has been found to represent the predominant khabar type used by the Arabic
simultaneous interpreters. This applies to the overall and speech results
(Figure 3), as well as individual performances (Figure 4).
The most striking observation to emerge from the data comparison is
that the overall score (69.8%) remains almost unchanged when compared
with the average of each of the speeches making up the Arabic SI Sub-corpus.
Notwithstanding the range observed especially in the Arabic SI versions
of Speech III, the results emerging from the findings of individual Arabic SI
versions remain significant with the VPr. being the most exploited khabar type
by the Arabic simultaneous interpreters. This finding is not unexpected
because a nominal clause with a VPr. used as khabar features an SVO
structure. This SVO construction helps the Arabic simultaneous interpreters
relieve memory and avoid cognitive overload and potential information loss by
following the English sentence structure closely with minimal waiting or time
lag.
These findings have provided an answer to the question of Objective 2
on the most frequently used khabar type in nominal clauses in the Arabic SI
Sub-corpus. Inevitably, the findings further substantiate the validity of our
VSO/S-initial ratio results (Subsection 3.1) because an S-initial clause with a
VPr. as its khabar forms an SVO structure that represents the closest match
to English SVO clauses. It can thus be safely concluded that the preference
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 249
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
of the marked or derived SVO structure to the basic or default VSO structure
represents a feature of English>Arabic SI.
Figure 3: Summary of the khabar types of S-initial clauses in the Arabic SI Sub-
Corpus
Our conclusion therefore lends considerable support to conclusions of
previous studies that reported a tendency to use reordering less often in SI
involving languages with similar structures (cf. Al-Rubai’i, 2004, pp. 257-258;
Setton & Motta, 2007, p. 217; Alonso Bacigalupe, 2010, p. 50; Al Zahran,
2021, p. 65). The Arabic simultaneous interpreters were clearly following the
SL structure, engaging in «form-based» (Isham, 1994, p. 207; Dam, 2001, p.
27) or structure-oriented processing.
Our conclusions also provide clear support for the language-pair
specificity hypothesis. The absence of the need for reordering is only available
to simultaneous interpreters working between languages with similar
structures and into languages with a flexible word order such as Arabic. This
is a luxury that is obviously not available in SI between languages with
asymmetrical structures and when interpreting into a language with a rigid
word order such as German (Bevilacqua, 2009).
21,4%
69,8%
2,5%
6,…
18,8%
69,7%
3,5%
8,0%
22,4%
69,0%
0,0%
8,6%
23,9%
69,9%
1,7%
4,5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Adjective
Verbal Predicate
Noun Phrase
Adv./Prep. Phrase
Adjective
Verbal Predicate
Noun Phrase
Adv./Prep. Phrase
Adjective
Verbal Predicate
Noun Phrase
Adv./Prep. Phrase
Adjective
Verbal Predicate
Noun Phrase
Adv./Prep. Phrase
Overall
Results Speech I Speech II Speech III
250 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Figure 4: Khabar types of S-initial clauses in Arabic SI performances of
Speeches I, II and III
16,7%
73,2%
4,3%
5,8%
17,3%
71,6%
3,3%
7,8%
23,2%
63,4%
2,7%
10,7%
22,4%
69,0%
0,0%
8,6%
20,9%
73,9%
0,7%
4,5%
25,0%
67,1%
2,1%
5,7%
23,6%
70,1%
1,6%
4,7%
26,0%
68,7%
2,3%
3,1%
34,7%
54,7%
3,2%
7,4%
14,0%
84,0%
0,0%
2,0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Verbal Predicate
Adv./Prep. Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Noun Phrase
Arabic SI 1 Arabic SI 2 Arabic SI 3 Arabic SI 1 Arabic SI 1 Arabic SI 2 Arabic SI 3 Arabic SI 4 Arabic SI 5 Arabic SI 6
Speech I Speech II Speech III
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 251
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present paper has discussed the challenge that syntactic
asymmetry represents in English>Arabic SI. A two-fold corpus-based analysis
has been conducted in a bid to determine the VSO/S-initial ratio and the type
of khabar predominantly used in nominal clauses in 10 Arabic SI
performances of three original English speeches. The findings of the analysis
have indicated a tendency on the part of the Arabic simultaneous interpreters
to use an SVO structure realized through an S-initial clause with a VPr. as its
khabar. This finding has motivated us to conclude that the use of the marked
SVO structure is a feature of Arabic SI. The findings have also led to the
conclusion that the Arabic simultaneous interpreters were engaged in form-
based processing by opting for the structure that bears the closest
resemblance to English SVO structures as a coping tactic. Our conclusions
have thus been found to lend support to other findings that reported a
tendency to use restructuring less often when interpreting between languages
with similar syntactic structures. The conclusions also provide support for the
language-pair specificity hypothesis because the findings can only apply to
language pairs with similar and/or flexible structures.
The implications for professional practice and training are obvious: do
not wait for the verb in English>Arabic SI. Professional development providers
and interpreter trainers can readily pass on this advice to professional and
student interpreters to apply this coping tactic, especially under such extreme
conditions as high SL presentation rate, prolonged time lag, semantic density,
syntactic complexity, or a combination thereof. Applying this tactic would
potentially help interpreters effectively handle syntactic disparity, thereby
avoiding the risk of cognitive overload and the potential for a resulting
information loss or failure.
One limitation of this study is that the present analysis and its findings
concern the standard variety of Arabic, not any other regional Arabic dialects,
since the standard variety is generally regarded as the default Arabic variety
in conference interpreting situations. Another limitation to be borne in mind
when evaluating the findings of the present analysis, is the absence of a
reference point to help relate observations and findings to the SI process. We
therefore recommend that further research be carried out to compare the
present findings and conclusions with data from other types of corpora,
including written translations of the same source speeches and a comparative
corpus of original Arabic speeches.
252 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
REFERENCES
Abdul-Raof, H. (1998). Subject, theme and agent in Modern Standard Arabic.
London and New York: Routledge.
Al Afghani, S. (2003).
ﺔﻐﻠﻟا دﻋاوﻗ ﻲﻓ زﺟوﻣﻟا
ﺔﯾﺑرﻌﻟا [Concise Arabic Grammar].
Beirut: Dar El Fikr.
Al-Rubai'i, A. M. (2004). The effect of word order differences on English-into-
Arabic simultaneous interpreters’ performance. Babel, 50(3), 246-266.
Alfuraih, R. F. (2020). The undergraduate learner translator corpus: A new
resource for translation studies and computational linguistics.
Language Resources and Evaluation, 54(3), 801-830.
Alonso Bacigalupe, L. (2010). Information processing during simultaneous
interpretation: A three-tier approach. Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology, 18(1), 39-
58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903464278
Al Zahran, A. (2021). Structural challenges in English>Arabic simultaneous
interpreting. Translation & Interpreting, 13(1), pp. 51-70. doi:
10.12807/ti.113201.2021.a04
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2006). Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and
directionality. Interpreting, 8(2), 149–174.
Bevilacqua, L. (2009). The position of the verb in germanic languages and
simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 14, 1–31.
Castagnoli, S. (2011). Exploring variation and regularities in translation with
multiple translation corpora. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata,
43(1), 311-332. https://doi.org/10.1400/190460
Chang, C., & Schallert, D. L. (2007). The impact of directionality on
Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 9(2), 137–176.
Collard, C., Przybyl, H., & Defrancq, B. (2018). Interpreting into an SOV
language: Memory and the position of the verb. A corpus-based
comparative study of interpreted and non-mediated speech. Meta,
63(3), 695-716. https://doi.org/10.7202/1060169ar
Dahlgren, S.-O. (2009). Word Order. En K. Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Arabic Language and Linguistics (Vol. IV, págs. 725–36). Leiden:
Koninklijke Brill NV.
Dailidėnaitė, A. (2009). Directionality: Types and frequency of repairs in
simultaneous interpretation. Vertimo Studijos, 2, 9–25.
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 253
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based
interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form
in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 27–55.
Dawrant, A. (1996). Word order in Chinese to English simultaneous
interpretation: An initial exploration. (Master's thesis). Fu Jen Catholic
University, New Taipei City.
Fassi-Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science+Business Media BV.
Gile, D. (1992). Predictable sentence endings in Japanese and conference
interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, Special Issue 1, 12–23.
_____ (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator
Training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____ (2011). Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting:
Preliminary findings from a case study. En C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E.
Tiselius (Edits.), Methods and strategies of process research:
Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 201–218).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Glenn, M. L. (2010, May). Transcription methods for consistency, volume and
efficiency. LREC. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference
on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10).
Valletta. http://www.lrec-
conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/849_Paper.pdf
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127–140.
Guo, L. (2011). An analysis of the word order pattern in the SI target language
and its underlying reasons in the language combination of English and
Chinese (Doctoral dissertation). Shanghai International Studies
University, Shanghai.
He, H., Boyd-Graber, J., & Daumé III, H. (2016). Interpretese vs.
translationese: The uniqueness of human strategies in simultaneous
interpretation. En HLT-NAACL (pp. 971–976).
Hoyt, F. M. (2008). Nominal clauses. En K. Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Arabic language and linguistics (Vol. III, pp. 381–388). Leiden:
Koninklijke Brill NV.
254 A corpus-based investigation of VSO-SVO usage in simultaneous interpreting
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
_____ (2009). Verbal clause. En K. Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic
language and linguistics (Vol. IV, pp. 653–659). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill
NV.
Isham, W. P. (1994). Memory for sentence form after simultaneous
interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization. En S.
Lambert, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical
Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (pp. 191–211). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kenning, M.-M. (2010). What are parallel and comparable corpora and how
can we use them? En A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 487-500). London and
New York: Routledge.
Kirchhoff, H. (1976/2002). Simultaneous interpreting: Interdependence of
variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and
interpreting strategies. En F. Pöchhacker, & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The
interpreting studies reader (pp. 111–119). London and New York:
Routledge.
Li, D. (2017). Translator style: A corpus-assisted approach. En M. Ji, L.
Hareide, D. Li, & M. Oakes (Eds.), Corpus methodologies explained:
An empirical approach to translation studies (pps. 113-146). London
and New York: Routledge.
Love, R. D. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken
corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 22(3), 319-344. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3
Ma, X. (2006, May). Champollion: A robust parallel text sentence aligner.
LREC, (pp. 489-492).
Mohammad, M. A. (2000). Word order, agreement and pronominalization in
Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its
practical application. En D. Gerver, & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language
interpretation and communication (pp. 353–368). New York and
London: Plenum Press.
Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic.
Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
Seeber, K. G., & Kerzel, D. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous
interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism,
16(2), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982.
Aladdin Al Zahran and Rafik Jamoussi 255
Hikma 21 (2) (2022), 231 - 255
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic
approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____ (2002). A Methodology for the Analysis of Interpretation Corpora. En
G. Garzone, & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century:
Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 29–45). Amesterdam: John
Benjamins.
_____ (2005). So what is so interesting about simultaneous interpreting?
SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 1(1), 70–84.
Setton, R., & Motta, M. (2007). Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in
simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting, 9(2), 199–230.
Shamy, M., & De Pedro Ricoy, R. (2017). Retrospective protocols: Tapping
into the minds of interpreting trainees. Translation and Interpreting,
9(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a05
Shlesinger, M. (1998). Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of
corpus-based translation studies. Meta: Translators' Journal, 43(4),
486-493. https://doi.org/10.7202/004136ar
Van Besien, F. (1999). Anticipation in simultaneous interpretation. Meta,
44(2), 250–259.
Versteegh, K. (2007). ʾInna wa-ʾaxawātuhā [inna and its sisters]. In K.
Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics (Vol.
II, pp. 354-358). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Wang, B., & Zou, B. (2018). Exploring language specificity as a variable in
Chinese-English interpreting. A corpus-based investigation. In M.
Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-
based interpreting studies (pp. 65-82). Singapore: Springer.
Wang, Binhua, & Gu, Yukui. (2016). An evidence-based exploration into the
effect of language-pair specificity in English-Chinese simultaneous
interpreting. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2016.1182238