Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.347

CiteScore 2018: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.252
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.520

Online
ISSN
1897-7499
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 52, Issue 2

Issues

Directionality and context effects in word translation tasks performed by conference interpreters

Agnieszka Chmiel
Published Online: 2016-06-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0010

Abstract

Professional interpreters employed by international institutions usually work into their L1 from their L2, while freelance interpreters tend to work both into and from their L1. A study was devised to see if the long-term interpreting unidirectional practice (in the L2–L1 direction only), in contrast to bidirectional practice (in the L2–L1 and L1–L2 direction), influences the speed of lexical retrieval manifested through shorter translation latencies. Forty-eight professional conference interpreters produced oral translations of nouns presented in isolation, in high context constraint sentences and in low context constraint sentences. Contrary to predictions, unidirectional interpreters did not manifest directionality asymmetry and their L2–L1 translation latencies were not shorter than L1–L2 translation latencies. Surprisingly, the L2–L1 direction advantage was found in the group of bidirectional interpreters. The data suggest that the dominant directionality in interpreting practice has little impact on the strength of interlingual lexical links in the interpreter’s mental lexicon or that other factors (such as language use, exposure and immersion) might offset any such impact. The study also revealed an expected context effect, which shows that interpreters use semantic constraint to anticipate sentence-final words.

Key words: conference interpreting; word translation; directionality; bidirectional interpreters; interpreting

References

  • AIIC. 2014. “Regulation governing admissions and language classification”. Available at <http://aiic.net/page/6726>. Last accessed 06 Aug 2015.

  • Altarriba, J., J.F. Kroll, A. Sholl and K. Rayner. 1996. “The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times”. Memory and Cognition 24(4). 477–492.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baayen, R.H., D.J. Davidson and D.M. Bates. 2008. “Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items”. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412.Google Scholar

  • Barr, D.J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers and H.J. Tily. 2013. “Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal”. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278.Google Scholar

  • Bartłomiejczyk, M. 2006. “Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality”. Interpreting 8(2). 149–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bates, D. 2007. “Linear mixed model implementation in lme4”. (Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.)

  • Chang, C. 2005. Directionality in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: Impact on performance and strategy use. (PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.)Google Scholar

  • Chernov, G.V. 1992. “Conference interpretation in the USSR: History, theory, new frontiers”. Meta 37(1). 149–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chernov, G.V. 2004. Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Chmiel, A. In preparation. “The influence of interpreter training on working memory and the bilingual mental lexicon”.

  • Christoffels, I.K., A.M.B. de Groot and J. Kroll. 2006. “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency”. Journal of Memory and Language 54(3). 324–345.Google Scholar

  • Christoffels, I.K., A.M.B. de Groot and L.J. Waldorp. 2003. “Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(3). 201–211.Google Scholar

  • de Bot, K. 2000. “Simultaneous interpreting as language production”. In: Englund Dimitrova, B. and K. Hyltenstam (eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 65–88.Google Scholar

  • de Groot, A.M.B. and I.K. Christoffels. 2006. “Language control in bilinguals: Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9 (2). 189–201.Google Scholar

  • de Groot, A.M.B., L. Dannenburg and J.G. van Hell. 1994. “Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals”. Journal of Memory and Language 33 (5). 600–629.Google Scholar

  • de Groot, A.M.B. and R. Poot. 1997. “Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory”. Language Learning 47. 215–264.Google Scholar

  • Denissenko, J. 1989. “Communicative and interpretative linguistics”. In: Gran, L. and J. Dodds (eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto. 155–158.Google Scholar

  • DG Interpretation. 2012. “The conference interpreter’s language combination”. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/scic/what-is-conference-interpreting/ language-combination/index_en.htm>. Last accessed 06 Aug 2015.

  • Donovan, C. 2002. “Survey of user expectations and needs”. In: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a ‘B’ language. EMCI Workshop proceedings. Paris: ESIT. 2–11.Google Scholar

  • Donovan, Clare. 2005. “Teaching simultaneous interpretation into B: A challenge for responsible interpreter training”. Communication and Cognition. Monographies 38(1–2). 147–166.Google Scholar

  • Duyck, W. and M. Brysbaert. 2008. “Semantic access in number word translation: the role of crosslingual lexical similarity”. Experimental Psychology 55(2). 102– 112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gile, D. 2005. “Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view”. Communication and Cognition. Monographies 38(1–2). 9–26.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 2015. “The contributions of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics to conference interpreting. A critical analysis”. In: Ferreira, A. and J. W. Schwieter (eds.), Psycholinguistic and congitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 41–66.Google Scholar

  • Gran, L., and F. Fabbro. 1988. “The role of neuroscience in the teaching of interpretation”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 1. 23–41.Google Scholar

  • Gumul, E. 2006. “Explicitation and directionality in simultaneous interpreting”. Available at <http://www.emcinterpreting.org/?q=system/files/Explicitation Directionality SI Gumul.pdf>. Last accessed 07 Aug 2015.

  • Heij, W.L., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R. and E. van der Velden. 1996. “Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation”. Journal of Memory and Language 35(5). 648–665.Google Scholar

  • Jörg, U. 1997. “Bridging the gap: Verb anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting”. In: Snell-Hornby, M., Z. Jettmarova and K. Kaindl (eds.), Translation as intercultural communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 217–228.Google Scholar

  • Katschinka, L. 2002. “Survey on the conference interpreting profession in Central and Eastern Europe”. <http://www.jtpunion.org/english/Conf_int_survey.htm>. Last accessed 15 Oct 2009.

