Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting
and Working Memory
akira mizuno
Rikkyo University Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, Tokyo, Japan
a-mizuno@jp
RSUM
Le prnt article propo de pasr en revue la littrature concernant la recherche sur l’interprtation et celle sur la mmoir梦见死了人
e de travail dans le but de propor un cadre thorique pour un modle du processus de l’interprtation simultane. Le modle de la mmoire de travail de Cowan, le plus prometteur pour expliquer les diffrents phno-mnes de l’interprtation simultane, est prnt. Les fonctions de s composantes et la nature de l’information retenue en mmoire de travail sont expliques. Le modle est ensuite appliqu l’analy d’un petit corpus d’interprtation simultane japonais-anglais pour expliquer les stratgies de rduction de la charge cognitive mis en uvre par les interprtes ainsi que les erreurs dues une surcharge de la mmoire de travail.
ABSTRACT
This paper attempts to combine interpreting studies with working memory rearch and propo a theoretical framework for the process model of simultaneous interpreting.
First, the embedded model of working memory by Cowan is introduced as the most promising model to account for various phenomena of simultaneous interpreting. This is followed by a description of the functions of components of the model and the nature of information maintained in the working memory. The model then is applied to a small corpus of simultaneous interpreting in an attempt to explain the load-reduction strate-gies employed by interpreters who perform simultaneous interpreting between Japane and English and the translation failures due to overloading of the working memory.
MOTS-CLS/KEYWORDS
simultaneous interpreting, working memory, articulatory suppression, focus of attention, translation strategies
Introduction
The rearch on working memory will contribute greatly to interpreting studies in that it can offer important clues to account for various cognitive issues involving simultaneous interpreting. It has been established that the interpreting task has a significant relation to the Listening Span Task and that interpreting performance is influenced by working memory (Osaka 1994). Recent contributions to interpreting studies by rearchers of working memory (e.g., e the papers of ASCONA II con-ferences in the journal Interpreting Vol. 5 No. 2, 2000/01) are a very promising sign to further the rearch on the cognitive aspects of interpreting. This paper will try to shed light on some of the cognitive constraints of simultaneous interpreting bad on recent developments in working memory rearch.
Meta, L, 2, 2005
740Meta, L, 2, 2005
Articulatory Suppression and Simultaneous Interpreting
Simultaneous interpreting is often referred to as ‘listening and speaking concurrently’or ‘holding the spoken message while simultaneously formulating and articulating the translated message.’ In experimental psychology, the method requiring the subjects to vocalize a single word ‘the’ or ‘bla’ repeatedly while reading a text or listening to a speech is called ‘articulatory suppression’ or ‘concurrent articulation.’ Articulatory suppression is known to interfere with comprehension or recall by preventing sub-vocal rehearsal (Baddeley et al. 1981). In interpreting studies, producing the target language while listening to the source language is considered to be a kind of articu-latory suppression, which may exert a negative influence on the recall and compre-hension of interpreters. According to Hulme (2000), simultaneous interpreting ‘amounts almost exactly to what is referred to as articulatory suppression in studies of short-term memory.’ Many rearchers have focud their attention on this aspect of simultaneous interpreting (Daro and Fabbro 1994; Padilla, Bajo, Canas, and Padilla 1995; Isham 1994 and 2000; Chincotta and Underwood 1998; Hulme 2000; B ajo Padilla and Padilla, 2000; Shlesinger 2000).
Indeed, articulatory suppression does have a negative impact on verbatim recall (Isham 1994; Daro 1994). Additionally, as Shlesinger (2000) points out, although some form of rehearsal may be possible even when subvocalization is prevented (Vallar and Baddeley 1982), additional cognitive de
mands such as retrieval and infer-ence may deprive interpreters of the opportunity of covert rehearsal. However, ‘the conquences of articulatory suppression are not catastrophic in the n that input material is stored long enough for a translation equivalent to be constructed’(Chincotta and Underwood 1998). In his recent article, Baddeley (2000) reports that articulatory suppression does have a significant effect, but that it isvc美白
by no means devastating. The reduction of auditory memory span is from 7 to 5 digits, not more. Furthermore, he indicates that patients with grossly impaired short-term phonologi-cal memo三八妇女节贺卡
ry and with an auditory memory span of only one digit can typically recall about four digits with visual reprentation. Martin (1990) also suggests that ‘a great deal of ntence processing can be carried out despite very impaired articulatory and phonological memory capacities’ and that ‘the phonological memory abilities of an adult may reprent the residual of a system that was once vital to language processing but that only comes into play in exceptional situations in adult language.’The findings and the very fact that simultaneous interpretation is somehow possible lead us to the following hypothes: (1) subvocal rehearsal may not be of much importance to interpreters; (2) interpreters can circumvent the conquences of articulatory suppression by developing some skills or strategies. As Bajo, Padilla, Muoz, Padilla, Gmez, Puerta, Gonzalvo, and Macizo (2001) suggest, ‘interpreters develop their ability to process information in the working memory in a general way, while their articulatory loop is occupied.’
