Comprehension in interpreting and translation: testing the phonological interference hypothesis

References

• Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4(11), 417–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., Eldridge, M., & Lewis, V. J. (1981). The role of subvocalization in reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 439–454.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., & Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 36(2), 233–252.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 575–589.
   Google Scholar
• Bajo, T., Padilla, P., Muñoz, R., Padilla, F., Gómez, C., Puerta, M. C., … Macizo, P. (2001). Comprehension and memory processes in translation and interpreting. Quaderns: Revista de Traducció, 6, 27–31.
   Google Scholar
• Balling, L. W., Hvelplund, K. T., & Sjørup, A. C. (2014). Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 59(2), 234–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bejar, I., Douglas, D., Jamieson, J., Nissan, S., & Turner, J. (2000). TOEFL 2000 listening framework: A working paper. Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Besner, D., Davies, J., & Daniels, S. (1981). Reading for meaning: The effects of concurrent articulation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 415–437.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2010). What makes listening Difficult? Factors affecting listening comprehension, (Technical report TTO 81434 E 3.1). College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.
   Google Scholar
• Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campoy, G. (2011). Retroactive interference in short-term memory and the word-length effect. Acta Psychologica, 138(1), 135–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campoy, G., & Baddeley, A. (2008). Phonological and semantic strategies in immediate serial recall. Memory, 16, 329–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, A. C. S., & Read, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of multiple-choice listening test items in the oral versus written mode on L2 listeners’ performance and perceptions. System, 41(3), 575–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christoffels, I. (2006). Listening while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(2), 206–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, T. (2002). Web Vocabprofile (Version 4) [an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead’s Range]. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
   Google Scholar
• Colman, A. M. (2003). Oxford dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Daró, V., & Fabbro, F. (1994). Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied Linguistics, 15, 365–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot, A. M. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 25–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Galaz, S. (2012). La influencia del conocimiento previo en la interpretación simultánea de discursos especializados: Un estudio empírico [The role of prior knowledge in simultaneous interpreting of specialized speeches. An empirical study]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Universidad de Granada, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Galaz, S. (in press). Listening and comprehension in interpretation: Questions that remain open. Translation and Interpreting Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting, 17(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2011). TOEFL IBT Quick Prep Volume 3. Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (2015). How children learn to read words. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 293–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (2000). Cognitive psychology. A student’s handbook (4th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H. W., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gathercole, S. E. (2008). Working memory. In H. L. Roediger (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (Vol. 2, pp. 33–51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and language. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J. P., & Bodie, G. D. (2014). Listening as a goal–directed activity. Western Journal of Communication, 78(5), 668–684.
   Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gerver, D. (1974). Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 337–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerver, D., Longley, P., Long, J., & Lambert, S. (1989). Selection tests for trainee conference interpreters. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 34(4), 724–735.
   Google Scholar
• Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for translator and interpreter training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goh. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185–206.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165–182.
   Google Scholar
• Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 25–38.
   Google Scholar
• Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, S., & Piccinin, A. (2010). Longitudinal studies. In S. Neil (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design, (pp. 740–744). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Imhof, M. (2010). What is going on in the mind of a listener? The cognitive psychology of listening. In A. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human communication in the 21st century, (pp. 97–126). West Sussex: Wiley–Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Injoque-Ricle, I., Barreyro, J. P., Formoso, J., & Jaichenco, V. I. (2015). Expertise, working memory and articulatory suppression effect: Their relation with simultaneous interpreting performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 56–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isham, W. P. (2000). Phonological interference in interpreters of spoken-languages: An issue of storage or process? In B. E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting (pp. 133–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2017). Translation process research. In J. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 21–49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley–Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köpke, B., & Nespoulous, J. L. (2006). Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting, 8(1), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, S. (1988). Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth–of–processing hypothesis. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 33(3), 377–387.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, S. (1991). Aptitude testing for simultaneous interpretation at the University of Ottawa. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 36(4), 586–594.
   Google Scholar
• Lederer, M. (2010). Interpretive approach. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 173–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millisecond Software LLC. (n.d.). User Manual for Inquisit’s Listening Span Task. Retrieved from http://www.millisecond.com/download/library/v5/listeningspan/automatedlspan/automatedlspan.manual
   Google Scholar
• Multon, K. (2010). Test–retest reliability. In S. Neil (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design, (pp. 1495–1498). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R. (2014). Situating translation expertise. A review with a sketch of a construct. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 2–56). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, D., Butterfield, S., Hall, J., & Page, M. P. (2018). Phonological recoding under articulatory suppression. Memory & Cognition, 46(2), 173–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2015). Models of discourse comprehension. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 217–231). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Padilla, F., Bajo, M. T., & Macizo, P. (2005). Articulatory suppression in language interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word knowledge. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 207–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padilla, P. (1995). Memoria y atención en la interpretación de lenguas [Memory and attenttion in language interpretation] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Granada, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Padilla, P., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2007). Tareas de traducción e interpretación desde una perspectiva cognitiva. Una propuesta integradora [Translation and interpretation tasks from a cognitive view: An integrative model]. Granada: Atrio.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices. Past, present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 31–88). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Repovš, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 490–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M. (2013). Describing cognitive processes in translation: Acts and events. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 169–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaeffer, M., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Balling, L. W., & Carl, M. (2016). Word translation entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research (pp. 183–210). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schäffner, C. (2004). Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M., & Ritchot, K. F. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24(6), 733–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spirgel, A. S., & Delaney, P. F. (2016). Does writing summaries improve memory for text? Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 171–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timarova, S., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2014). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16(2), 139–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiselius, E. (2015). Accuracy. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 3–4). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, M. D. (2001). Resource consumption as a function of topic knowledge in nonnative and native comprehension. Language Learning, 51(2), 257–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H. (2018). Testing lecture comprehension through listening–to–summarize cloze tasks. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yanagawa, K., & Green, A. (2008). To show or not to show: The effects of item stems and answer options on performance on a multiple–choice listening comprehension test. System, 36(1), 107–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi'an, W. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing, 15(1), 21–44.
   Google Scholar
• Yudes, C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2012). Coordinating comprehension and production in simultaneous interpreters: Evidence from the articulatory suppression effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 329–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Radvanzky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 725–764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar