Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:52:47.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relation between the working memory skills of sign language interpreters and the quality of their interpretations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2011

RICK VAN DIJK ,
INGRID CHRISTOFFELS ,
ALBERT POSTMA  and
DAAN HERMANS
RICK VAN DIJK*
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Institute, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands and University of Applied Sciences, Utrechtthe Netherlands
INGRID CHRISTOFFELS
Affiliation:
Leiden Institute of Brain and Cognition Department of Psychology, Leiden University
ALBERT POSTMA
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Institute, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
DAAN HERMANS
Affiliation:
Royal Dutch Kentalis, Sint Michielsgestel and Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen
*
Address for correspondence: Rick van Dijk, Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlandsrick.vandijk@hu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two experiments we investigated the relationship between the working memory skills of sign language interpreters and the quality of their interpretations. In Experiment 1, we found that scores on 3-back tasks with signs and words were not related to the quality of interpreted narratives. In Experiment 2, we found that memory span scores for words and signs under oral articulatory suppression were related to the quality of interpreted narratives. We argue that the insensitivity to articulatory suppression in memory span tasks reflects the interpreters' ability to bind information from multiple sources in episodic memory. This enhanced ability leads to less reliance on the retention of information from the source language in memory during interpreting, and will positively affect the quality of interpretations (Padilla, Bajo & Macizo, 2005). Finally, in contrast to previous studies on the memory spans for signs and words (Hall & Bavelier, 2010), we found that the memory spans scores for spoken words and signs were equally large. We argue that the use of a large set of phonologically complex stimuli in the present study may have stimulated participants to use a speech-based code to store and retain the signs in short-term memory.

Keywords

sign language interpretersworking memory skillsquality of interpretations
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 340 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bajo, M. T., Padilla, F., & Padilla, M. (2000). Comprehension processes in simultaneous interpreting. In Chesterman, A., San Salvador, N. Gallardo & Gambier, Y. (eds.), Translation in context, pp. 127–142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18, 272–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavelier, D., Newport, E. L., Hall, M. L., Supalla, T., & Boutla, M. (2006). Persistent difference in short-term memory span between sign and speech: Implications for cross-linguistic comparisons. Psychological Science, 17, 1090–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellugi, U., & Fischer, S. (1972). A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition, 1, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billies, P., Buchkoski, D., Kolvitz, M., Sanderson, G., & Walter, J. (2003). Postsecondary Education Programs Network: Needs assessment, 2002 (Report of OSERS grant H078A60004). Rochester, NY: National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Northeast Technical Assistance Center.Google Scholar
Boutla, M., Supalla, T., Newport, E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2004). Short-term memory span: Insights from sign language. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 997–1002.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Listening while talking: The retention of prose under oral articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 454–479. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J. & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7, 547–552.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.Google Scholar
Dobbs, A. R., & Rule, B. G. (1989). Adult age differences in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 4, 500–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Brislin, R. W. (ed.), Translation: Applications and research, pp. 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In Danks, J., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B. & McBeath, M. K. (eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, pp. 196–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hall, M., & Bavelier, D. (2010). Working memory, deafness and sign language. In Marschark, M. and Spencer, P. E. (eds.), The handbook of deaf studies, language and education, pp. 458–472. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: A question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 615–622.Google ScholarPubMed
Köpke, B., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (2006). Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting, 8, 1–23.Google Scholar
La Pointe, L. B., & Engle, R. W. (1990). Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1118–1133.Google Scholar
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6, 19–42.Google Scholar
Miller, K. M., Price, C. C., Okun, M. S., Montijo, H., & Bowers, D. (2009). Is the N-back task a valid neuropsychological measure for assessing working memory? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 711–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In Gerver, D. & Sinaiko, H. W. (eds.), Language, communication and interpretation, pp. 353–368. New York/London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 46–59.Google Scholar
Padilla, F., Bajo, M. T., & Macizo, P. (2005). Oral articulatory suppression in language interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word knowledge. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8, 207–219.Google Scholar
Padilla, P., Bajo, M. T., Cañas, J. J., & Padilla, F. (1995). Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation. In Tommola, J. (ed.), Topics in interpreting research, pp. 61–71. Turku: University of Turku Press.Google Scholar
Power, D., & Hyde, M. (2002). The characteristics and extent of participation of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in regular classes in Australian schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 302–311.Google Scholar
Powers, S. (2002). From concepts to practice in deaf education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 230–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R., & Gibson, E. (2002). Individual differences in sentence memory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 573–598.Google Scholar
Schermer, G. M. (1991). In search of a language. Influences from spoken Dutch on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schermer, G. M. (2001). The role of mouthing in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Some implications for the production of sign language dictionaries. In Boyes, P. Braem & Sutton-Spence, R. (eds.), The Hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages, pp. 273–284. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2006). Look who's being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 3–20.Google Scholar
Schmiedek, F., Hildebrandt, A., Lövdén, M., Wilhelm, O., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1089–1096.Google Scholar
Timarova, S. (2008). Working memory and simultaneous interpreting. In Boulogne, P. (ed.), Translation and its others. Selected papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007, pp. 1–28. Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Tzou, Y.-Z. (2008). The roles of working memory, language proficiency, and training in simultaneous interpretation performance: Evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, United States.Google Scholar
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038–1066.Google Scholar
van Dijk, R., Boers, E., Christoffels, I. K., & Hermans, D. (2011). Directionality effects in simultaneous language interpreting: The case of sign language interpreters in the Netherlands. American Annals of the Deaf, 156 (1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D. P., Thompson, R. L., Vigliocco, G., Skinner, R., Fox, N., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The hands and mouth do not always slip together in British Sign Language: Dissociating articulatory channels in the lexicon. Psychological Science, 21, 1158–1167.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (1997a). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25, 313–320.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (1997b). Working memory for sign language: A window into the architecture of the working memory system. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 121–130.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2000) When does modality matter? Evidence from ASL on the nature of working memory. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, pp. 135–142. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2006a). Comparing sign language and speech reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity. Psychological Science, 17, 682–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2006b). No difference in short-term memory span between sign and speech. Psychological Science, 17, 1093–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed