Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 24:1 (2022) ► pp.1–37
When two languages are competing
An ERP study of sentence processing in expert and novice interpreters
Published online: 16 November 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00069.fan
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00069.fan
Abstract
Past studies have shown that expert interpreters were better than novices at using contextual cues to anticipate upcoming
information. However, whether such sensitivity to contextual cues can be traced by means of neural signatures is relatively unexplored. The
present study used event-related brain potentials (ERPs) along with a language-switching paradigm – including non-switched (Chinese–Chinese,
L1–L1) and switched (Chinese–English, L1–L2) conditions – to investigate whether interpreters with many years of experience, interpreters
with a few years of experience and post-graduate-level interpreting students differed in the way they process contextually congruent or
incongruent sentence-final target words. The results show that while the manipulations of congruency and switching independently induced a
strong brain response in all three groups, the interaction between the two factors elicited different patterns across groups during
500–700 ms: (1) while a sustained congruency effect was found in the two less-experienced groups for the switched condition, such an effect
was observed in the most experienced group for both switched and non-switched conditions; (2) only the least-experienced group showed a
frontal negativity towards incongruent trials in the switched condition. These 200 ms transient group differences revealed that it might be
possible to trace the development of interpreting ability by examining the ERP components in a language-switching setting.
Keywords: interpreting expertise, N400, PNP, language switching
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1N400 and associated cognitive functions
- 1.2Post-N400 positivity (PNP) and associated cognitive functions
- 1.3ERP studies on interpreting
- 1.4The present study
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Participants
- 2.2Materials
- 2.3Procedure
- 2.4Data acquisition and preprocessing
- 2.5Data analysis
- 3.Results
- 3.1Behavioral data
- 3.2ERP data
- 3.2.1300–500 ms
- 3.2.2500–700 ms
- 3.2.3700–1000 ms
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (63)
Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y. & Traxler, M. J. (2017). Goals and strategies influence lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 931, 203–216.
Brothers, T., Wlotko, E. W., Warnke, L. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2020). Going the extra mile: Effects of discourse context on two late positivities during language comprehension. Neurobiology of Language 1(1), 135–160.
Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 8(1327).
Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuien, N. J. & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science 411, 1318–1352.
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H. & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research 14461, 127–143.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.
Chan, S. (2019). An elephant needs a head but a horse does not: An ERP study of classifier-noun agreement in Mandarin. Journal of Neurolinguistics 521, 100852.
Chernov, G. V. (2004). Inference and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting: A probability-prediction model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chiaro, D. & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the world wide web. Meta 49(2), 278–293.
Chmiel, A. (2021). Effects of simultaneous interpreting experience and training on anticipation, as measured by word-translation latencies. Interpreting 23(1), 18–44.
Collart, A. & Chan, S. (2021). Processing past time reference in a tenseless language: An ERP study on the Mandarin aspectual morphemes -le and -guo. Journal of Neurolinguistics 591, 100998.
Davenport, T. & Coulson, S. (2011). Predictability and novelty in literal language comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research 14181, 70–82.
Delogu, F., Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition 1351, 103569.
Delogu, F., Drenhaus, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2018). On the predictability of event boundaries in discourse: An ERP investigation. Memory & Cognition 46(2), 315–325.
DeLong, K. A. & Kutas, M. (2020). Comprehending surprising sentences: Sensitivity of post-N400 positivities to contextual congruity and semantic relatedness. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., Groppe, D. M. & Kutas, M. (2011). Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations.Psychophysiology 48 (9), 1203–1207.
Delorme, A. & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 134(1), 9–21.
Dijkstra, T. & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5(3), 175–197.
Elmer, S., Meyer, M. & Jäncke, L. (2010). Simultaneous interpreters as a model for neuronal adaptation in the domain of language processing. Brain Research 13171, 147–156.
Federmeier, K. D. & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 411, 469–495.
Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M. & Dickson, D. S. (2016). A common neural progression to meaning in about a third of a second. In G. Hickok & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language. New York: Academic Press, 557–567.
Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E. & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 11461, 75–84.
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2), 78–84.
(2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews 91(4), 1357–1392.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage 201(Supplement 1), S18–S29.
Hodzik, E. & Williams, J. N. (2017). Predictive processes during simultaneous interpreting from German into English. Interpreting 19(1), 1–20.
Jung, T.-P., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E. & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removal of eye artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology 1111, 1745–1758.
Kolk, H. & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language 100(3), 257–261.
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 11461, 23–49.
Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(5), 1230–1246.
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(12), 463–470.
(2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 621, 621–647.
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427), 203–205.
(1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307(5947), 161–163.
Landauer, T., Foltz, P. W. & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourses Processes 25(2&3), 259–284.
Lee, T.-H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta 47(4), 596–606.
Lenth, R. (2020). EMMEANS: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.4.8. [URL]
Liao, C.-H. & Chan, S.-H. (2016). Direction matters: Event-related brain potentials reflect extra processing costs in switching from the dominant to the less dominant language. Journal of Neurolinguistics 401, 79–97.
Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 159–177.
Lopez-Calderon, J. & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 81.
Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MathWorks (2005). MATLAB: The language of technical computing: Desktop tools and development environment, version 7. Natick, MA: The MathWorks.
Morales, J., Padilla, F., Gómez-Ariza, C. J. & Bajo, M. T. (2015). Simultaneous interpretation selectively influences working memory and attentional networks. Acta Psychologica 1551, 82–91.
Moreno, E. M., Federmeier, K. D. & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language 80(2), 188–207.
Ness, T. & Meltzer-Asscher, A. (2018). Lexical inhibition due to failed prediction: Behavioral evidence and ERP correlates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 44(8), 1269–1285.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1), 97–113.
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 311, 785–806.
Pires, L., Leitão, J., Guerrini, C. & Simões, M. R. (2014). Event-related brain potentials in the study of inhibition: Cognitive control, source localization and age-related modulations. Neuropsychology Review 24(4), 461–490.
Proverbio, A. M., Leoni, G. & Zani, A. (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia 42(12), 1636–1656.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL [URL]
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F. & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2020). afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. R package version 0.28-0. [URL]
Tanner, D., Morgan-Short, K. & Luck, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high-pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in ERP studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology 52(8), 997–1009.
Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 301, 415–433.
Van der Meij, M., Cuetos, F., Carreiras, M. & Barber, H. A. (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of language switching in second language learners. Psychophysiology 48(1), 44–54.
Van Heuven, W. J. B. & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews 64(1), 104–122.
Van Petten, C. & Luka, B. J. (2006). Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language 97(3), 279–293.
(2012). Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 83(2), 176–190.
Wittenberg, E., Paczynski, M., Wiese, H., Jackendoff, R. & Kuperberg, G. (2014). The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction. Journal of Memory and Language 731, 31–42.
Xiang, M. & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 30(6), 648–672.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five 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.
Zhong, Zilong, Lin Fan, Xiaokun Zhang, Junlong Cheng, Di Xin & Jiaxing Jiang
Amos, Rhona M., Kilian G. Seeber & Martin J. Pickering
2023. Student interpreters predict meaning while simultaneously interpreting - even before training. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Hodzik, Ena
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