  • Kroll, J.F. and E. Stewart. 1994. “Category interference in translation and picture naming – evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations”. Journal of Memory and Language 33(2). 149–174.Google Scholar

  • Kroll, J.F., J.G. van Hell, N. Tokowicz and D.W. Green. 2010. “The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13(3). 373–381.Google Scholar

  • Kroll, J.F., E. Michael, N. Tokowicz and R. Dufour. 2002. “The development of lexical fluency in a second language”. Second Language Research 18(2). 137– 171.Google Scholar

  • Kujałowicz, A., A. Chmiel, K. Rataj and M. Bartłomiejczyk. 2008. “The effect of conference interpreting training on bilingual word production”. Paper presented at the 39th Poznań Linguistic Meeting (PLM2008), Gniezno, Poland.

  • Kurz, I. and B. Farber. 2003. “Anticipation in German–English simultaneous interpreting”. Forum 1(2). 123–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lim, H.-O. 2005. “Working into the B language: The condoned taboo?” Meta 50(4).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Linck, J.A., J.F. Kroll and G. Sunderman. 2009. “Losing access to the native language while immersed in a second language: Evidence for the role of inhibition in second-language learning”. Psychological Science 20(12). 1507–1515.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mead, P. 2005. “Directionality and fluency: an experimental study of pausing in consecutive interpretation into English and Italian”. Communication and Cognition. Monographies 38(1–2). 127–146.Google Scholar

  • Morris, R.K. 2006. “Lexical processing and sentence context effects”. In: Traxler, M. and M. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. (2nd ed.) London: Elsevier. 337–402.Google Scholar

  • Nicodemus, B. and K. Emmorey. 2013. “Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3). 624–636.Google Scholar

  • Padilla, P., J.J. Canas and F. Padilla. 1995. “Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation”. In: Tommola, J. (ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting. 61– 71.Google Scholar

  • Pavlović, N. 2007. “Directionality in translation and interpreting practice. Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia”. Forum 5(2). 79–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • R Development Core Team. (2009). “R: A language and environment for statistical computing”. Available at http://www.R-project.org>. Last accessed 29 Oct 2015.

  • Rejškova, J. 2002. “Teaching experience of simultaneous into B”. In: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a ‘B’ language. EMCI Workshop proceedings. Paris: ESIT. 30–34.Google Scholar

  • Riccardi, A. 1998. “Interpreting strategies and creativity”. In: Beylard-Ozeroff, A., J. Kralova and B. Moser-Mercer (eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 171–180.Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, A.I. and J.F. Kroll. 2006. “Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context”. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2). 197–212.Google Scholar

  • Seeber, K.G. 2001. “Intonation and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting”. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 23. 61–97.Google Scholar

  • Seleskovitch, D. and M. Lederer. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar

  • Seleskovitch, Danica. 1978. Interpreting for international conferences: Problems of language and communication. Washington: Pen & Booth.Google Scholar

  • Seleskovitch, D. and M. Lederer. 1995. A systematic approach to teaching interpretation. Silver Spring: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.Google Scholar

  • Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sholl, A., A. Sankaranarayanan and J.F. Kroll. 1995. “Transfer between picture naming and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory”. Psychological Science 6(1). 45–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shreve, G.M. and B.J. Diamond. 1997. “Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting: Critical issues”. In: Danks, J. (ed.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Sage. 233–251.Google Scholar

  • Sunderman, G. and J. F.Kroll. 2006. “First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(3). 387–422.Google Scholar

  • Sunnari, M. 1996. “Comparison of expert and novice performance in simultaneous interpreting”. In: Proceedings of the XIV World Congress of FIT. Melbourne. 993–1000.Google Scholar

  • Szabari, K. 2000. “Korkep a konferencia-tolmacs szakmarol egy felmeres tukreben” [An overview of conference interpreting in the light of a survey]. Fordítástudomány 2(1). 71–87.Google Scholar

  • Szabari, K. 2002. “Interpreting into the B Language”. In: Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a ‘B’ language. EMCI Workshop proceedings. Paris: ESIT. 12–19.Google Scholar

  • Titone, D., M. Libben, J. Mercier, V. Whitford and I. Pivneva. 2011. “Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 37(6). 1412–1431.Google Scholar

  • Tommola, J. and M. Heleva. 1998. “Language direction and source text complexity: Effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting”. In: Bowker, L., M. Cronin, D. Kenny and J. Pearson (eds.), Unity in diversity. Current trends in translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome. 177–186.Google Scholar

  • van Assche, E., D. Drieghe, W. Duyck, M. Welvaert and R.J. Hartsuiker. 2011. “The influence of semantic constraints on bilingual word recognition during sentence reading”. Journal of Memory and Language 64(1). 88–107.Google Scholar

  • van Dam, H. 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.Google Scholar

  • van Hell, J.G. 2005. “The influence of sentence context constraint on cognate effects in lexical decision and translation.” In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 2297–2309.Google Scholar

  • van Hell, J.G. and A.M. de Groot. 2008. “Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals”. Acta Psychologica 128(3). 431–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Agnieszka Chmiel Faculty of English Adam Mickiewicz University Collegium Novum al. Niepodległości 4 61-874 Poznań Poland


Published Online: 2016-06-13

Published in Print: 2016-06-13


Citation Information: Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 269–295, ISSN (Online) 1897-7499, ISSN (Print) 0137-2459, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0010.

Export Citation

© 2016 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Elisabet Tiselius and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova
Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2019, Volume 2, Number 2, Page 305
[4]
Agnieszka Chmiel
Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2018, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 21

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in