In this section, I will focus on the difficulties of simultaneous interpreting. As mentioned in Gile’s Effort Model, each Effort demands resources to work properly

Proper names. Seleskovitch (1962) stated that names require linguistic “transcoding” rather than interpreting. Gile highlights that proper names are potential problems for interpreters, particularly if the interpreter is not familiar with a specific proper name or its pronunciation in the target language (Gile, 1995). Proper names may also increase the efforts of the interpreter, and thus require some “coping tactics”. Proper names can be phonetically unfamiliar to the interpreter (Hanaoka, 2002). In that case, interpreters have to store the names in their short-term memory and recode them in their target language. However, the lack of schemata (a schematic view of the knowledge of proper names) may affect their capacity to retain the name in their short-term memory (Rumelhart, 1980). Interpreters may also run the risk of mispronouncing the name if they do not know how the word is spelled beforehand (Quini, 1993) and may sometimes not realize that there is a conventional translation for a specific name in their target language. Hanaoka (2002) proposes a distinction between two types of strategies in order to render proper names more easily: decoding strategies and encoding strategies. The first strategies consist of being able to recognize a proper name and gaining knowledge about the referent. There are also two types of decoding strategies. First, it is possible to put proactive strategies into place if the interpreter can anticipate the topic of the text. An interpreter can for instance search for specific proper names that he/she can encounter if given the topic. Conference interpreters are usually informed of the topic of the conference in advance and can therefore do research on that topic. Then, reactive strategies are employed when the interpreter has encountered an unfamiliar name, and they include guessing from the context or the use of an online dictionary. However, in simultaneous interpreting, the resources may be significantly limited due to time constraints. As for encoding strategies, three factors need to be considered (Hanaoka, 2002): 1) The culture-specificity of the name: the interpreter has to decide how familiar the name may be to the listener, so their assessment of the listener’s knowledge state is a crucial factor in their choice of strategy. 2) Relationship to macro/micro-structure: if the referent of a name is the topic of a speech, then it is part of the macro-structure of the speech and is essential. However, a name considered less important may be more susceptible to simplification strategies. 3) Topical knowledge/figurative knowledge: when an interpreter faces an unfamiliar proper name due to a lack of cultural knowledge, the addition or explication of extratextual factual information is possible. In the case of a figurative use of a name, the explicitation of the figurative meaning is required.