Available at

Average LD 
score 
56.02% 
53.46% 
57.83% 
52.33% 
54.96% 
STU01 
54.72% 
52.19% 
52.27% 
52.55% 
52.69% 
STU02 
52.89% 
51.81% 
50.56% 
51.36% 
51.30% 
STU03 
/ 
52.71% 
53.39% 
/ 
52.28% 
STU04 
54.79% 
/ 
52.72% 
52.55% 
52.82% 
STU05 
/ 
/ 
53.38% 
51.88% 
52.15% 
STU06 
/ 
52.21% 
50.76% 
53.03% 
51.47% 
STU07 
53.54% 
53.45% 
/ 
53.21% 
52.76% 
STU08 
53.35% 
/ 
/ 
/ 
53.35% 
Average 
LD 
score 
53.84% 
52.48% 
52.19% 
52.39% 
52.35% 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 63 
First, there is no significant difference between the STU average (52.35%) and the 
IN average (54.96%) lexical density score, which means that students’ 
interpretations are as informative as the original speeches. This confirms Kajzer-
Wietrzny’s (2005) and Sandrelli & Bendazzoli (2005) findings. 
Table 13 – Number of running words in all IN and STU speeches 
IN01 
1,378 
IN02 
1,343 
IN03 
1,487 
IN04 
1,414 
STU01 
1,451 
1,460 
1,632 
1,429 
STU02 
1,367 
1,322 
1,505 
1,400 
STU03 
/ 
1,457 
1,458 
/ 
STU04 
1,170 
/ 
1,436 
1,313 
STU05 
/ 
/ 
1,641 
1,463 
STU06 
/ 
1,086 
1,375 
1,205 
STU07 
1,524 
1,334 
/ 
1,216 
STU08 
1,267 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Average 
number of 
running 
words 
1,355.8 
1,331.8 
1,507.83 
1,337.67 
However, it appears that, in most cases, interpretations are less dense than the 
corresponding source speech (an exception is IN04, where no difference can be 
observed). Even though there are striking differences in terms of the total number 
of words produced by students for the same IN (see Table 13), a close inspection 
of Table 12 reveals that the lexical density scores are surprisingly similar across 
students. For example, STU04 produced 1,170 words to interpret IN01 while 
STU07 produced 1,524 words to interpret the same text (23.22% more words). 
The higher lexical density of STU04’s output shows that STU04 said fewer words 
but that a large share of these words were content words. 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 64 
4.1.3 Expansion rate 
In interpreting, many studies investigated “compression” (Chernov, 1987, 
Sdobnikov, 2016) and proposed typologies of compression. It consists of any 
shortening of the linguistic form used to express a notion or an idea in 
simultaneous interpreting (Sdobnikov, 2017). Compression can occur at different 
levels of language, such as syllables, words, syntax, context, or meaning. 
According to Chernov, compression is a possible mechanism and can be used to 
avoid “the linguistic redundancy in the thematic component of the discourse” (2004: 
113). 
However, there is another mechanism, widely under-researched so far, called 
decompression. The process of decompression, or “expansion”, is the “result of a 
longer/expanded idea vs. the probable compressed version we might use in the 
normal conditions of interpretation” (Sdobnikov, 2017: 411). In other words, the 
mechanism is opposite to compression. It is important to note that this 
phenomenon is often considered as an interpreting strategy as Donato (2003: 107) 
places it in the reformulation strategies, Liontou (2011: 41) among target-text 
conditioned strategies and Ricardi (2005: 765) puts it in the production strategies. 
In this case study, I decided to use this notion of expansion and investigate the 
expansion rate of student interpretations in order to determine whether the 
interpretations were longer than the corresponding original speeches. If the 
expansion rate is higher than 1, it means the interpretation is longer (in terms of 
the total number of words used) than the original. If it is lower than 1, then the 
interpretation is shorter than the original. The expansion rate is calculated by 
dividing the number of words of an interpretation by the number of words of its 
source speech. 

---

Results and discussion 
 
page 65 
Table 14 – Expansion rates in LOCOSSI 
IN01 
IN02 
IN03 
IN04 
Average 
STU01 
1,451/1,378 = 
1.053 
1,460/1,343 = 
1.087 
1,632/1,487 = 
1.097 
1,429/1,414 
= 1.011 
1.062 
STU02 
1,367/1,378 = 
0.992 
1,322/1,343 = 
0.984 
1,505/1,487 = 
1.012 
1,400/1,414 
= 0.990 
0.995 
STU03 
/ 
1,457/1,343 = 
1.085 
1,458/1,487 = 
0.980 
/ 
1.033 
STU04 
1,170/1,378 = 
0.849 
/ 
1,436/1,487 = 
0.966 
1,313/1,414 
= 0.928 
0.914 
STU05 
/ 
/ 
1,641/1,487 = 
1.104 
1,463/1,414 
= 1.035 
1.069 
STU06 
/ 
1,086/1,343 = 
0.801 
1,375/1,487 = 
0.925 
1,205/1,414 
= 0.854 
0.862 
STU07 
1,524/1,378 = 
1.106 
1,334/1,343 = 
0.993 
/ 
1,216/1,414 
= 0.860 
0.986 
STU08 
1,267/1,378 = 
0.919 
/ 
/ 
/ 
0.919