125

Estereotipos relativos a la edad y el sexo aplicados a la

comunicación mediada por intérpretes de conferencias

Communication mediated by

conference interpreters: age and sex

stereotypes

ARTICLE

Universitat de Vic- Universitat Central de Catalunya

Lucila Christen y Gracia has been a professional interpreter and translator since 1973. She

holds a Ph.D. in Translation, Gender, and Cultural Studies (cum laude) from the University of

Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Spain, where she obtained a Master’s degree in specialized

legal-nancial translation (Extraordinary Prize). She has been a member since 1982 and

former president of the Mexican Association of Conference Interpreters (CMIC), an Honorary

Member of the Mexican Association of Graduates in Translation and Interpreting (CMLTI), and

a member of the American Translators Association (ATA). Since 2002, she has been President

and CEO of Grupo Gaute, the rst ISO-certied translation and interpreting agency in Latin

America.

lucilamaria.christen@uvic.cat

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8531-0870

RECEIVED: 2023-02-25 / ACCEPTED: 2023-04-24

Lucila Christen y Gracia

OBRA DIGITAL, 24, December 2023, pp. 125-146, e-ISSN 2014-5039

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25029/od.2023.375.24

Abstract

Previous studies have concluded that the com-

bination of interpreters’ sex and age may aect

the perception of their simultaneous interpre-

tation. In this study, 156 subjects completed

a questionnaire assessing various non-verbal

factors of the simultaneous interpretations

produced by four male and four female inter-

preters of dierent age groups in a record-

ing studio. The recordings were controlled to

achieve a homogeneous rendition of verbal

factors to favor the rating of non-verbal factors.

The results show that interpreters’ sex- and

age-related characteristics, as discerned by the

listener, may bias the perceived interpreter’s

performance.

KEYWORDS

Sex and age, stereotypes, ageism, simultane-

ous interpretation.

126126

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Resumen

Estudios previos concluyen que la combinación

del sexo y la edad de los y las intérpretes puede

condicionar la percepción de la interpretación

simultánea. En este estudio, 156 participantes

contestaron un cuestionario para evaluar di-

versos factores no verbales de las interpreta-

ciones realizadas por ocho intérpretes, cuatro

hombres y cuatro mujeres, grabadas en un

estudio. Las grabaciones se controlaron para

lograr una producción homogénea de los fac-

tores verbales que no interriera en la evalua-

ción de los factores no verbales. Los resultados

muestran que las características relacionadas

con el sexo y la edad de los y las intérpretes

pueden sesgar la percepción de la interpreta-

ción simultánea por parte de la audiencia.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Sexo y edad, estereotipos, edadismo, inter-

pretación simultánea.

1. INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND

This research builds upon a previous Baseline

Research (Christen, 2020), which investigated

the impact of interpreter sex on the percep-

tion of simultaneous interpreting (SI). However,

the previous research faced challenges with a

small sample size (Gile, 2018), so the authors

made the methodological improvements out-

lined in the methodology section of this pub-

lication. This study aims to replicate the Base-

line Research and either support or refute its

ndings. The present study will consider the

age and sex of the interpreters, as suggested in

the conclusions of the previous research. For

this research, sex will be used dichotomously

(Bhargava et al., 2021) without including social

genders. The study included interpreters with

no borderline voices, i.e., no male voices in the

female frequency range (135 Hz to 635 Hz) and

no female voices in the male frequency range

(75 Hz to 480 Hz). This study is not intended

to discriminate based on age, sex, ethnicity, or

any other factor, nor to promote stereotypes

that might lead to such exclusions. When re-

ferring to interpreters or participants, men and

women are included unless the sex of the spe-

cic group under study is specied for clarity.

Where the context of the text so requires, a dis-

tinction between sexes may be made.

1. 1 INTERPRETATION

STUDIES

Simultaneous interpreting is essential for mul-

tilingual communication at congresses and

events. With the help of technological tools, the

interpreter’s oral production is delivered syn-

chronously with the original speech, delayed by

the time it takes the professional to process it,

creating a sense of simultaneity for the listener.

There is a lack of common ground in SI stud-

ies when investigating the sex (Defrancq et al.,

2021) and the age of interpreters. Most recent

studies have focused on investigating the im-

pact of sex dierences in interpreters on the

one hand and the age or experience of inter-

preters on the other.

Regarding the sex of the interpreter, several

topics have been addressed, such as the role

of sex and linguistic politeness in police inter-

views (Nakane, 2008) or sex dierences in facial

127127

Lucila Christen y Gracia

threat and the use of mitigating factors (hedg-

es) in the treatment of politeness in SI in the

European Parliament (Magnico, 2017). Some

studies have focused on the inuence of the

sex of the interpreter on the interpreting lag

(Ear-Voice-Span), showing that the length of

the lag varies signicantly between interpret-

ers (Collard & Defrancq, 2017, 2019). A study

that also deals with the sex of the interpreters

concludes that connectors vary according to in-

terpreting norms and the sex of the interpreter

(Magnico & Defrancq, 2020). Finally, according

to Bartłomiejczyk (2020), female interpreters

mitigate serious and deliberate rudeness to a

greater extent than male interpreters.

There is less research on the age or experience

of the interpreter. Liu (2008) concludes that the

main dierences between novice and experi-

enced interpreters lie in the strategies the lat-

ter use in comprehension, translation, and pro-

duction and in their ability to switch between

these processes.

Along the same line, Tiselius (2013) analyses

the process and product of interpreting in in-

terpreters with dierent levels of experience

and concludes that interpreters with long pro-

fessional experience show signicant dier-

ences in their interpreting skills compared to

those with little or no interpreting experience.

According to the results of her study, the for-

mer nd fewer dierences in speech process-

ing and have more problem-solving strategies.

Subsequently, Liu et al. (2020) interviewed in-

terpreters aged 70 and over who are members

of AIIC (Association Internationale des Inter-

prètes de Conférence).

Most respondents acknowledge that they have

faced some challenges in the later stages of

their careers, which they attribute to changes

in the working environment. Chmiel (2021) ex-

amines the latency of word interpretation and

points out that it improves during interpreter

training but does not increase with profession-

al experience. Moser-Mercer (2022) suggests

that SI experience should be analyzed not only

in terms of behavioral and brain changes but

also in terms of the needs of the profession.

Regarding the inclusion of age and sex, Collados

Aís (2007), from a dierent approach, examines

users’ perceptions of the quality of interpreting

according to the sex and age of the user. Few

studies include the age and sex of the interpret-

ers in their approach. Angelelli (2004) includes

age, sex, level of education, and income when

studying the role of the interpreter in commu-

nity, legal, and medical settings to establish the

relationship between these variables and the

self-perceived visibility of interpreters.

According to the results of this study, there

were no signicant dierences between the

groups investigated. Regarding age, the older

participants perceived themselves as less visi-

ble than the younger ones. García Becerra, who

studied the eect of rst impressions on the

perception of the quality of SI, points out that

“[...] subjects recognized that their expectations

could vary according to certain conditions or

characteristics of the interpreter, such as age,

sex or vocal aspects” (2012, p. 566).

In a later study analyzing the eect of order and

rst impressions on the perception of SI, García

128128

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Becerra (2015) points out that in-depth stud-

ies related to rst impressions as a function of

the interpreter’s sex and age are needed. In

the evaluations carried out by the interviewees,

negative traits had a negative inuence on the

interpreters’ perception of their performance.

Conversely, positive traits improved the inter-

preters’ evaluations more than those of their fe-

male colleagues. Drawing on theories from the

sociology of professions, Gentile (2016) inves-

tigates the self-perceived professional status

of conference and public service interpreters.

Her questionnaires (one for each type of inter-

preting) include, among others, demographic

elements, including sex and age variables. It

concludes that the increasing feminization of

the profession, rapid technological change, and

a complex labor market, along with other fac-

tors, have inuenced interpreters’ perceptions

of the profession.

1.2 EXTERNAL DISCIPLINES

To make sense of the world, humans need to

categorize their perceptions and group them

into objects and events of a similar nature, iden-

tify shared characteristics, and reduce the time

needed to process redundant information (Cud-

dy & Fiske, 2004). Just as we group objects and

events, we group people based on perceived

similarities. In our eagerness to assign objects,

events, and people to meaningful classes about

which we have established beliefs and expecta-

tions lies the root of stereotypes (Cuddy & Fiske,

2004). These variables are autonomous in their

motivations and arise from the activation of

patterns learned in each person’s life cycle.

Humans can decode the information contained

in verbal messages on several levels (Nass &

Brave, 2005). Fundamental frequency (FO) and

formant frequencies, which are the most im-

portant vocal features for identifying the sex

and age of an individual, can be extracted from

speech signals and encoded almost immedi-

ately in brain areas specialized in the percep-

tion of male or female voices. (Abdulsatar et al.,

2019; Zhang et al., 2020). As a result, listeners

easily develop stereotypical responses to the

sex and age of speakers based on the listeners

cultural norms (Pisanski & Feinberg, 2015). Age

and sex stereotypes automatically interact to

inuence the processing of speech perception

(Strand, 2000).

It is widely known that age stereotypes precede

age discrimination. Voss et al. (2018) point out

that a reference to age does not equate to age

discrimination (ageism). Age categorization be-

comes ageist only when described as a charac-

ter based on stereotypes. To evoke an ageist

stereotype, several elements of judgment must

interact and, almost always unconsciously, the

factor with the most substantial impact is the

voice of the older adult (Hummert et al., 1999).

The content and activation of sex stereotypes

reect a bias that favors men over women

(Casper & Rothermund, 2012; Kornadt et al.,

2013; Krekula et al., 2018).

Given the above, the following questions arise:

Can the sex, and age of the interpreter bias

the perception of SI? Could this bias be due to

cultural norms and stereotypes of listeners de-

rived from the physiological characteristics they

unconsciously perceive in the speaker?

129129

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Group Code Age on

date of

recording

Years of

uninter-

rupted

practice

1 G1EF 68

1 G1EM 69 48

1 G1NF 26 1

1 G1NM 27 2

2 G2EF 69 42

2 G2EM 60 33

2 G2NF 27 6

2 G2NM 34 9

Table 1

Age of interpreters at the time of

the study and years of experience

Note. G = group; M = female; H = male;

E = experienced; N = novice.

2. METHODOLOGY

In this quantitative quasi-experimental study, a

closed-ended questionnaire was applied to cor-

roborate the ndings of the Baseline Research

without modifying its methodology in terms of

the age and sex of the interpreters, the ques-

tionnaire, the interpreted performances, the

recording environment, and the recruitment

of participants. Improvements included an in-

creased number of interpreters and respond-

ents, a dierentiated control of the recording

groups, the evaluation of the linguistic criteria

of the recorded performances, and a new sta-

tistical design to ensure the randomization of

the recordings according to the sex and age of

the interpreters.

2.1 INTERPRETERS

Given that users show a certain tendency to

evaluate an SI with a non-native accent nega-

tively (Cheung, 2020), native Spanish-speaking

interpreters were chosen based on their place

of birth and their academic background in Mex-

ico City. The study included two groups. Each

group consisted of two novice and two experi-

enced interpreters, one male and one female

per age group (see Table 1).

The rst group (G1) participated in the Base-

line Research, while the second group (G2) was

recruited for this study. The four experienced

interpreters of both sexes, aged 60 and over,

are graduates with at least 25 years of continu-

ous practice in IS. The four novice interpreters,

male and female, aged 26-34, are graduates

with at most ten years of continuous practice

in SI. All eight interpreted their renderings from

English into Spanish.

2.2 PRESENTATIONS

Four videos in English were chosen from among

the speeches that the global TED (Technology,

Entertainment and Design) community dissem-

inates through the Internet (see Table 2). These

talks, approximately 15 minutes long, were se-

lected to reduce the number of interferences

that could negatively aect the primary sourc-

es of cognitive loads in the interpretation (Ric-

cardi, 2022). Special attention was paid to the

speaker’s accent, intonation, and pronunciation

(Pöchhacker, 2016), the excessive speed of the

original speech (García et al., 2020), the com-

plexity or density of the source speech, and the

use of technical jargon or syntactically complex

sentences (Gile, 2002).

130130

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Pres-

entation

Name

Link Name of

speaker

Short

name

“The gentle

power

of highly

sensitive

people”

https://

www.you-

tube.com/

watch?v=pi-

4JOIMSWjo

Elena

Herdieck-

erho

Sensitive

“After

watching

this, your

brain will

not be

the same

again.”

https://

www.you-

tube.com/

watch?v=L-

NHBMF-

CzznE

Lara

Boyd

Brain

“What

you didn’t

know

about cof-

fee.”

https://

www.you-

tube.com/

watch?v

JaQNyOE-

f4YY

Asher

Yaron

Coee

“How to

become a

millonaire

in three

years.”

https://

www.you-

tube.com/

watch?v=-

jvBaRf9L-

HDs

Dany

Ally

Millionaire

Table 2

Audiovisual material used in the experiment

2.3 SEQUENCE DESIGN

To provide greater methodological rigor, to

make the results robust, and to ensure com-

plete randomness in the order of the record-

ing segments by avoiding repetition of the ages

and sexes of the interpreters and the sex of the

speakers in the sequences, two researchers

from the Centro de Investigación en Matemáti-

cas (CIMAT), in León, Guanajuato, Mexico, de-

signed four thirty-minute sequences. Each se-

quence included the interpretation of two talks,

one per group (G1 and G2), with eight segments

of approximately three and a half minutes, one

segment per interpreter. Subsequently, the or-

der of the groups was alternated to obtain a to-

tal of 64 segment positions in eight sequences

(see Table 3).

2.4 RECORDING PROCESS

A specialist with a master’s degree in engineer-

ing and a recording engineer designed the re-

cording process and implemented it in both

groups. Using the 4K Downloader software

(Open Media, LLC, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia),

the four presentations were downloaded from

the YouTube platform in the original 1280 x 720

format, with H.264 compression, in MP4. The

audio and video source les were imported into

a ProTools HD Ultimate™ session. Interpreters

viewed the video on a screen and listened to

the audio through their headphones. The per-

formances were recorded in 48 kHz, 16-bit dig-

ital audio in WAV format through a DAKING Mic

Pre-500 preamplier with no analog compres-

sion and using SSL Alphalink audio interfaces.

The recordings had a target of approximately

28 LUFS and maximum peaks of -6 dB, which

depended on the individual interpreter. All au-

dios had a low-frequency cuto at 80 Hz. The

multiband normalization, compression, and

limiting processes were performed with very

subtle parameters to preserve the dynamics of

the voices.

Adobe Premiere ProTM was used to generate

the nal les. The MP4 source les and the WAV

le with the voices of the interpreters were im-

ported into a new Premiere session. In each vid-

eo, the mastered audio was integrated with the

original audio. In this integration, the original

English audio was kept in the left channel, and

the recorded Spanish audio was assigned to

the right channel. To ensure synchrony, a time-

code was used on both channels.

131131

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Table 3

Outline of the eight recording sequences designed for the study

No. Pres-

entation

Speak-

Segment

1 2 3 4

Segment

1 2 3 4

Speak-

Pres-

entation

Group 1 Group 2

1 Sensitive FS G1EF G1NM G1NF G1EM G2NF G2EM G2NM G2EF MS Coee

2 Millionaire MS G1NM G1NF G1EM G1EF G2NM G2EF G2NF G2EM FS Brain

3 Coee MS G1EM G1NF G1NM G1NF G2EM G2NF G2EF G2NM FS Sensitive

4 Brain FS G1NF G1EM G1EF G1NM G2EF G2NM G2EM G2NF MS Millionaire

Group 2 Group 1

5 Coee MS G2NF G2EM G2NM G2EF G1EF G1NM G1NF G1EM FS Sensitive

6 Brain FS G2NM G2EF G2NF G2EM G1NM G1Nf G1EM G1EF MS Millionaire

7 Sensitive FS G2EM G2NF G2EF G2NM G2EM G1Ef G1NM G1NF MS Coee

8 Millionaire MS G2EF G2NM G2EM G2NF G1NF G2EM G1EF G1NM FS Brain

Note. FS = female speaker; MS = male speaker; M = male; F = female; E = experienced; N = novice.

Source: Andrés Christen PH.D., Sebastián Quintanilla, M. Sc.

The G1 participants received the transcripts

and glossaries of two talks (Millionaire and Cof-

fee) one day in advance. Before starting the re-

cording session, the interpreters reviewed the

other two talks (Brain and Sensitive) for a few

minutes. All group members recorded their

four performances in their entirety in one day,

at staggered times. The 16 segments used for

this group’s sequences were extracted from the

recordings according to the position assigned

to each interpreter in the designed sequence.

Participants in G2 received the four transcripts

of the talks and their glossaries two days in

advance. Each interpreter was given a specic

recording day. This group recorded only the

segments that had been assigned to each in-

terpreter during the design of the sequences.

This dierential treatment of the G2 group

in terms of preparation, time, and recording

method was designed to enable G2 participants

to produce performances with better control

of the verbal features in their oral production

than G1 participants. The aim was to assess

whether respondents could discriminate such

dierences despite the randomized design of

the sequences. If so, this design would provide

a higher level of validity in assessing of the pa-

rameters under analysis.

To ensure that the interpretations of all partic-

ipating interpreters, regardless of sex or expe-

rience, were perceived to be of a comparable

linguistic and terminological level, the eight

interpreters were provided with transcripts of

132132

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Table 4

Experimental sample by age range and sex

Note. n=156.

Sex Age

group

20 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 64 65 to 75

Fe-

male

10 23 18 18 8

Male 18 13 17 19 12

Total 28(17,9 %) 36(23,0%) 35(22,4%) 37(23,7%) 20(12,8%)

the four speeches during the recordings. They

were reassured that the study aimed to obtain

interpretations with the best possible linguistic

characteristics, reecting a complete and faith-

ful translation of the original speech. They were

also oered the opportunity to re-record their

interpretations if they were not satised with

the rst recording.

2.5 QUESTIONNAIRE

The 5-point questionnaire used in the study

was based on previous instruments on prosod-

ic features and work attitudes tested for their

relationship with perceived SI quality (Collados

Aís et al., 2007). It included ve prosodic crite-

ria: voice (Iglesias Fernández, 2007), intonation

(Collados Aís, 2019), uency (Rennert, 2020),

diction (Blasco Mayor & García Becerra, 2007),

and rhythm, the latter given its demonstrated

importance in SI anticipation (Palová & Kiktová,

2019). It also included two work attitudes (cred-

ibility and professionalism) and one linguistic

parameter (cohesion) (Collados Aís et al., 2007).

Although Collados Aís et al. (2007) studied co-

hesion, in the focus group conducted to veri-

fy the validity of this study, it was determined

that the term coherence should be used in-

stead due to cultural issues in the environment

where the questionnaire would be applied. For

this reason, as shown in Figure 1, coherence

was the criterion to be assessed in the ques-

tionnaire. Finally, overall perceived quality was

included to measure the user’s satisfaction with

the interpretation.

The same questionnaire was used for the Base-

line Research and this study. Its validity and re-

liability were tested in a focus group mentioned

above in which four men and four women from

four age groups, one man and one woman per

age group, were interviewed after viewing one

of the recorded talks given by the two groups of

interpreters. The validity of the questionnaire

was conrmed by the ability of the focus group

participants to distinguish the perceived age

and sex characteristics of the interpreters and

to rate the interpretations. Once the question-

naire was designed (see Figure 1), the template

was repeated eight times on individual sheets,

one for each segment, to complete the meas-

urement tool.

2.6 PROCEEDINGS

The minimum number of subjects (100) recom-

mended to obtain meaningful results in quan-

titative studies (Dörnyei, 2007) was taken as a

basis. One hundred and fty-six native Span-

ish-speaking subjects, 79 male and 77 female,

divided into ve age groups, were recruited us-

ing a snowball sampling method and answered

the questionnaire to rate the sequences re-

corded by the eight interpreters (see Table 4).

The participants were aged 20 years or older,

lived in the metropolitan area of Mexico City,

and had at least one previous contact with pro-

fessional SI services given their lack of knowl-

edge of English, the language generally used

in seminars and conferences in Mexico City. In

total, 27 had a high school diploma, 45 were

university students, 68 had a bachelor’s degree,

and 16 had completed postgraduate studies.

133133

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Figure 1

Outline of the questionnaire designed for the study

The study was conducted in 41 sessions from 7

November to 12 December 2020. Each partici-

pant sat at an individual table and received dis-

posable headphones, the eight-page question-

naire, and a pencil. The room was arranged to

emulate a conference setting. Audio recordings

of the TED talks in English were played through

loudspeakers while participants simultaneously

listened to the voices of the Spanish interpret-

ers in their headphones.

Before the exercise, the facilitators explained to

the participants the operationalized denitions

of the parameters of the questionnaire and the

written and oral instructions for completing the

questionnaire. The facilitators played the video

segments of the selected sequence one by one

on a screen at the front of the room, stopping

the projection at the end of each segment. A

response time of 90 seconds for each segment

was given to ensure spontaneous reactions

from participants to the voices of the interpret-

ers (García Becerra, 2012; Larrea Estefanía,

2014). In each session, facilitators presented

one of the eight sequences, reaching a total of

20-23 respondents per sequence. Participants

did not have access to the interpreters’ pho-

tographs or CVs, so their assessments were

based solely on their impressions of the inter-

preters’ voices (Horváth, 2017). The president

and vice-president of the Colegio Mexicano de

Intérpretes de Conferencias, A.C. 2020-2021,

attended some sessions to verify full compli-

ance with the designed method.

134134

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Table 5

Between-group ANOVA test

Note. F = ratio of the two variances; df = degrees of freedom

Figure 2

Condence intervals between groups

Group 1

37.00

36.00

35.00

34.00

33.00

32.00

95% mean condence interval

Group 2

Independent sample test

Levene’s test

for equality of

variances

t-test for equality of means

Equal t df

Sig.

(bi-

late

ral)

Mean

dier-

ence

95 % condence

interval of the dif-

ference

Standard

error dif-

ference

Lower

Upper

Average

Equal

vari-

ances

assumed

18.202 000 5.938 1246 .000 -.29380 .04948 .39087 -.19673

Equal

vari-

ances

not as-

sumed

5.938 1219.291 .000 -.29380 .04948 .39088 -.19673

3. RESULTS

The rst objective was to determine whether

respondents perceived a signicant dierence

in the rating of interpretations between G1 and

G2. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test

was performed to determine the mean dier-

ence between the groups (-0.2938). The result

was signicant, greater than 1%, in favor of G2,

with a p-value of 0.000 (see Figure 2 and Table

5).

This result shows that respondents gave high-

er ratings to the G2 renditions than to the G1

renditions, even though the precise segmenta-

tion of the randomized sequential design could

have confounded this overall perception. The

results show that the longer preparation time

given to the G2 interpreters to study the talks

and the more favorable conditions for their re-

cordings led to better control of the substantive

features of their performances. In summary, as

expected, the G2 interpreters working under

more favorable conditions outperformed the

G1 interpreters, conrming the robustness of

the sequential design.

Tukey tests were used to compare the group

means pairwise for each of the nine parame-

ters. The null hypothesis was that the means

were equal between groups. The results were

signicant at the 5% condence level for the

sample size (n = 156).

A large number of tests were conducted in this

study, which could lead to Type I error ination.

135135

Lucila Christen y Gracia

When and how to correct for multiple tests re-

mains a hotly debated topic (Streiner, 2015). In

this study, a non-conrmatory, albeit explora-

tory, post-hoc analysis was performed whose

signicance level rarely needs to be corrected,

as observed in multiple regression analysis with

categorical variables mathematically equivalent

to ANOVA (Streiner, 2015).

The following pairs were analyzed:

(1) Experienced female vs. experienced male

(EF vs. EM).

(2) Experienced female vs. novice female (EF vs.

NM).

(3) Experienced female vs. novice male (EF vs.

NM)

(4) Experienced male vs. novice female (EM vs.

NF)

(5) Experienced male vs. novice male (EM vs.

NM)

(6) Novice male vs. novice female (NM vs. NF)

When assessing perceived quality, the dier-

ence between ME means with the other three

groups (EM, EF, and NF) were -0.349, -0.369,

and -0.577, respectively, signicant in favor of

all three groups, with a condence level of at

least 5% in all cases. The dierence between

the means of EM and NF was -0.019, with a

standard error of 0.077, the average between

the two being approximately the same, so the

null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The dif-

ference between the means of EM and NM

was -0.228, with a condence level of at least

5%. The comparison between the NM and NF

groups gave an average of -.208 with a con-

dence level of 5%.

When examining coherence, signicant dier-

ences were found between the means of EF

and EM, with a dierence of -0.218 and a con-

dence level of at least 5%. Additionally, there

were dierences found between EF and NF, as

well as between EF and NM, with dierences

of -0.333 and -0.462, respectively, and a con-

dence level of at least 5% in both comparisons.

However, when comparing EM and NF, no sig-

nicant dierence was found, with a mean dif-

ference of -0.115 and a condence interval that

included zero. On the other hand, the mean

dierence between EM and NM was -0.244 in

favor of the NM group, with a condence level

of at least 5%. Finally, when comparing NM and

NF, no signicant dierence was found.

For uency, the dierence between the EF and

EM means was -0.250, in favor of the EM group,

signicant at 5%. The dierence between the

EF and NF groups was -0.196, signicant only

at 10% and in favor of the NF group. The mean

dierence between EF and NM was -0.506, in

favor of the NM group, with a condence level

of at least 5%. The comparison between the EM

and NF groups was not signicant. The mean

dierence between NM and EM was 0.256 in

favor of the former, signicant at 5%; between

the NM and NF groups, the dierence was

0.311 points in favor of the former, with a con-

dence level of at least 5%.

When assessing the diction of the interpreters,

the dierence between the EF and EM means

was -0.151, in favor of the EM group; this val-

ue was not signicant. The mean dierences

between EF and NF and between EF and NM

were -0.330 and -0.484, respectively. These dif-

ferences were signicant in both comparisons,

at least 5 %. The mean dierence between EM

and NF showed no signicant dierence be-

tween these groups. In the case of EM and NM,

the main dierence was -0.333 in favor of the

NM group, at a condence level of at least 5%.

The comparison between NM and NF showed

no signicant dierence.

136136

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

The mean dierences in intonation between EF

and the other three groups (EM, NF, and NM)

were signicant, reaching -0.375, -0.417, and

-0.394, respectively, in favor of the latter three,

with a condence level of at least 5% in all pair-

wise comparisons. The comparison between

EM and NF showed no signicant dierences,

suggesting a tie between the two groups. When

comparing EM and NM and NF and NM, the re-

sults were not signicant, and the two groups

were tied. Therefore, the hypothesis that their

intonation scores were equal cannot be ruled

out.

Regarding the rhythm of the interpretations,

the EM, NF, and NM groups were 0.333, 0.304,

and 0.625 points higher than the mean of the

EF group, with a signicant dierence of at least

5% in all three comparisons. The comparison

between EM and NF showed no signicant

dierences, so the hypothesis that these two

groups have the same results cannot be ruled

out. In the comparison between EM and NM, a

signicant dierence of 0.292 points was found

with a condence level of at least 5% in favor of

the NM group. When comparing the NM and

NF groups, a signicant dierence of -0.321

was found, with a condence level of 5%, in fa-

vor of the HN group.

For the interpreters’ voice rating, the EM, NF,

and NM groups scored on average 0.500,

0.705, and 0.702 points higher than the EF

group, respectively, with a signicant dierence

of at least 5% in all three cases. For the rst

time, when comparing the EM and NF groups,

the NF group scored 0.205 points higher than

the EM group, but only at the 10% condence

level. The comparison between EM and NM

showed a signicant dierence of 0.202 points

in favor of the beginners, which is a dierence

of 10%. The last comparison category between

the NM and NF groups showed no signicant

dierence. Therefore, the hypothesis that the

interpreters’ voices of the NF and NM groups

were perceived as equally pleasant cannot be

rejected.

The eighth parameter in this analysis was per-

ceived interpreter credibility. The means of the

EM, NF, and NM groups were 0.269, 0.359, and

0.455 points higher than those of the EF group,

respectively, at a condence level of at least 5%

in all comparisons. The last three comparisons

of credibility indices were for the EM and NF, EM

and NM, and NM vs. NF comparisons, where no

signicant dierences were found. Therefore,

the hypothesis that the means of these three

groups were equal cannot be ruled out.

Regarding professionalism, there was a no-

ticeable dierence of 5% or more between EF

and EM, NF, and NM. The mean scores of these

three groups were higher than EF by 0.317,

0.359, and 0.474 points. As in the case of cred-

ibility, there were no signicant dierences be-

tween EM and NF, EM and NM, or NM and NF.

Therefore, we cannot reject the hypothesis that

the means of these three groups are equal. For

more detailed results of the Tukey’s test, please

refer to Table 6.

137137

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Table 6

Mean dierence, standard error, signicance, and two-way ANOVA of the study variables.

Independent

variable

Dierence

in means

Std.

er-

ror

Sig.

95% con-

dence

interval

Inde-

pend-

ent

vari-

able

Dier-

ence

means

Std.

er-

ror

Sig.

95% con-

dence

interval

Inde-

pend-

ent var-

iable

Dier-

ence

means

Std.

er-

ror

Sig.

95% con-

dence

interval

Conf. limit Conf. limit Conf. limit

Low-

Upper

Low-

Up-

per

Low-

Up-

per

1. Rate the quality of the interpretation

2. Rate the coherence in the transmission of the inter-

pretation

3. Rate the uency of the interpretation

Ex-

peri-

enced

female

EM -.349* .077 .000 -.55 -.15 EM -.218* .077 .000 -.55 -.15 EM -.250* .082 .013 -.46 -.04

NF -.369* .077 .000 -.57 -.17 NF -.333* .077 .000 -.57 -.17 NF -.196 .082 .081 -.41 .02

NM -.577* .077 .000 -.77 -.38 NM -.462* .077 .000 -.77 -.38 NM -.506* .082 .000 -.72 -.30

Ex-

peri-

enced

male

EM .349* .077 .000 .15 .55 EM .218* .078 .027 -.42 -.02 EM .250* .082 .013 .04 .46

NF -.019 .077 .994 -.22 .18 NF -.115 .078 .000 -.53 -.13 NF .054 .082 .910 -.16 -27

NM -.228* .077 .016 -.42 -.03 NM -.244* .078 .000 -.66 -.26 NM -.256* .082 .010 -.47 -.05

Novice

female

EM .369* .077 .000 .17 .57 EM .369* .078 .000 .17 .42 EM .196 .082 .081 -.02 .41

EM .019 .077 .994 -.18 .22 EM .115 .078 .448 -.08 .32 EM -.054 .082 .910 -.27 .16

NM .208* .077 .034 -.41 -.01 NM -.128 .078 .352 -.33 .07 NM -.311* .082 .001 -.52 -.10

Novice

male

EM .577* .077 .000 .38 .77 EM .462* .078 .000 .26 .66 EM .506* .082 .000 .30 .72

EM .228* .077 .016 .03 .42 EM .244* .082 .010 .04 .44 EM .256* .082 .010 .05 .47

NF .208* .077 .034 .01 .41 NF .128 .078 .352 -.07 .33 NF .311* .082 .001 .10 .52

138138

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

4. Rate the diction of the interpreter 5. Rate the intonation of the interpreter 6. Rate the rhythm maintained by the interpreter

