Process Model for Simultaneous Interpreting and Wor

Process Model for Simultaneous Interpretingand Working Memoryakira mizunoRikkyo University Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, Tokyo, Japana-mizuno@ÉSUMÉLe présent article se propose de passer en revue la littérature concernant la recherchesur l’interprétation et celle sur la mémoire de travail dans le but de proposer un cadrethéorique pour un modèle du processus de l’interprétation simultanée. Le modèle de lamémoire de travail de Cowan, le plus prometteur pour expliquer les différents phéno-mènes de l’interprétation simultanée, est présenté. Les fonctions de ses composanteset la nature de l’information retenue en mémoire de travail sont expliquées. Le modèleest 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 œuvrepar les interprètes ainsi que les erreurs dues à une surcharge de la mémoire de CTThis paper attempts to combine interpreting studies with working memory research andpropose a theoretical framework for the process model of simultaneous , the embedded model of working memory by Cowan is introduced as the mostpromising model to account for various phenomena of simultaneous interpreting. Thisis followed by a description of the functions of components of the model and the natureof information maintained in the working memory. The model then is applied to a smallcorpus of simultaneous interpreting in an attempt to explain the load-reduction strate-gies employed by interpreters who perform simultaneous interpreting between Japaneseand English and the translation failures due to overloading of the working -CLÉS/KEYWORDSsimultaneous interpreting, working memory, articulatory suppression, focus of attention,translation strategiesIntroductionThe research on working memory will contribute greatly to interpreting studies inthat it can offer important clues to account for various cognitive issues involvingsimultaneous interpreting. It has been established that the interpreting task has asignificant relation to the Listening Span Task and that interpreting performance isinfluenced by working memory (Osaka 1994). Recent contributions to interpretingstudies 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 tofurther the research on the cognitive aspects of interpreting. This paper will try toshed light on some of the cognitive constraints of simultaneous interpreting basedon recent developments in working memory , L, 2, 2005

740 Meta, L, 2, 2005Articulatory Suppression and Simultaneous InterpretingSimultaneous interpreting is often referred to as ‘listening and speaking concurrently’or ‘holding the spoken message while simultaneously formulating and articulating thetranslated message.’ In experimental psychology, the method requiring the subjectsto vocalize a single word ‘the’ or ‘bla’ repeatedly while reading a text or listening to aspeech is called ‘articulatory suppression’ or ‘concurrent articulation.’ Articulatorysuppression is known to interfere with comprehension or recall by preventing sub-vocal rehearsal (Baddeley et al. 1981). In interpreting studies, producing the targetlanguage 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 studiesof short-term memory.’ Many researchers have focused their attention on this aspect ofsimultaneous interpreting (Daro and Fabbro 1994; Padilla, Bajo, Canas, and Padilla1995; Isham 1994 and 2000; Chincotta and Underwood 1998; Hulme 2000; BajoPadilla 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, althoughsome 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, ‘theconsequences of articulatory suppression are not catastrophic in the sense that inputmaterial is stored long enough for a translation equivalent to be constructed’(Chincotta and Underwood 1998). In his recent article, Baddeley (2000) reports thatarticulatory suppression does have a significant effect, but that it is by no meansdevastating. The reduction of auditory memory span is from 7 to 5 digits, not rmore, he indicates that patients with grossly impaired short-term phonologi-cal memory and with an auditory memory span of only one digit can typically recallabout four digits with visual representation. Martin (1990) also suggests that ‘a greatdeal of sentence processing can be carried out despite very impaired articulatory andphonological memory capacities’ and that ‘the phonological memory abilities of anadult may represent the residual of a system that was once vital to language processingbut that only comes into play in exceptional situations in adult language.’These findings and the very fact that simultaneous interpretation is somehowpossible lead us to the following hypotheses: (1) subvocal rehearsal may not be ofmuch importance to interpreters; (2) interpreters can circumvent the consequencesof articulatory suppression by developing some skills or strategies. As Bajo, Padilla,Muñoz, Padilla, Gómez, Puerta, Gonzalvo, and Macizo (2001) suggest, ‘interpretersdevelop 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 aslong as necessary without the help of the articulatory control process (subvocalrehearsal). And professional interpreters seem to be able to do it. However, oneshould not forget the interference caused by ‘irrelevant speech’ effect (Gupta andMacWhinney 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

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

741occupied by the interpreters’ own speech. It seems plausible that interpreters counterthis effect by maintaining robust phonological representations in their 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 System and Central ExecutiveSimultaneous interpreting is a demanding and complex task that makes use of theworking 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. Thesetasks involved in simultaneous interpretation cannot be handled by the workingmemory alone. Of these tasks, listening and comprehension are mainly dealt with inthe language comprehension system and production is dealt with in the languageproduction system. Both systems are supported by the working memory in normallanguage processing with the central executive and memory system serving as a ‘work-ing space.’ Language conversion or translation is dealt with by the central executivewith the support of the long-term memory. Various information, including the inter-mediate products of simultaneous interpreting, is maintained in the storage systemof 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 serial recall or understanding of the contents) often measured in thestudy of the working is true that simultaneous interpreting is similar to, although more complexthan, the extrinsic load task in which subjects read several sentences while retainingwords or digits for later recall (McDonald and Christiansen 2002). It is also similar tothe reading span test which is essentially identical to the extrinsic load task since ‘thetwo tasks require the participants to simultaneously comprehend language whileretaining the load of words or digits for later recall’ (McDonald and Christiansen2002). The major difference between simultaneous interpreting and the two memorytasks lies in the fact that interpreters retain information (semantic, phonological andcontextual) as long as they are necessary for interpreting, and after they have producedthe translation, the retention of information is no longer required. Interpreters are not,in usual circumstances, required later gh there are many models proposed for working memory (see Miyakeand Shah 1999), the most suitable and promising models that have the potential toexplain and account for simultaneous interpreting would be those of Alan ey 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 articulatorysuppression as cited above and the data on the recall of prose. Contrary to the expec-tation of his model, in a recall of a meaningful sentence, a span of 16 or more is pos-sible (Baddeley 2000). While the addition of the new fourth component of ‘episodicbuffer’ can provide a better explanation for the concurrent processing of informationof different codes, it is still underspecified (e.g., the capacity of the episodic buffer) as

742 Meta, L, 2, 2005Baddeley himself admits (Baddeley 2000) and ‘the relationship between the centralexecutive and the episodic buffer remains sketchy’ (Andrade 2001).Embedded Processes Model of Working Memory by CowanCowan’s model of working memory is an ‘embedded processes’ model that consistsof (1) central executive, (2) long-term memory, (3) active memory: subset ofmemory in a temporarily heightened state of activation, and (4) the focus of atten-tion, which are represented in Figure 2. It involves all information accessible for atask: (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 pertinentretrieval cues. Active memory is a subset of long-term memory and the focus ofattention is a subset of the active memory. The direction of the attentional focus iscontrolled by the central executive (Cowan 1999).To put it differently, “some of the necessary information may be in the focus ofattention; some may be in an especially active state, ready to enter the focus asneeded; and some may simply have the appropriate contextual coding in long-termmemory that allows it to be made available quickly (Cowan 1999). Cowan called hismodel a “virtual” short-term memory. This working memory has some limits. Theevidence suggests that memory activation is time-limited and fades within about 10to 20 seconds unless it is reactivated. On the other hand, the focus of attention islimited by its capacity to about four unrelated items, though chunking can raise theeffective limit (Cowan 1999; 2001). Any information that is deliberately recalled isrestricted to this limit in the focus of attention and only the information in the focusis 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 thefocus have a higher chance of being deactivated and displaced from the focus ofattention (Haarman and Usher 2001). This displacement type of capacity limit isshown in Figure 1123456focus of attentiondisplacementnext itemDivided Attention or Attention Switching‘Divided attention or attention switching’ has been one of the contentious issues incognitive science and the controversy has a significant implication in constructing

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

743the process model of simultaneous interpreting. It also concerns the training ofinterpreters because if the dual task is possible only through the practice of dividedattention (“Practice makes perfect”), seemingly irrelevant training such as doingmental arithmetic while listening to speech would be justified. In reference to simul-taneous interpreting, Cowan (2000/01), based on some evidence, suggests that ‘inter-preters are unlikely to share attention adequately between listening and speaking.’Instead, he argues, interpreters may succeed because (a) part of one task may becomeautomatic, and (b) interpreters may learn to switch attention between the tasks in amore efficient manner.’ In other words, concurrent tasks are made possible by (a)automatization and/or (b) attention-switching between tasks (see also Cowan 1995).Other Features of Cowan’s Working MemoryCowan’s model reserves the place for slave systems of Baddeley’s working memorymodel. The activated elements in the memory roughly correspond to the passivestores (phonological store) and the focus of attention reflects the storage ability of thecentral executive of Baddeley’s model (Cowan 1995), though Baddeley abandoned thestorage capacity of the central executive (Baddeley 1993). Baddeley’s articulatorycontrol 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 serve to reactivate information by recirculating it through the focus ofattention’ (Cowan 1999). In a comment on Cowan’s ‘alternative approach,’ Baddeleysuggests Cowan’s model is not incompatible with his multi-component model(Baddeley 2003). Taken as a whole, Cowan’s working memory model is to some extentcompatible with Baddeley’s , in Cowan’s model, ‘retrieval means entering the correct item into thefocus of attention’ (Cowan 1999). While the retrieval from long-term memory istime-limited because it must be done within the time frame of an assigned task (e.g.,retrieval of equivalent expression), the retrieval from activated memory ‘must occurquickly’ because the memory will disappear in 10 to 20 seconds’ (Cowan 1999). Putdifferently, the transfer of activated information into the focus of attention is rate-limited. Cowan emphasizes the importance of the rapidity of processing in achievingmore successful results in working memory span tasks (Cowan 2000/1). The implica-tion for simultaneous interpreting would be obvious. For example, when interpretershave difficulty in retrieving the corresponding target language for some lexical items,or in understanding some segment of the source language, the resulting delayedresponse would induce an unfavorable outcome, such as the accumulation of un-processed information, disruption or deterioration of the processing of an otherwiseeasier segment of the source language at a distance (Gile 1995), or total failure of theinterpreting task. If that is the case, it would be desirable for interpreters to keep thedelay 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 tenuousassumption of divided attention is adopted and the functions of slave systems ofBaddeley’s model are retained, Cowan’s working memory model has the potential toprovide a foundation for formulating an information-processing model for simulta-neous interpreting.

744 Meta, L, 2, 2005Enlarged Embedded Processes Model for Simultaneous InterpretingThe process model for simultaneous interpreting I propose is an enlarged embeddedprocesses model in which the working memory system and language comprehen-sion/ production systems constitute indispensable 2FOA: focus of attention LTM: long-term memoryAs shown in Figure 2, the central executive and the long-term memory consist of apart of the language comprehension system and the language production -term memory includes the lexicon of both source and target languages andautomatized conversion (translation) procedures. This graphic representation isquite simple and may seem indistinguishable from the normal language processingsystem, but it is sufficient for the present t models of working memory rarely distinguish or specify the relation-ships between the language comprehension/ production system and workingmemory. However, Saito (2000) suggests that the function of the phonological loopis a part of the language perception and production process. In other words, thefunction of the phonological loop stems from the interaction between parts of thelanguage perception process and the language production process. He citesGathercole and Martin (1996) who argue that the phonological store is a pseudo-memory system that makes use of the language perception system. Watanabe (1998)also says that the maintenance and switching of attention as well as the selection ofappropriate action and behaviour are required even when there is no requirementfor the temporary retention of information. That is, the central executive includesmore than the functions intrinsic to working memory. These suggestions seem tosupport the view that working memory and language processing systems are par-tially overlapping and closely central executive is involved in the control of the focus of attention andcoordination of the working memory system (Cowan 1995) and does not itself havestorage capacity (Baddeley 1993). As indicated above, the central executive structureis also an indispensable component of the language processing system. If attentionswitching or coordination of tasks takes long to complete, interpreters have toremember memory items longer, risking the loss of information altogether (Towse& Houston-Price 2001). Similarly, if parsing of incoming speech in the language

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

745comprehension system or speech planning in the language production system takeslonger, it will switch away from other activities that should be completed in a timelymanner, risking the breakdown of the overall task (e.g., failure of simultaneous inter-preting). If two or more tasks compete with each other in the central executive due topoor coordination, that may cause interference and the degradation of efficiency andbehavior. The result of this ‘task-length effect’ may become quite similar to those ofthe processing capacity saturation described in the Effort Model by Gile (1995).Nature of Code of Information in Working MemoryThe code of information in the activated memory includes both phonological (verba-tim) and semantic representations. While phonological information in the activatedlong-term memory decays unless it is refreshed by entering the focus of attention,semantic information (i.e., word meanings and propositions) is actively retained muchlonger (Haarmann and Usher 2001; Martin 1990). Semantic short-term memorystores word meanings that are actively maintained until they can be integrated into ameaningful relationship with words later in the sentence. The area where meaningsare maintained is ‘in or near the focus of awareness’ (Haarman, Davelaar, and Usher2003). Citing strong evidence for separate phonological and semantic memory in theworking memory, Haarman, Davelaar, and Usher claim that semantic memory isinvolved in the rapid computation of information, whereas phonological memory isused as a backup system. Semantic STM component of the working memory alsosupports the maintenance of concepts associated with words. Furthermore, semanticmemory or semantic representation includes not only propositions explicitly expressedin a speech but also propositions inferred by interpreters or macropropositions pro-duced by the integration of propositions (Muramoto 1998). Mental model (Johnson-Laird 1983) or situational representations (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983) are alsoproduced through the interaction between the verbal information and the knowl-edge of interpreters and remain within the working memory (Glenberg et al. 1987).The mental model or situational representations will be renewed throughout theinterpreting task until the new mental model becomes necessary. However, oneshould not assume that these representations are always constructed (Zwaan and vanOostendop 1993). Haarman and Usher (2001) claim that context information needsto be maintained in an active state (and across intervening items) in order to be usedin the control (or biasing) of information processed later on. However, if they meanby ‘an active state’ the focus of attention, it would be impossible to hold contextualinformation or mental model in the focus of attention where many items competefor entry. It is very likely that the mental model or situational representations will beconstructed within the activated portion of long-term memory and will enter thefocus of attention when ingly, working memory contains multi-modal representations, whichinclude phonological (verbatim) representations of the source language, lexical seman-tic representation, propositional representation, products of inferences, situationalrepresentation or mental model, and surface form of the target language. Workingmemory thus provides a buffer for language comprehension and production. Thebuffer might be used as a means of maintaining subsequent words in a sentencewhile the analysis of an earlier portion is going on. Or it might retain the filler until

746 Meta, L, 2, 2005it is integrated with the gap. In auditory comprehension, the remaining words of asentence continue to arrive at the ear of the listener even though the analysis of theearlier portion may still be in progress. Thus, such a buffer would be useful wheneversentence processing lags behind the input. The number of words that have to bemaintained in such a buffer would depend on how long various processes take.(Martin 1990)Cognitive constraints involving simultaneous interpreting clearly indicate theimportance of proper resource management and task scheduling because simulta-neous interpreting must be performed within the limits of the resources of the work-ing memory and language processing system. Specifically, interpreters should payattention not to overload the focus of attention and the language processing andretrieval should be completed before the activated memory fades away.A Perspective from SI between English and JapaneseJust as language comprehension does not proceed on-line as successive words occur(Engle and Conway 1998: 75), simultaneous interpreting is not an on-line operationeither. It includes various kinds of reversals and modifications such as reversing theorder of lexical items to form a grammatically correct expression in the target lan-guage and retaining the earlier portion until the grammar of the target languageallows its translation during the translation of the successive portions. In someinstances, on the other hand, interpreters might produce some target language inanticipation of the following lexical units. These manipulations apply to simulta-neous interpreting of all language combinations to a certain r, simultaneous interpreting between Japanese and English seems moredifficult than other structurally similar language combinations. The difficulty arisesmainly from the difference of language structure rather than the difference of culturesand other elements though they cannot be underestimated. In simultaneous inter-preting, the difference of language structure often taxes the working memory capac-ity. Mazuka (1998) succinctly summarizes the typological features of the Japaneselanguage as gically, Japanese is a S(ubject) – O(bject) – V(erb) word order, left branching(LB), and head-final (HF) language. The head of a phrase (e.g., NP, VP, AP, and PP)generally comes at its end. In addition, in complex sentences, a subordinate clause pre-cedes a main clause, and in complex NPs, a relative clause precedes its head noun. Thus,when clauses are embedded recursively, the language branches out leftward. (Mazuka1998)The typological features of the Japanese language mean that if interpreters try toseek a formal correspondence in simultaneous interpreting between English andJapanese, they are required to reverse the word order in almost every grammaticalunit. This will put a heavier burden on the working memory of interpreters thanother structurally similar language e 1, which is a part of a small corpus of simultaneous interpreting byfour professional interpreters (the speech rate was 184 words/m), clearly shows thedifficulties caused by these constraints. However, interpreters circumvent many ofthe difficulties by using ‘translation strategies.’ In the first sentence, the subject nounphrase with a relative clause (a second historic transformation that is now going on)

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

747was translated linearly by either repeating some of the lexical items or adopting adifferent sentence pattern from the original. None of the four interpreters tried toseek a formal correspondence. These are the common strategies to avoid the accu-mulation of untranslated information in the working memory. However, in the latterhalf of the same sentence, all four interpreters failed to render complete translationspossibly due to the head-final and verb-final word order of the Japanese languageand the limited capacity of the focus of attention. In order to achieve a formal corre-spondence between English and Japanese, the verb phrase (will enhance) must beretained toward the end of the sentence and the three nouns (the status, the power,and the responsibility) cannot be translated before the translation of the head noun(countries). In addition, the head noun (countries) can be translated only after thetranslation of the PP (with relatively greater economic capability). The four interpret-ers used some coping strategies, but they seem to have failed to avoid overloading thefocus of attention. In all probability, they accumulated the items – [will enhance][the status] [the power] [and the responsibility] [of countries] – in the focus ofattention, displacing some of the items from the limited-capacity focus. This mayexplain the omission of the lexical items [the status] and/or [the power] from thetranslations and the appearance of non-correspondence or semantic dilution such asjyuyosei (the importance) and yakuwari (the role) instead of [the status, the powerand the responsibility]. However, the fact that the verb phrase (will enhance) wastranslated by all interpreters in spite of the long delay indicates the likelihood thatinterpreters may have used a special encoding strategy – possibly semantic encodingor conceptualizing encoding (Funayama, Kasahara, and Nishimura 2002).Example 1A second historic transformation that is now going on is that the reduction in theNibanmeno rekishitekina henka imagenzai okiteiru kono gekidouto iunoh Dainibanmeno henkaga okotteimasu sorehaFutatumeno rekishitekina daihennka, koremoima okotteimasuga kono daihenkatohaDainino rekishitekina hendou, henkadearimasuga sorehaimportance of security issues and concomitant rise of economic issues to globalanzenhosho no mondaino jyuyoseiga hettekiteiruto sosite soreto dojinianzenhoshono mondaino jyuyoseiga sukunakunatte kiteirutoiukoto sositeanzenhoshono jyuyoseiga chiisakunari soretodonoyounamonodearukatoiu, iuto, anzenhoshomondaino jyuyoseiga hikukunatte kiteiru sositeprominence will enhance the status, the power, and the responsibility of countries withchikyukibodeno keizaimonndaito ittamonoga taitoushiteirutoiukotoniyottekeizaino jyuyoseiga takamattekiteirutoiukotodesu sikamo chikyukiboninattekiteiru sosite warewarenosekiningahanpireisite keizaitekina mondaiga gurobarunakibode ookikunattekitatoiukotodesu soreniyori chiimosekinin mo sorenitaisite e keizaino mondaiga jyuyoninattekitatoiukotodearimasu. korniyorimasiterelatively greater economic capability, most notably Japan and it will reduce the hikakuteki ookina keizairyokuwo motukunino jyuyoseiga takamattekuruto irunodesu keizaitekini ookinachikarawomotu tumari nihonnno sekiningaagatteikukuniga arimasu. Soreha keizaitekina chikarawomotteirukuni, tatoeba nihonga sono hikakuteki yoriookina keizaitekina chikarawo motteirukuni tokuni nihonnitotteposition of nations with primarily military power such as the Soviet union. One result

748 Meta, L, 2, 2005Nakademo nihonnha sonosaitarumonodesu. Sosite gunjiteki gunjikankei tatoebatakamatteirunodsu. Sosite gunjitekina chikarawomotu Sobietono sekininhaichireidesu. Soretodoujini gunjitekina chikarasika omonimotteinaikuni, tatoeba Sorennadono chiiha sonoyakuwarigatakamaru toiukokodesu. Sosite gunjitekinachikarawo mottakuni tatoeba SorennoyounaTranslation strategies are applied either consciously or unconsciously (automati-cally). The strategies most frequently used would be load-reduction strategies. Butinterpreters cannot prepare strategies for every syntactic pattern, which is confirmedby Example 2. All four interpreters failed to produce the translation of the beginningportion of the sentence [there is a strong reason to believe].Example 2However, there are strong reason to believe that today’s economic powers, thetoittayounatokoroni mirareta taiseidearimasu. Sikasi imagenzainonoyakuwari nadoniyotte sasaeraretekitamono bakaridesita. Shikasi konkainosono chusintekina yakuwariwo hatasitekimasita. Sikasi imagenzainoiraikaraha Amerikaga sono anteiyaku, ka-yakuninattekita wakedearimasu. SiikasiUnited States, Japan, and the uniting Europe, can, in fact, work out cooperativekeizaitaikoku Amerika, Nippon, sosite Yoroppa koreranokeizaitaikoku Amerika, Nippon, sosite keizaitougousareru Yoroppa toiunohakeizaitaikoku Amerika, Nippon, sosite tougousaretutuaru Yoroppa konnichi Amerika, Nippon sosite tougousaretutuaru Yoroppa ECga EUgamanagement arrangements. They are close allies. They kyoryokukankei kyoryokutekina torikimewo motarasukotogadekiruto korekaraha kyouryokutekini kanriwositeikanakerebanaranainodesu. Hijoni koreha tanitude sidousurunodehanaku shudantekina katachide uneisiteikunodesu soremo kyoryokusite shudantekina keizaino ehhave democratic governments. They have a record of effective cooperative omoimasu. Kankeimo chikai sositemata kinmituna doumeikankei deari, sosite minshukokkadearimasu. Sosite koremade kanoudesu. Minna minshutekina seifuwo se seifuwo kanrishiteikukotoga dekiruyouninarunorou toiukotodesu. Hijoni kinmitunaInterpreters must have put the phrase [there is a strong reason to believe] into thefocus of attention, because there are no translation strategies used for this , by adding successive elements (can; in fact; work out cooperative managementarrangement) they might have overloaded the focus and displaced the representationof the beginning segment of the sentence from the focus. These examples mightsupport the “tightrope hypothesis” of the Effort Model that claims interpreters areworking close to processing capacity saturation (Gile 1999).Funayama, Kasahara, and Nishimura (2002) analyzed the delay of translation insimultaneous interpreting from English into Japanese and tried to account for thelong delay of translation. Based on the assumption that semantic memory or propo-sitional memory lasts longer than phonological memory, they suggest that interpret-ers can somehow hold conceptualized items irrespective of time distance or numberof words interpolated between listening and production. It should be noted that thetranslation delay of the examples they cite invariably falls within 10 seconds, whichmight be accommodated by the activated long-term memory in Cowan’s model.

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

749However, some of their examples could be accounted for by the manipulation ofinformation in the focus of e 3E47J47E48J48E49J49E50J50must do is balance the interests, we allow people to home shikasi yahari sono rigaio umaku baransu saserubekischools for constitutional reasons because it’s closelydato omoimasu. homu-skuringu, koreo mitometeirunoha kenpojonorelated to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom ofriyude arimasu. toiunowa koreha shukyono jiyu hyogenno jiyuthought, freedom of education, and if your balance that sisono jiyu kyoikuno jiyuni tunagaru Example 3 above, Funayama et al. argue that what should be noted is that in spiteof the time distance of 7 seconds and the incomplete correspondence between ‘re-lated’ and ‘tunagaru’ due to the possible decay in the short-term memory, the trans-lation ‘tunagaru’ retains the meaning of ‘related.’ However, this example could beexplained differently. When an interpreter began to utter ‘toiunowa’ (because), she/heretained only one chunk (it’s closely related) in the focus of attention. Thereafter, theinterpreter continued to translate the consecutive segments immediately after she/helistened to them, each instance retaining in the focus of attention the same item (It’sclosely related) and the phrase that would be immediately translated. Since the inter-preter held only two items in the focus of attention throughout this process, she/hemight not have had much difficulty in retaining the item ‘related’ or its meaning for7 conceptualization or semantic encoding seems to provide a good account ofsome aspects of simultaneous interpreting, it might be argued that conceptualizationor semantic encoding, or for that matter pragmatic and contextual informationalone, cannot circumvent difficulties arising from simultaneous interpreting betweenstructurally different languages such as Japanese and English. Even if interpretersconceptualize some items and put them into the focus, they may be obliged to retainlexical items that defy conceptualization or categorization in the focus for structuralreasons, thus risk overloading the focus of attention and the consequent loss orsemantic dilution of the conceptualized item. The processing of verb phrases insimultaneous interpreting from Japanese into English is a typical case which revealsthe limitation of conceptualization. Anticipatory rendition of verb phrases before thecorresponding English verb phrases appear means interpreters are mobilizing a load-reduction strategy to avoid overloading their memory capacity. Example 4 indicatesthat the interpreter’s translation of a verb phrase (have been discussing) precedes thecorresponding source language utterance [gironga nasarete mairimasita]. If the inter-preter had waited for the verb phrase [gironga nasarete mairimasita] which appearsat the end of the sentence, she/he would have accumulated the phrases [kaihatutobunkano mondaini tuite samazamana] in the focus. (The passive voice would not beconsidered a good choice for stylistic reasons.)

750 Meta, L, 2, 2005Example 4SL1:TL1:SL2:TL2:Kinou irai ano- kaihatuto bunkano mondaini tuite samazamana Since yesterday, we have been discussing the issuegironga nasarete mairimasita. Kyouno gozenchumo soreo saraniof culture and development from various perspectives. In the session thisLiu (2000) and Liu, Schallert, and Carroll (2004) report that professional interpretersinterpreted ‘continuation sentences’ (i.e., sentences that immediately follow the testsentences, the first three or four words of which were essential for establishing thecorrect meaning of the sentences) more accurately than the student conclude that professional interpreters have a domain-specific skill to allocatetheir working memory resources efficiently and shift attention at the right r, in light of the extended embedded model, their results can be interpreteddifferently. Though we agree that professional interpreters in their experiments hadability to allocate their resources efficiently and shift attention properly, the first fewwords of the continuation sentences may have entered first into the activatedmemory area in a phonological form while the interpreters were translating the pre-ceding sentences. After finishing the translation of preceding sentences, the inter-preters may have focused their attention on these few words that were retained in thephonological memory and continued processing so as not to overburden the lim-ited-capacity focus of attention. Perhaps the domain-specific skills for interpretersmay be translation strategies that would reduce the processing and memory loadrather than or in addition to the skills of allocating resources efficiently and switchattention reters make use of a variety of strategies to overcome the task-specificconstraints (Kalina 1992). Some of the strategies may be applied irrespective of lan-guage combinations and some may be used only in the specific language pairs. Thesestrategies are only the heuristics, but their accumulation will contribute greatly to theimprovement of the performance of simultaneous interpreting and to the teachingof ding RemarksThis paper has presented a rough sketch of the theoretical framework for the processmodel of simultaneous interpreting drawing on the research on working model proposed is merely an interpretive hypothesis and needs more specifica-tions and elaboration in many respects. The model should be described in relation toother existing proposals in terms of similarities and differences. The author hopesthat in due course the model would be refined so that it can be tested NCESAndrade, J. (2001): “The Working Memory Model: Consensus, Controversy, and Future Direc-tions,” in Andrade, J. (ed.) Working memory in perspective. Hove, Psychology ey, A. D. (1993): “Working Memory or Working Attention?,” in: Baddeley, A. D., antz (eds.) Attention: Selection, Awareness, and Control: A Tribute to DonaldBroadbent, Oxford, Oxford University ey, A. D. (2000): “The Episodic Buffer: A New Component of Working Memory?” Trendsin Cognitive Sciences, 4/11, p. 417-423.

process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory

751Baddeley, A. D. (2003): “Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” Nature Reviews,Neuroscience, 4, p. ey, A. D. Eldridge, M. and V. Lewis (1981): “The Role of Subvocalization in Reading,”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, p. , M. T., Padilla, F. and P. Padilla (2000): “Comprehension Processes in SimultaneousInterpreting,” in Chesterman, A. San Salvador, N. G., and Y. Gambier (eds.) Translationin Context: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Granada, 1998, Amsterdam, , M. T., Padilla, P., Muñoz, R., Padilla, F., Gómez, C., Puerta, M. P., Gonzalvo, P. andP. Macizo (2001): “Comprehension and Memory Processes in Translation and Interpret-ing,” Quaderns. Revista de traducció, 6, p. tta, D. and G. Underwood (1998): “Simultaneous Interpreters and the Effect of Con-current Articulation on Immediate Memory,” Interpreting, 3/1, p. , N. (1995): Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework, New York, Oxford Univer-sity , N. (1999): “An Embedded-Processes Model of Working Memory,” in Miyake, A. (eds.)Cowan, N. (2000/01): “Processing Limits of Selective Attention and Working Memory, PotentialImplications for Interpreting,” Interpreting, 5/2, p. , N. (2001): “The Magical Number 4 in Short-Term Memory: A Reconsideration of Men-tal Storage Capacity,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, p. , V. and F. Fabbro (1994): “Verbal Memory During Simultaneous Interpretation: Effects ofPhonological Interference,” Applied Linguistics, 15, p. , R. W. and A. R. A. Conway (1998): “Working Memory and Comprehension,” in Logie,R. H. and K. J. Gilhooly (eds.). Working Memory and Thinking. Hove, Psychology ma, C., Kasahara, T. and T. Nishimura (2002): “Dojituyaku ni okeru yakushutu-chienno mekanizumu” (Mechanism of translation delay in simultaneous interpreting), inFunayama, C. (ed.) Dojituyaku ni okeru taiyaku-chien no ninchi-gengogakuteki kenkyu (Cog-nitive Linsguistics on translation delay in simultaneous interpreting), Grant Research Reportto the Ministry of Education and Science (Basic Research (C) (2), 2000-2001).Gathercole, S. E. and A. J. Martin (1996): “Interactive Processes in Phonological Memory,” inGathercole, S. E. (ed.) Models of Short-term Memory. Hove: Psychology , D. (1995): Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, Amsterdam,John , D. (1999): “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting– A Contribution,” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 23, p. rg, A. M., Meyer, M. and K. Lindem (1987): “Mental Models Contribute to ForegroundingDuring Text Comprehension,” Journal of Memory and Language, 26, p. , P. and B. MacWhinney (1993): “Is the Phonological Loop Articulatory or Auditory?,” inProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale:Lawrence nn, H. and M. Usher (2001): “Maintenance of Semantic Information in Capacity-LimitedItem Short-Term Memory,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8/3, p. nn, H., Davelaar, E. J. and M. Usher (2002): “Individual Differences in Semantic Short-Term Memory Capacity and Reading Comprehension,” Journal of Memory and Language,48, , C. (2000): “Language Processing Mechanisms and Immediate Memory: Possible Implica-tions for Simultaneous Interpreting,” in ASCONA: Complex Cognitive Processes: Simulta-neous Interpretation as a Research Paradigm. [Accessed 29 August 2002].Isham, W. P. (1994): “Memory for Sentence Form after Simultaneous Interpretation: Evidenceboth for and against Deverbalization.” in Lambert, S. & B. Moser-Mercer (eds.)