In either ca, simultaneous interpreters must be able to retain information as long as necessary without the help of the articulatory control process (subvocal rehearsal). And professional interpreters em to be able to do it. However, one should not forget the interference caud by ‘irrelevant speech’ effect (Gupta and MacWhinney 1993), becau it is one thing that the rehearsal is prevented by articu-lating the target language, but quite another that the phonological store is partially
741 process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory
occupied by the interpreters’ own speech. It ems plausible that interpreters counter this effect by maintaining robust phonological reprentations in their phonological store.
The issue of articulatory suppression in simultaneous interpreting is worth con-tinuing investigation. However, the central issue of the process model for simulta-neous interpreting may reside not in the concurrent articulation but in other areas.
Memory System and Central Executive
Simultaneous interpreting is a demanding and complex task that makes u of the working memory to its extreme (Osaka 2002). In order to perform this feat, inter-preters must undertake various tasks such as listening and comprehension, informa-tion retention, retrieval, production, and monitoring almost concurrently. The tasks involved in simultaneous interpretation cannot be handled by the working memory alone. Of the tasks, listening and comprehension are mainly dealt with in the language comprehension system and production is dealt with in the language production system. Both systems are supported by the working memory in normal language processing with the central executive and memory system rving as a ‘work-ing space.’ Language conversion or translation is dealt with by the central executive with the support of the long-term memory. Various information, including the inter-mediate products of simultaneous interpreting, is maintained in the storage system of the working memory. It should be noted here that what is important in the infor-mation retention in simultaneous interpreting is not the performance of the recall (immediate rial recall or understanding of the contents) often measured in the study of the working memory.
It is true that simultaneous interpreting is similar to, although more complex than, the extrinsic load task in which subjects read veral ntences while retaining words or digits for later recall (McDona
ld and Christiann 2002). It is also similar to the reading span test which is esntially identical to the extrinsic load task since ‘the two tasks require the participants to simultaneously comprehend language while retaining the load of words or digits for later recall’ (McDonald and Christiann 2002). The major difference between simultaneous interpreting and the two memory tasks lies in the fact that interpreters retain information (mantic, phonological and contextual) as long as they are necessary for interpreting, and after they have produced the translation, the retention of information is no longer required. Interpreters are not, in usual circumstances, required later recall.
Although there are many models propod for working memory (e Miyake and Shah 1999), the most suitable and promising models that have the potential to explain and account for simultaneous interpreting would be tho of Alan D. Baddeley and Nelson Cowan. However, as Baddeley’s recent proposal of adding ‘epi-sodic buffer’ to the existing model indicates, with his tripartite model he has diffi-culty in explaining the significant but not-so-devastating effect of articulatory suppression as cited above and the data on the recall of pro. Contrary to the expec-tation of his model, in a recall of a meaningful ntence, a span of 16 or more is pos-sible (Baddeley 2000). While the addition of the new fourth component of ‘episodic buffer’ can provide a better explanation for the concurrent processing of information
of different codes, it is still underspecified (e.g., the capacity of the episodic buffer) as
742Meta, L, 2, 2005
Baddeley himlf admits (Baddeley 2000) and ‘the relationship between the central executive and the episodic buffer remains sketchy’ (Andrade 2001).
Embedded Process Model of Working Memory by Cowan
Cowan’s model of working memory is an ‘embedded process’ model that consists of (1) central executive, (2) long-term memory, (3) active memory: subt of memory in a temporarily heightened state of activation, and (4) the focus of atten-tion, which are reprented in Figure 2. It involves all information accessible for a task: (a) memory in the focus of attention; (b) memory out of the focus but never-theless temporarily activated; and (c) inactive elements of memory with pertinent retrieval cues. Active memory is a subt of long-term memory and the focus of attention is a subt of the active memory. The direction of the attentional focus is controlled by the central executive (Cowan 1
999).
To put it differently, “some of the necessary information may be in the focus of attention; some may be 怎么制作课件
in an especially active state, ready to enter the focus as needed; and some may simply have the appropriate contextual coding in long-term memory that allows it to be made available quickly (Cowan 1999). Cowan called his model a “virtual” short-term memory. This working memory has some limits. The evidence suggests that memory activation is time-limited and fades within about 10 to 20 conds unless it is reactivated. On the other hand, the focus of attention is limited by its capacity to about four unrelated items, though chunking can rai the effective limit (Cowan 1999; 2001). Any information that is deliberately recalled is restricted to this limit in the focus of attention and only the information in the focus is available to conscious awareness and report (Cowan 2001). As the focus of atten-tion is capacity-limited, if information exceeds the capacity, the earlier items in the focus have a higher chance of being deactivated and displaced from the focus of attention (Haarman and Usher 2001). This displacement type of capacity limit is shown in Figure 1.