Experi-

enced

female

EM -.151 .080 .231 -.36 -.05 EM -.375* .085 .000 -.59 -.16 EM -.333* .087 .001 -.56 -.11

NF -.330* .080 .000 -.53 -.13 NF -.417* .085 .000 -.63 -.20 NF -.304* .087 .003 -.53 -.08

NM -.484* .080 .000 -.69 -.28 NM -.394* .085 .000 -.61 -.18 NM -.625* .087 .000 -.85 -.40

Experi-

enced

male

EM .151 .080 .231 -.05 .36 EM .375* .085 .000 .16 .59 EM .333* .087 .001 .11 .56

NF -.179 .080 .109 -.38 .03 NF -.042 .085 .961 -.26 .18 NF .029 .087 .987 -.19 .25

NM -.333* .080 .000 -.54 -.13 NM -.019 .085 .996 -.24 .20 NM -.292* .087 .004 -.51 -.07

Novice

female

EM .330* .080 .000 .13 .53 EM .417* .085 .000 .20 .63 EM .304* .087 .003 .08 .53

EM .179 .080 .109 -.03 .38 EM .042 .085 .961 -.18 .26 EM -.029 .087 .987 -.25 .19

NM -.154 .080 .215 -.36 -.05 NM .022 .085 .994 -.20 .24 NM -.321 .087 .001 -.54 -.10

Novice

male

EM .484* .080 .000 .28 .69 EM .394* .085 .000 .18 .61 EM .625* .087 .000 .40 .85

EM .333* .080 .000 .13 .54 EM .019 .085 .996 -.20 .24 EM .292* .087 .004 .07 .51

NF .154 .080 .215 -.05 .36 NF -.022 .085 .994 -.24 .20 NF .321* .087 .001 .10 .54

139139

Lucila Christen y Gracia

7. Rate the voice of the interpreter

8. Rate the credibility of the interpreter 9. Rate the professionalism of the interpreter

Ex-

peri-

enced

fe-

male

EM -.500* .083 .000 -.71 -.29 EM -.269* .084 .007 -.49 -.05 EM -.317* .080 .000 -.52 -.11

NF -.705* .083 .000 -.92 -.49 NF -.359* .084 .000 -.57 -.14 NF -.359* .080 .000 -.57 -.15

NM -.702* .083 .000 -.91 -.49 NM -.455* .084 .000 -.67 -.24 NM -.474* .080 .000 -.68 -.27

Ex-

peri-

enced

male

EM .500* .083 .000 .29 .71 EM .269* .084 .007 .05 .49 EM .317* .080 .000 .11 .52

NF -.205 .083 .064 -.42 .01 NF -.090 .084 .708 -.31 .13 NF -.042 .080 .955 -.25 .17

NM -.202 .083 .070 -.41 .01 NM -.186 .084 .120 -.40 .03 NM -.157 .080 .207 -.36 .05

Nov-

ice

fe-

male

EM .705* .083 .000 .49 .92 EM .359* .084 .000 .14 .57 EM .359* .080 .000 .15 .57

EM .205 .083 .064 -.01 .42 EM .090 .084 .708 -.13 .31 EM .042 .080 .955 -.17 .25

NM .003 .083 1.000 -.21 .22 NM -.096 .084 .661 -.31 .12 NM -.115 .080 .479 -.32 .09

Nov-

ice

male

EM .702* .083 .000 .49 .91 EM .455* .084 .000 .24 .67 EM .474* .080 .000 .27 .68

EM .202 .083 .070 -.01 .41 EM .186 .084 .120 -.03 .40 EM .157 .080 .207 -.05 .36

NF -.003 .083 1.000 -.22 .21 NF .096 .084 .661 -.12 .31 NF .115 .080 .479 -.09 .32

Note: Sig. = signicance: n = 156.

* The mean dierence was signicant, with a condence level of 0.05 %.

140140

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

4. DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

The age and sex of the interpreters were clearly

distinguished in the study variables, as shown

in the explanation of the results above, from

which the following conclusions can be drawn:

1) Novice males consistently ranked rst in

the nine categories, and experienced females

ranked last. Signicant dierences were found

between the EF group and the other groups.

The EM, NF, and NM groups were always fa-

vored. These results corroborate the Baseline

Research. This marked dierentiation can be

explained by the fact that anatomical variations

related to the age and sex of the speaker pro-

duce signicant changes in the fundamental

frequency (F0) and formant frequencies (Baus

et al., 2019; Sundberg, 2019). These two acous-

tic features, which are the most important for

identifying the sex and age of an individual, are

recorded in less than 140 ms from the onset

of the utterance (Schweinberger et al., 2008).

The sex of the speaker is readily recognized

and encoded in brain areas specialized in the

perception of male or female voices before the

way words are articulated or the linguistic and

grammatical components of the speaker are

recognized (Greenberg & Christiansen, 2019).

Voice characteristics inuence how listeners

perceive the speaker and respond to the infor-

mation they convey. This process can inuence

the perception of an SI’s verbal and nonverbal

characteristics, which was unfavorable for the

mature women in this study.

2) The male novice interpreters outperformed

all their peers in three categories: quality,

rhythm, and uency. None of the participants

in the other three groups signicantly outper-

formed their peers. The perception of perfor-

mance quality is related to several parameters

(Iglesias Fernández, 2010), such as the inter-

preter’s voice, uency, and rhythm (Kiktová et

al., 2019) of the rendition, where in this study,

novice males scored the highest. This result

corroborates the ndings of the Baseline Re-

search, where novice interpreters outper-

formed their peers in terms of quality, rhythm,

professionalism, credibility, and voice. A higher

rating for several parameters in the same age

group can be interpreted as a preference of

the listeners for this group.

3) No experienced interpreters, male or female,

obtained signicantly higher means than the

novice interpreters.

4) Novice female interpreters were comparable

to experienced male interpreters in all parame-

ters except voice. Lower voices, generally male,

score higher due to their ability to evoke greater

credibility and persuasiveness, especially when

conveying descriptive and informative messag-

es (Larrea Estefanía, 2014), as in the case of the

SI conducted in this study. These results show

that there can be interactions between voice

and sexual stereotypes (Strand, 2000). As men-

tioned above, most people integrate social ste-

reotypes into their perception of speech, which

elicits automatic, almost instinctive attitudes

and judgments toward speakers (Strand, 2000).

141141

Lucila Christen y Gracia

5) Experienced male interpreters were compa-

rable to female and male novices in intonation,

professionalism, and credibility, yet all three

groups outperformed experienced female in-

terpreters. This perception of more excellent

professionalism of male experienced inter-

preters than female experienced interpreters

may be due to the content and activation of

sexual stereotypes (Casper & Rothermund,

2012). When investigating age-related changes,

Kornadt et al. (2013) showed that in most do-

mains of experience, these changes were more

favorable for women than men (family, friends,

religion, leisure, personality, and health). How-

ever, in the work and nance domains, a re-

verse eect was identied that favored men

over women. This double standard may also be

due to stigmatizing attitudes towards women

(Barret & Naiman-Sessions, 2016; Krekula et al.,

2018), highlighting the dominance of patriar-

chal norms combined with a more pronounced

concern about age in older women.

6) When the mean scores were disaggregated

by group, the same results were found, with

beginners systematically ranked rst and expe-

rienced interpreters ranked last in all parame-

ters. The means of G2 were systematically high-

er than those of G1 (the disaggregated analysis

is not included here as it is beyond the scope of

this publication).

The results of this research corroborate the

conclusions of the Baseline Research. The fol-

lowing empirical conclusions can be drawn

from the ndings with statistically signicant

dierences in scores according to the age and

sex of the interpreter: 1) male interpreters tend

to score higher than their female counterparts

of the same age; 2) novice interpreters tend to

score higher than experienced interpreters, re-

gardless of sex; and 3) comparisons between

age groups are less favorable for experienced

interpreters.

Native speakers of a given language acquire a

specic awareness of how phonological cate-

gories are uttered, depending not only on the

dierent communities that use it but also on

the sex of the utterer (Madrid Servín & Marín

Rodríguez, 2001). Thus, it cannot be ruled out

that the peculiarities or culture of the country

where the study was conducted may encourage

sexist or ageist stereotypes, especially towards

mature women. Further research is therefore

needed beyond the country where the study

was conducted to determine whether such

ageist stereotypes are prevalent elsewhere.

Experience, an indisputable resource for all pro-

fessional interpreters (Moser-Mercer, 2022),

is undoubtedly relevant to their performance.

However, the ndings suggest that when two

interpreters sharing the same booth, have the

same level of preparedness and similar knowl-

edge of the interpreted topic, it is likely that, if

there are any presbyphonic elements in the

voice of either of them, dierences in the per-

ception of their interpretations will be found.

The statements expressed here can be applied

when listeners only have the interpreter’s voice

as a reference rather than other professional

skills that could be perceived as an added value

to the service.

142142

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

REFERENCES

Abdulsatar, A.A., Davydov, V.V., Yushkova, V.V., Glinushkin, A.P., & Rud, V.Y.

(2019). Age and gender recognition from speech signals. Journal of

Physics: Conference Series, 1410(1), 0-7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-

6596/1410/1/012073

Angelelli, C.V. (2004). Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. John Benjamins Publishing

Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.55

Barret, A., & Naiman-Sessions, M. (2016). ‘It’s our turn to play’: Performance of

girlhood as a collective response to gendered ageism. Aging and Socie-

ty, 36(4), 764-784. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x15000021

Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2020). Parliamentary impoliteness and the interpret-

er’s gender. Pragmatics, 30(4), 459-484. https://doi.org/10.1075/

prag.18064.bar

Baus, C., McAleer, P., Marcoux, K., Belin, P., & Costa, A. (2019). Forming social

impressions from voices in native and foreign languages. Scientic Re-

ports, 9(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36518-6

The empirical results of this study do not allow

us to determine whether the sex or age of the

interpreters, by themselves, are determining

factors in the perception of SI, i.e., whether one

has more weight than the other or whether

they are due to a reciprocal eect depending

on the age group. However, these data suggest

that before the verbal elements of SI are per-

ceived, the interaction between the perceived

sex and age of the interpreter unconsciously

biases the listener’s evaluation of the interpre-

tation. This bias may be due to the listener’s

cultural norms and stereotypes based on the

vocal characteristics of the interpreter.

Declaration of Conict of Interest

The author declares that she has no potential

conict of interest concerning the research, au-

thorship, and publication of this article.

Funding

This research did not receive any specic grant

from any funding body in the public, commer-

cial, or non-prot sectors.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Dr. Almudena Nevado Llopis

of the Universidad de San Jorge for her guid-

ance in reviewing this article.

143143

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Bhargava, A., Arnold, A.P., Bangasser, D.A., Denton, K.M., Gupta, A., Hilliard

Krause, L.M., Mayer, E.A., McCarthy, M., Miller, W.L., Raznahan, A., &

Verma, R. (2021). Considering sex as a biological variable in basic and

clinical studies: An endocrine society scientic statement. Endocrine Re-

views, 42(3), 219-258. https://doi.org/10.1210/endrev/bnaa034

Blasco Mayor, M.J., & García Becerra, O. (2007). La Incidencia del Parámetro

Dicción. In A. Collados Aís, M. Pradas Macías, E. Stévaux, & O. García

Becerra (Eds.), La Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación Simultánea:

parámetros de incidencia (pp. 175-194). Comares.

Casper, C., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Gender self-stereotyping is context de-

pendent for men but not for women. Basic Applied Social Psychology,

34(5), 434-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.712014

Cheung, A.K.F. (2020). Interpreters’ perceived characteristics and percep-

tion of quality in interpreting. Interpreting, 22(1), 35-55. https://doi.

org/10.1075/intp.00033.che

Chmiel, A. (2021). Eects of simultaneous interpreting experience and train-

ing on anticipation, as measured by word-translation latencies. Inter-

preting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 23(1),

18-44. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00048.chm

Christen y Gracia, L. (2020). Impact of voice gender on the perception of si-

multaneous interpreting quality. In R. Barranco- Droege (Ed.), Solving

the riddle of interpreting quality. Dimensions and challenges (pp. 26-58).

Comares.

Collados Aís, A. (2019). La entonación monótona y la calidad de la interpretac-

ión simultánea: frecuencia, conceptualizaciones y efectos. Meta, LXI(3),

675-691. https://doi.org/10.7202/1039224ar

Collados Aís, A., Pradas Macías, M., Stévaux, E., & García Becerra, O. (2007).

La Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación Simultánea: Parámetros de

Incidencia. Comares.

Collard, C., & Defrancq, B. (2017). Sex Dierences in Simultaneous Interpreting:

A Corpus-Based Study. UGent. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8518872

Collard, C., & Defrancq, B. (2019). Predictors of ear-voice span, a corpus-based

study with special reference to sex. Perspectives, 27(3), 431-454. https://

doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1553199

Cuddy, A.J.C., & Fiske, S.T. (2004). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and

function in stereotyping of older persons. In T.D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism.

Stereotyping and Prejudice against Older Persons (pp. 1-26). The MIT Press.

Defrancq, B., Collard, C., Magnico, C., & Iglesias Fernández, E. (2021). Sex

and gender in conference interpreting. En M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius

(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp. 414-427).

The Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

144144

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University

Press.

García Becerra, O. (2012). La incidencia de las primeras impresiones en la evalu-

ación de la calidad de la interpretación simultánea: un estudio empírico. Ed-

itorial de la Universidad de Granada. https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/

handle/10481/25153/21620234.pdf?sequence=1

García Becerra, O. (2015). Order Eect, Impression Formation, and Their Im-

pact on the Evaluation of Interpreting Quality. In C. Zwischenberger &

M. Behr (Eds.), Interpreting Quality: A Look Around and Ahead (pp. 123-

146). Frank & Timme.

