The study compared the respeaking abilities of interpreters, subtitlers, translators, and controls. Interpreters achieved the highest results in terms of NER accuracy and ratings of fluency, pronunciation, punctuation, accuracy, and overall quality. They also had lower cognitive load and were best at interlingual respeaking. Subtitlers outperformed non-subtitlers and had the highest proofreading scores. The results suggest that interpreters and subtitlers make better respeakers due to their training and working memory capacity.

1. Are interpreters
and subtitlers
better respeakers?
Agnieszka Szarkowska & Łukasz Dutka
Agnieszka Chmiel, Agnieszka Lijewska, Krzysztof Krejtz, Krzysztof Marasek, Danijel Koržinek & Łukasz Brocki

2. Recruitment
• Interpreters
• Translators
• Controls
• (Subtitlers)
Respeaking
training
• 2-day
workshops
• Working
memory tests
• Proof-reading
tests
• Paraphrasing
tests
Respeaking
tests
• Intralingual
• Interlingual
Respeaking
quality analysis
• NER model
• Human raters
Data
triangulation
• Quality
• EEG
• Self-reported
cognitive load
• Eye-tracking
• Proof-reading
• Paraphrasing
• Ear-voice span

3. Respeaking test

4. Tasks in the respeaking test
Intralingual respeaking
–Polish to Polish
–Four 5-minute clips in randomised order
Interlingual respeaking
–English to Polish
–Speech by President Obama in Warsaw

5. Speech rate and number of speakers
Slow speech rate Fast speech rate
One speaker Speech News
Many speakers
Entertainment
show
Political chat show

6. 58 participants
Mean age:
27.48 years (SD 5.71)
51 women, 7 men
22 Interpreters
12
Controls
10
Subtitlers
23 Translators

7. Professional experience
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
1-2 years
3-4 years
4+ years
Translators Interpreters

8. Measuring respeaking performance
1. NER model (NERstar)
–Accuracy rate = NER value
–Edition errors
–Recognition errors
–Reduction
2. Human rating on 1-5 scale

9. Rating
 Overall quality
 Fluency of delivery
 Pronunciation
 Punctuation
 Spoken to written language
 Accuracy of content

10. Are interpreters
better respeakers?

11. Interpreters had highest NER value
out of all the three groups
90 91 92 93 94 95
Interpreters
Translators
Controls

12. Interpreters had highest NER value
in all clips
90
91
92
93
94
95
Slow one-speaker Fast one-speaker Slow many speakers Fast many speakers
NER value
Interpreters Translators Controls

13. Interpreters had lowest reduction rates
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Interpreters
Translators
Controls
Percentage of words omitted
(original speech vs. respoken text)

14. Interpreters were rated highest
in all categories
1
2
3
4
5
Fluency Pronunciation Punctuation Spoken to
written
Accuracy Overall
Interpreters Translators Controls

15. Interpreters were rated best
in interlingual respeaking
1 2 3 4 5
Interpreters
Translators
Controls

16. Are
better respeakers?

17. Subtitlers had higher NER value
than non-subtitlers
90 91 92 93 94 95
Subtitlers
Non-subtitlers
NER value

18. Subtitlers had an overall higher rating
than non-subtitlers
1 2 3 4 5
Subtitlers
Non-subtitlers
Overall rating of respeaking quality

19. Subtitlers were rated higher
in all intralingual tasks than non-subtitlers
1
2
3
4
5
Slow one-speaker Fast one-speaker Slow many speakers Fast many speakers
Overall rating of respeaking quality
Subtitlers Non-subtitlers

20. Subtitlers had highest scores
in the proof-reading test
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Subtitlers
Interpreters
Controls
Proof-reading test score

21. Summary of all study results
 Interpreters and subtitlers achieved better results
as respeakers than other groups
– NER
– Rating
 NER and rating showed similar results
 Higher working memory capacity
correlated positively with high respeaking quality
 Interpreters had lower cognitive load during respeaking
 Interpreters were best in interlingual respeaking
 Translators/subtitlers gazed longest in the subtitle area and
achieved highest scores on the proof-reading test

22. Conclusions
 Interpreters as respeakers?
 Subtitlers as respeaking proof-readers?
 Respeaking as part of interpreting training
 Subtitling as part of respeaking training
 Train working memory capacity

23. Respeaking in Poland in 2016
Live events
–Intralingual
–Interlingual
–Online
On public television
–One-off events
–Respeaking tests

24. Challenges
 Legislation to increase subtitling quotas on TV
 Communicating with broadcasters
 Introducing respeaking as an independent
module at university
 Educating proof-readers for respeaking
 Educating the general public about the quality
of live subtitling

25. Our papers on respeaking
 Are interpreters better respeakers?
 Respeaking crisis points
 Ear-voice span and pauses in intra-
and interlingual respeaking
 Cognitive load in intralingual and interlingual respeaking
 Tapping the linguistic competence in respeaking:
comparing intralingual paraphrasing performed by
interpreters, translators and bilinguals
 Visual attention distribution in respeaking
– an eye tracking study

26. Acknowledgements
This study was supported
with the grant no. 013/11/B/HS2/02762
from the National Science Centre
for the years 2014-2017
KRZYSZTOF
KREJTZ
ŁUKASZ
BROCKI
AGNIESZKA
LIJEWSKA
AGNIESZKA
CHMIEL
KRZYSZTOF
MARASEK
DANIJEL
KORZINEK
Many thanks
to Juan Martínez Pérez
and Pablo Romero Fresco
for their support in this study

27. www.facebook.com/RespeakingProject
www.avt.ils.uw.edu.pl
a.szarkowska@uw.edu.pl
lukasz.dutka@uw.edu.pl