Bridgingthe Gap: Empirical Research in Interpretation, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

752 Meta, L, 2, 2005Isham, W. P. (2000): “Phonological Interference in Interpreters of Spoken-Languages: An Issue ofStorage of Process?,” in Dimitrova, B. E. and K. Hyltenstam (eds.) Language Processingand Simultaneous Interpreting: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Amsterdam, John n-Laird, P. N. (1983): Mental Models, Cambridge, Cambridge University , S. (1992): “Discourse Processing and Interpreting Strategies: An Approach to the Teach-ing of Interpreting,” in Dollerup, C. and A. Loddegaard (eds.) Teaching Translation andInterpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, Amsterdam, John , M. (2001): Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis, Ph. D. Disser-tation submitted to the University of Texas at , M., Schallert, D. L. and P. J. Carroll (2004): “Working Memory and Expertise in Simul-taneous Interpreting,” Interpreting, 6/1, p. ald, M. C. and M. H. Christiansen (2002): “Reassessing Working Memory: Commenton Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996),” Psychological Review, 109/1,, R. C. (1990): “Neuropsychological Evidence on the Role of Short-Term Memory inSentence Processing,” in Vallar, G. and T. Shallice (eds.) Neuropsychological Impairmentsof Short-Term Memory, Cambridge, Cambridge University , R. (1998): The Development of Language Processing Strategies: Cross-Linguistic StudyBetween Japanese and English, Mahwah: , A. and P. Shah (eds.) (1999): Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Mainte-nance and Executive Control, Cambridge, Cambridge University to, T. (1998): Bunsho rikai ni tuiteno ninchi-sinrigaku teki kenkyu (Cognitive psychologi-cal study on prose comprehension), Tokyo, Kazama , M. (1994): “Riidingu-supan no kenkyu 5: doujituyaku tesuto to wakingu memori,”(Study of reading span 5: Test of simultaneous interpreting and the working memory), inNihon-shinrigakkai dai-58-kai taikai ronbunshu (Proceedings of the 58th conference of JapanPsychological Society), p. , M. (2002): Nou no memo-cho: wakingu memori (Working memory: The sketchpad in thebrain), Tokyo, a, P., Bajo, M. T., Canas, J. J. and F. Padilla (1995): “Cognitive Processes of Memory inSimultaneous Interpretation,” in Tommola, J. (ed.) Topics in Interpreting Research, Turku,University of Turku Centre for Translation and , S. (2001): “Sadoukiokuni sisutemu no kosei to jyuzoku sisutemu no mekanizumu” (Thestructure of working memory system and the mechanisms of slave systems), in Ohta,N. and H. Tajika (eds.) Kioku kenkyu no saizensen (Frontiers of the memory study), Kyoto,Kitaohji nger, M. (2000): Strategic Allocation of Working Memory and other Attentional Resources inSimultaneous Interpreting, Ph. D. Thesis submitted to the Bar Ilan , J. N. and C. M. T. Houston-Price (2001): “Reflections on the Concept of the CentralExecutive,” in Andrade, J. (ed.) Working Memory in Perspective, Hove, Psychology , G. and A. D. Baddeley (1982): “Short-Term Forgetting and the Articulatory Loop,” TheQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, p. Dijk, T. A. and W. Kintsch (1983): Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, New York, Aca-demic be, M. (1998): “Chuo jikkokei ha waakingu memorii no tamedakeno monoka?” (Centralexecutive is more than a slave system within working memory: comments on Fujii’s article),Sinrigaku Hyoron (Japanese Psychological Review), 41/2, p. , R. A. and U. van Oostendop (1993): “Do Readers Construct Spatial Representations inNaturalistic Story Comprehension?,” Discourse Processes, 16, p. 125-143.