Gentile, P. (2016). The Interpreter’s Professional Status. A Sociological Investi-

gation into the Interpreting Profession. [Unpublished doctoral thesis].

Università degli studi di Trieste. https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2908044

Gile, D. (2018). THE CIRIN BULLETIN. Conference Interpreting Research Informa-

tion Network. Bulletin no. 56. http://cirinandgile.com/bulletins/Bulle-

tin-56-Jul-2018.pdf

Gile, D. (2002). Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.

In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader

(pp. 163-176). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Greenberg, S., & Christiansen, T. (2019). The perceptual ow of phonetic in-

formation. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81, 884-896. https://

doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01666-y

Horváth, I. (2017). The speech behaviour of interpreters. Across Languages

and Cultures, 18(2), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.2.3

Hummert, M., Mazlo, D., & Henry, C. (1999). Vocal characteristics of older

adults and stereotyping. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(2), 111-132.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021483409296

Iglesias Fernández, E. (2007). La Incidencia del Parámetro Agradabilidad de

la Voz. In A. Collados Aís, M. Pradas Macías, E. Stévaux, & O. García

Becerra (Eds.), La Evaluación de la Calidad en Interpretación Simultánea:

parámetros de incidencia (pp. 37-51). Comares.

Iglesias Fernández, E. (2010). Understanding variability in interpreting quality

assessment: User’s sex and judgments for pleasant voice. In C. Way, S.

Vandepitte, R. Meilaerts, & M. Bartolomiejczyk (Eds.), Tracks and Treks

in Translation Studies: Selected papers from the EST Congress, Leuven (pp.

103-125). John Benjamins.

Kiktová, E., Zimmermann, J., & Palová, M. (2019). Towards to the Anticipation

in Simultaneous Interpreting. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 2473,

pp. 171-175). CEUR-WS. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2473/paper35.pdf

145145

Lucila Christen y Gracia

Kornadt, A.E., Voss, P., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Multiple standards of aging:

Gender-specic age stereotypes in dierent life domains. European

Journal of Ageing, 10(4), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-013-

0281-9

Krekula, C., Nikander, P., & Wilińska, M. (2018). Multiple Marginalizations

Based on Age: Gendered Ageism and Beyond. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-

Römer (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism (pp. 33-51). Springer

Nature.

Larrea Estefanía, O. (2014). Estudio sobre la escucha de la voz del locutor con y

sin su imagen: análisis del proceso perceptivo y cognitivo del mensaje. [Un-

published doctoral thesis]. Universidad Pompeu Fabra. http://hdl.han-

dle.net/10803/292736

Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in In-

terpreting Studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman,

& H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Eorts and Models in Interpreting and

Translation Research (pp. 159-177). John Benjamins Publishing Compa-

ny.

Liu, M., Kurz, I., Moser-Mercer, B., & Shlesinger, M. (2020). The interpreter’s

aging: A unique story of multilingual cognitive decline? Translation, Cog-

nition and Behavior, 3(2), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00045.

liu

Madrid Servín, E., & Marín Rodríguez, M. (2001). Estructura formántica de las

vocales del español de la Ciudad de México. In E. Herrera (Ed.), Temas

de Fonética Instrumental (pp. 39-53). El Colegio de México.

Magnico, C. (2017). Hedges in Conference Interpreting: The role of gender.

Interpreting, 191, 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.02mag

Magnico, C., & Defrancq, B. (2020). Norms and gender in simultaneous in-

terpreting: A study of connective markers. Translation and Interpreting,

12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.12807/TI.112201.2020.A01

Moser-Mercer, B. (2022). Conference interpreting and expertise. In M. Al-

bl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference In-

terpreting (pp. 386-400). Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Nakane, I. (2008). Politeness and gender in interpreted police interviews.

Monash University Linguistics Papers, 6(1), 29-40.

Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for Speech. How Voice Activates and Advances

the Human-Computer Relationship. The MIT Press.

Palová, M., & Kiktová, E. (2019). Prosodic anticipatory clues and reference ac-

tivation in simultaneous interpretation. XLinguae, 12(IXL), 13-22. https://

doi.org/10.18355/XL.2019.12.01XL.02

146146

Communication mediated by conference interpreters: age and sex stereotypes

Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. (2015). Vocal Attractiveness. In S. Frühhloz & P. Be-

lin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Voice Perception (pp. 607-625). Oxford

University Press.

Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing Interpreting Studies. Routledge.

Rennert, S. (2020). Impact of uency from a listener perspective. In R. Barran-

co-Droege (Ed.), Solving the riddle of interpreting quality. Comares.

Riccardi, A. (2022). Strategies and capacity management in conference inter-

preting. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook

of Conference Interpreting (pp. 371-385). Routledge Taylor and Francis

Group.

Schweinberger, S.R., Casper, C., Hauthal, N., Kaufmann, J.M., Kawahara, H.,

Kloth, N., Robertson, D.M.C., Simpson, A.P., & Zäske, R. (2008). Auditory

Adaptation in Voice Perception. Current Biology, 18, 684-688. https://

doi.org/org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.015

Strand, E. (2000). Gender stereotype eects on speech processing. (Publi-

cación No. 9994943) [Doctoral thesis, Ohio State University]. https://

www.proquest.com/openview/03f3eea67ec3a4b78ec5b95c94e-

8b19a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Streiner, D.L. (2015). Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: The multiple prob-

lems of multiplicity-whether and how to correct for many statistical

tests. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 102(4), 721-728. https://doi.

org/10.3945/ajcn.115.113548

Sundberg, J. (2019). The Singing Voice. In S. Frühhloz & P. Belin (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of Voice Perception (pp. 117-142). Oxford University

Press.

Tiselius, E. (2013). Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting. An Investi-

gation of Swedish Conference Interpreters. [Unpublished doctoral thesis].

University of Bergen. https://bora.uib.no/bora-xmlui/bitstream/han-

dle/1956/8747/dr-thesis-2013-Elisabet-Tiselius.pdf?sequence=1

Varela García, M., Ruiz Rosendo, L., & Barghout, A. (2019). Speed in simul-

taneous interpreting. In 100 years of conference interpreting. Ginebra.

https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:129083

Voss, P., Bodner, E., & Rothermund, K. (2018). Ageism: The Relationship be-

tween Age Stereotypes and Age Discrimination. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-

Römer (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism (pp. 11-31). Springer,

Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_2

Zhang, H., Liu, M., Li, W., & Sommer, W. (2020). Human voice attractiveness

processing: Electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 150,

107827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107827