‘Divided attention or attention switching’ has been one of the contentious issues in cognitive science and the controversy has a significant implication in constructing
743 process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory
the process model of simultaneous interpreting. It also concerns the training of interpreters becau i
f the dual task is possible only through the practice of divided attention (“Practice makes perfect”), emingly irrelevant training such as doing mental arithmetic while listening to speech would be justified. In reference to simul-taneous interpreting, Cowan (2000/01), bad on some evidence, suggests that ‘inter-preters are unlikely to share attention adequately between listening and speaking.’Instead, he argues, interpreters may succeed becau (a) part of one task may become automatic, and (b) interpreters may learn to switch attention between the tasks in a more efficient manner.’ In other words, concurrent tasks are made possible by (a) automatization and/or (b) attention-switching between tasks (e also Cowan 1995).
Other Features of Cowan’s Working Memory
Cowan’s model rerves the place for slave systems of Baddeley’s working memory model. The activated elements in the memory roughly correspond to the passive stores (phonological store) and the focus of attention reflects the storage ability of the central executive of Baddeley’s model (Cowan 1995), though Baddeley abandoned the storage capacity of the central executive (B addeley 1993). B addeley’s articulatory control process is one type of memory reactivation process and the memory reacti-vation routines are initiated by the central executive (Cowan 1999). Subvocal re-hearsal ‘may rve to reactivate information by recirculating it through the focus of attention’ (Cowan 1999). In a c
omment on Cowan’s ‘alternative approach,’ Baddeley suggests Cowan’s model is not incompatible with his multi-component model (Baddeley 2003). T aken as a whole, Cowan’s working memory model is to some extent compatible with Baddeley’s model.
Lastly, in Cowan’s model, ‘retrieval means entering the correct item into the focus of attention’ (Cowan 1999). While the retrieval from long-term memory is time-limited becau it must be done within the time frame of an assigned task (e.g., retrieval of equivalent expression), the retrieval from activated memory ‘must occur quickly’ becau the memory will disappear in 10 to 20 conds’ (Cowan 1999). Put differently, the transfer of activated information into the focus of attention is rate-limited. Cowan emphasizes the importance of the rapidity of processing in achieving more successful results in working memory span tasks (Cowan 2000/1). The implica-tion for simultaneous interpreting would be obvious. For example, when interpreters have difficulty in retrieving the corresponding target language for some lexical items, or in understanding some gment of the source language, the resulting delayed respon would induce an unfavorable outcome, such as the accumulation of un-procesd information, disruption or deterioration of the processing of an otherwi easier gment of the source language at a distance (Gile 1995), or total failure of the interpreting task. If that is the ca, it would be desirable for interpreters to keep the delay time as short as possible, and that may call for interpreting strategies or process-ing strategies of some kind.
I would argue that since an attention-switching hypothesis instead of a tenuous assumption of divided attention is adopted and the functions of slave systems of Baddeley’s model are retained, Cowan’s working memory model has the potential to provide a foundation for formulating an information-processing model for simulta-
neous interpreting.
744Meta, L, 2, 2005
Enlarged Embedded Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting
The process model for simultaneous interpreting I propo is an enlarged embedded process model in which the working memory system and language comprehen-sion/ production systems constitute indispensable parts.
figure 2
FOA: focus of attention LTM: long-term memory
As shown in Figure 2, the central executive and the long-term memory consist of a part of the language comprehension system and the language production system. Long-term memory includes the lexicon of both source and target languages and automatized conversion (translation) procedures. This graphic reprentation is quite simple and may em indistinguishable from the normal language processing system, but it is sufficient for the prent purpo.
Current models of working memory rarely distinguish or specify the relation-ships between the language comprehension/ production system and working memory. However, Saito (2000) suggests that the function of the phonological loop is a part of the language perception and production process. In other words, the function of the phonological loop stems from the interaction between par
ts of the language perception process and the language production process. He cites Gathercole and Martin (1996) who argue that the phonological store is a pudo-memory system that makes u of the language perception system. Watanabe (1998) also says that the maintenance and switching of attention as well as the lection of appropriate action and behaviour are required even when there is no requirement for the temporary retention of information. That is, the central executive includes more than the functions intrinsic to working memory. The suggestions 乳清蛋白粉的功效
em to support the view that working memory and language processing systems are par-tially overlapping and cloly related.
The central executive is involved in the control of the focus of attention and coordination of the working memory system (Cowan 1995) and does not itlf have storage capac南瓜回奶吗
ity (Baddeley 1993). As indicated above, the central executive structure is also an indispensable component of the language processing system. If attention switching or coordination of tasks takes long to complete, interpreters have to remember memory items longer, risking the loss of information altogether (Tow & Houston-Price 2001). Similarly, if parsing of incoming speech in the language
