Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Wor

Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting

and Working Memory

akira mizuno

Rikkyo University Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, Tokyo, Japan

a-mizuno@

RÉSUMÉ

Le présent article se propose de passer en revue la littérature concernant la recherche

sur l’interprétation et celle sur la mémoire de travail dans le but de proposer un cadre

théorique pour un modèle du processus de l’interprétation simultanée. Le modèle de la

mémoire de travail de Cowan, le plus prometteur pour expliquer les différents phéno-

mènes de l’interprétation simultanée, est présenté. Les fonctions de ses composantes

et la nature de l’information retenue en mémoire de travail sont expliquées. Le modèle

est ensuite appliqué à l’analyse d’un petit corpus d’interprétation simultanée japonais-

anglais pour expliquer les stratégies de réduction de la charge cognitive mises en œuvre

par les interprètes ainsi que les erreurs dues à une surcharge de la mémoire de travail.

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to combine interpreting studies with working memory research and

propose 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 Japanese

and English and the translation failures due to overloading of the working memory.

MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDS

simultaneous interpreting, working memory, articulatory suppression, focus of attention,

translation strategies

Introduction

The research 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 researchers of working memory (e.g., see 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 research on the cognitive aspects of interpreting. This paper will try to

shed light on some of the cognitive constraints of simultaneous interpreting based

on recent developments in working memory research.

Meta, L, 2, 2005

740

Meta, 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 researchers have focused 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; Bajo

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 demands such as retrieval and infer-

ence may deprive interpreters of the opportunity of covert rehearsal. However, ‘the

consequences of articulatory suppression are not catastrophic in the sense 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 is 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 memory and with an auditory memory span of only one digit can typically recall

about four digits with visual representation. Martin (1990) also suggests that ‘a great

deal of sentence processing can be carried out despite very impaired articulatory and

phonological memory capacities’ and that ‘the phonological memory abilities of an

adult may represent the residual of a system that was once vital to language processing

but that only comes into play in exceptional situations in adult language.’

These findings and the very fact that simultaneous interpretation is somehow

possible lead us to the following hypotheses: (1) subvocal rehearsal may not be of

much importance to interpreters; (2) interpreters can circumvent the consequences

of articulatory suppression by developing some skills or strategies. As Bajo, Padilla,

Muñoz, Padilla, Gómez, 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 case, 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 seem to be able to do it. However, one

should not forget the interference caused by ‘irrelevant speech’ effect (Gupta and

MacWhinney 1993), because it is one thing that the rehearsal is prevented by articu-

lating the target language, but quite another that the phonological store is partially