Cover not available

Article published In: Babel
Vol. 65:4 (2019) ► pp.519–537

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A duet and/or a concerto?

Simultaneous interpreters’ working memory and interpreting expertise

 | Beijing Foreign Studies University
 | Liaoning Shihua University
Published online: 30 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00107.yu
Abstract
Working memory and interpreting expertise are generally acknowledged as two essential factors that affect the interpreting process. With reference to the compensation model, the independent influences model, and the rich-get-richer model proposed in cognitive psychology concerning the interplay between working memory and domain expertise, this experimental study, by varying the delivery speed of the source speech, examines the interplay between working memory and interpreting expertise in the setting of simultaneous interpreting. This study finds that (1) working memory and interpreting expertise can each have a positive impact on simultaneous interpreting quality; (2) other factors being equal, interpreting expertise can have a greater impact on simultaneous interpreting than working memory, and when the interpreting task proves more challenging, interpreting expertise can help relieve the pressure triggered by inadequate working memory; (3) working memory and interpreting expertise function differently in simultaneous interpreting in different stages: for beginner interpreting students, working memory’s contribution to the quality of simultaneous interpreting is more prominent, while for advanced interpreting students, interpreting expertise plays a more direct and prominent role, and the composite influence of working memory and interpreting expertise on simultaneous interpreting performance is weakened due to the increasing impact of other factors.
Résumé
La mémoire de travail et l’expertise en interprétation sont généralement reconnues comme étant deux facteurs essentiels qui influencent le processus d’interprétation. En référence au modèle de compensation, au modèle des influences indépendantes et au modèle « rich-get-richer » proposé en psychologie cognitive, en ce qui concerne l’interaction entre la mémoire de travail et l’expertise du domaine, cette étude expérimentale, en variant la vitesse de transmission du discours source, examine l’interaction entre la mémoire de travail et l’expertise en interprétation dans le cadre de l’interprétation simultanée. Cette étude révèle que (1) la mémoire de travail et l’expertise en interprétation peuvent chacune avoir un impact positif sur la qualité de l’interprétation simultanée ; (2) toutes choses égales par ailleurs, l’expertise en interprétation peut avoir un impact plus important sur l’interprétation simultanée que la mémoire de travail, et lorsque la tâche d’interprétation s’avère plus difficile, l’expertise en interprétation peut contribuer à soulager la pression provoquée par une mémoire de travail insuffisante ; (3) en interprétation simultanée, la mémoire de travail et l’expertise en interprétation fonctionnent différemment à différentes étapes : pour les étudiants qui débutent l’interprétation, la contribution de la mémoire de travail à la qualité de l’interprétation simultanée est plus importante, tandis que pour les étudiants de niveau avancé, l’expertise en interprétation joue un rôle plus direct et plus important, et l’influence combinée de la mémoire de travail et de l’expertise en interprétation sur les performances en matière d’interprétation simultanée est affaiblie par l’impact croissant d’autres facteurs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiment
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Experimental design
    • 2.3Experimental environment and materials
      • 2.3.1Experimental environment and equipment
      • 2.3.2Experimental materials
        • 2.3.2.1WM
        • 2.3.2.2IE
        • 2.3.2.3SI quality
        • 2.3.2.4Control variable
    • 2.4Procedure
      • 2.4.1Control variable measurement
      • 2.4.2Independent variable and dependent variable measurement
    • 2.5Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1WM capacity test
    • 3.2IE
    • 3.3SI quality
      • 3.3.1The correlation between WM and IE (see Table 6)
      • 3.3.2The correlation between WM / IE and SI quality
      • 3.3.3Main effect of WM and IE on SI quality
        • 3.3.3.1In the case of slow source language delivery
        • 3.3.3.2In the case of fast source language delivery
      • 3.3.4Linear regression analysis of the effect of WM and IE on SI quality
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The relationship between WM and IE
    • 4.2The roles of WM and IE in SI
    • 4.3WM’s and IE’s effect in different stages
    • 4.4Complex factors behind interpreting quality
    • 4.5Three models about WM and domain expertise
    • 4.6Implications
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Baddeley, Alan. 2000. “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (11): 417–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bajo, María Teresa; Francisca Padilla; and Presentación Padilla. 2000. “Comprehension processes in simultaneous interpreting”. In Translation in Context, ed. by Chesterman, Andrew; Natividad Gallardo San Salvador; and Yves Gambier, 127–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid K.; and Annette M. B. de Groot. 2005. “Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective”. In Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, ed. by Kroll, Judith F.; and Annette M. B. de Groot, 454–479. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid K.; Annette M. B. de Groot; and Judith F. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Conway, Andrew R. A. et al. 2002. “A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence”. Intelligence 30 (2):163–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daneman, Meredyth; and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “Individual differences in working memory and reading”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19 (4): 455–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Groot, Annette M. B. 2000. “A complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting”. In Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research, ed. by Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja; and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hambrick, David Z.; and Randall W. Engle. 2002. “Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis”. Cognitive psychology 44 (4): 339–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hambrick, David Z.; and Frederick L. Oswald. 2005. “Does domain knowledge moderate involvement of working memory capacity in higher-level cognition? A test of three models”. Journal of memory and language 52 (3): 377–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 2001. “Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user”. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 46 (2): 394–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua; Diane L. Schallert; and Patrick J. Carroll. 2004. “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Zongyi; and Peng Danling. 2002. Discourse comprehension. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyake, Akira; Marcel Adam Just; and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1994. “Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple representations in neutral contexts”. Journal of Memory and Language 33 (2): 175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara et al. 1997. “Skill components in simultaneous interpreting”. In Conference interpreting: Current trends in research, ed. by Gambier, Yves; Daniel Gile; and Christopher Taylor, 133–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara et al.. 2000. “Searching to define expertise in interpreting”. In Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. by Dimitrova, Birgitta Englund; and Kenneth Hylyenstam, 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. Michael; and Anna Uhl Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padilla, P.; Bajo, M. T.; Cañas, J. J.; and Padilla, F. 1995. “Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation”. In Topics in interpreting research, ed. by Kääntämisen ja Tulkkauksen Keskus; and Jorma Tommola, 61–71. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timarová, Šarka. 2015. “Working memory”. In Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 443–446. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet. 2015. “Expertise”. In Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 152–155. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Kefei. 2004. Bilingual comparative corpus: Construction and application. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Xiaoyan. 2003. “The characteristics of interpreting and interpreting pedagogy”. Chinese Translators Journal 24 (6): 56–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Xinhong. 2004. “The extra-linguistic factors in simultaneous interpreting”. Chinese Translators Journal 25 (6): 61–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Xiaohu. 2009. “A review of experimental research in working memory and simultaneous interpreting”. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice 11:77–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Wei. 2008. “A study of the effect of simultaneous interpreting on working memory’s growth potential”. Modern Foreign Languages 41: 423–430.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Cognitive research into interpreting: Relationship between simultaneous and working memory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhong, Weihe. 2003. “Interpreters’ knowledge structure and interpreting course setting”. Chinese Translators Journal 24 (4): 63–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hodzik, Ena, Deniz Özkan & Ebru Diriker
2025. Simultaneous interpreting experience enhances semantic prediction in Turkish. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:4 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Özkan, Deniz, Ena Hodzik & Ebru Diriker
2023. Simultaneous interpreting experience enhances the use of case markers for prediction in Turkish. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue