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 54, Issue 3

Issues

The whole picture: Processing of numbers and their context in simultaneous interpreting

Paweł Korpal / Katarzyna Stachowiak-Szymczak
Published Online: 2018-10-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0013

Abstract

This paper presents an eye-tracking study in which number processing in simultaneous interpreting was investigated. Interpreting accuracy and eye behaviour were studied together to unveil the processing and rendering of numbers by interpreting trainees (N = 22) and professional interpreters (N = 26). While professional interpreters rendered numerals and the context in which they appeared with better accuracy, there was also a positive correlation between number interpreting accuracy and context interpreting accuracy. Our results indicate that interpreting arithmetic values of numerals is more cognitively demanding than interpreting their context, which is reflected in longer mean fixation duration on numbers than on the elements they referred to. Further research is needed to investigate numerical data processing in other tasks, involving other language pairs and interpreting directionality. The study outcomes may be a useful contribution to research on the cognitive aspects of simultaneous interpreting, numerical data processing, as well as interpreter training.

Keywords: number interpreting; cognitive effort; eye-tracking; simultaneous interpreting

References

  • Baddeley, A. and G. Hitch. 1974. “Working memory”. In: Bower, G. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Stanford: Academic Press. 48–79.Google Scholar

  • Baddeley, A. 2000. “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(11). 417–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Braun, S. and A. Clarici. 1996. “Inaccuracy for numerals in simultaneous interpretation: Neurolinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 7. 85–102.Google Scholar

  • Christoffels, I. and A. de Groot. 2005. “Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective”. In: Kroll, J. F. and A. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. 454–479.Google Scholar

  • Christoffels, I., A. de Groot and J. F. Kroll. 2006. “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency”. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 324–345.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daro, V. and F. Fabbro. 1994. “Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference”. Applied Linguistics 15(4). 365–381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Groot, A., P. Delmaar and S. Lupker. 2000. “The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53A(2). 397–428.Google Scholar

  • Fabbro, F., B. Gran and L. Gran. 1991. “Hemispheric specialization for semantic and syntactic components of languages in simultaneous interpreters”. Brain and Language 41. 1–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gerver, D. 1969. “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters”. In: Foulke, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech. University of Louisville. 162–184.Google Scholar

  • Gerver, D. 1975. “A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 20(2). 119–128.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gerver, D. 1976. “Empirical studies of simultaneous interpreting: A review and a model”. In: Brislin, R. (ed.), Translation, Applications and Research. New York: Gardner Press. 165–207.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gile, D. 2009. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hervais-Adelman, A., B. Moser-Mercer and N. Golestani. 2015. “Brain functional plasticity associated with the emergence of expertise in extreme language control”. NeuroImage 114. 264–74.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Holmqvist, K., M. Nystrom, R. Anderson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka and J. van de Weiter. 2015. Eye tracking. A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hvelplund, K. T. 2014. “Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data”. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, Special Issue – Minding translation. 201–223.

  • Jensen, C. 2008. “Assessing eye-tracking accuracy in translation studies”. Copenhagen Studies in Language 38. 157–174Google Scholar

  • Jones, R. 2002. Conference interpreting explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Just, M. A. and P. A. Carpenter. 1980. “A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension”. Psychological review 87(4). 329–354.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kade, O. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopadie.Google Scholar

  • Korpal, P. and K. Stachowiak. 2017. “A closer look at numbers in simultaneous interpreting: An eye-tracking study”. Poster presented at the 19th European Conference on Eye Movements, Wuppertal, 20-24 August.Google Scholar

  • Lambert, S. 2004. “Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 49(2). 294–306.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lederer, M. 1981. La traduction simultanée – expérience et théorie. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar

  • Liu, M., D. L. Schallert and P. J. Carroll. 2004. “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting 6(1). 19–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mazza, C. 2001. “Numbers in simultaneous interpretation”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11. 87–104.Google Scholar

  • Meiran, N., B. Hommel, U. Bibi and I. Lev. 2002. “Consciousness and control in task switching”. Consciousness and Cognition 11(1). 10–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mizuno, A. 2005. “Process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 502. 739–752.Google Scholar

  • Obler, L. 2012. “Conference interpreting as extreme language use”. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2). 177–182.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Padilla, P., M. T. Bajo, 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

  • Rayner, K. 1998. “Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research”. Psychological Bulletin 124(3). 372–422.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Samuel, S. 2014. How much do in-vehicle tasks with swapping, switching and spillover effects interfere with drivers’ ability to detect and respond to threats on the forward roadway? PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts.

  • Seeber, K. 2011. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Existing theories – new models”. Interpreting 13(2). 176–204.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Seeber, K. 2012. “Multimodal input in simultaneous interpreting: An eye-tracking experiment”. In: Zybatov, L., A. Petrova and M. Ustaszewski (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference TRANSLATA, Translation and Interpreting Research: yesterday – today – tomorrow. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 341–347.Google Scholar

  • Seeber, K. 2013. “Multimodal processing during simultaneous interpreting – evidence from an eye-tracking study”. Poster presented at the 17th European Conference on Eye Movements, Lund, 11–16 August.Google Scholar

  • Seeber, K. and D. Kerzel. 2011. “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: model meets data”. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2). 228–242.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Seleskovitch, D. 1976. Interpretation. A psychological approach to translating. Paris: Didier Erudition.Google Scholar

  • Shlesinger, M. 2000. Strategic allocation of working memory and other attentional resources in simultaneous interpreting. PhD dissertation. Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

  • Stavrakaki, S., K. Megari, M. H. Kosmidis, M. Apostolidou and E. Takou. 2012. “Working memory and verbal fluency in simultaneous interpreters”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 34(6). 624–633.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sunnari, M. 1995. “Processing strategies in simultaneous interpreting: ‘saying it all’ vs. synthesis”. In: Tommola, J. (ed.), Topics in Interpreting Research. Turku: University of Turku. 109–119.Google Scholar

  • Timarova, Š., I. Čeňkova, R. Meylaerts, E. Hertog, A. Szmalec and W. Duyck. 2014. “Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control”. Interpreting 16(2). 139–168.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tiselius, E. 2013. “Expertise without deliberate practice? The case of simultaneous interpreters”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 18. Accessed: June 2 2016. https://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/9748/1/Tiselius_Interpreters18.pdf.

About the article

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


Published Online: 2018-10-16

Published in Print: 2018-09-25


Citation Information: Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 335–354, ISSN (Online) 1897-7499, ISSN (Print) 0137-2459, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0013.

Export Citation

© 2018 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in