论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：With the frequent communications between China and western countries in the field of economy, politics and culture, etc, Interpreting becomes more and more important to people in all walks of life.
This paper aims to testify the author’s hypothesis “professional interpreters have similar short-term memory with unprofessional interpreters, but they have superior working memory.” After the illustration of literatures concerning with consecutive interpreting, short-term memory and working memory, experiments are designed and analysis are described.
Keywords: Interpretation; Short-term memory; Working memory
Introduction
As globalization becomes an inevitable trend, interpreting has been playing an increasingly important role in bilingual or even multi-lingual communication cases. There are many factors which influence the outcome of interpreting. Working memory, which stores and processes information in mind for brief periods of time, is a key cognitive function in interpreting.
Previous scientific research demonstrates that working memory is one of our most crucial cognitive capabilities, essential for countless daily tasks like following directions, remembering information momentarily, complex reasoning or staying focused on a project.
There are plenty of articles and researches about working memory but few of them are related to consecutive interpreting. For this reason, in this article, the author aimed to testify the hypothesis which is “professional interpreters have similar short-term memory compared to novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.” The author designed three experiments aiming to test subjects’ short-term memory and working memory. Furthermore, the author analyzed the test results and discussed two factors, namely interpreting experience and knowledge background, which cause the differences in the test results of the two groups of subjects. Finally, the author drew the conclusion that professional interpreters do have similar short-term memory compared to novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.
1. The Experiments
1.1 Hypothesis
Since working memory is influenced by some factors such as experience and background knowledge, therefore our hypothesis is professional interpreters have similar short-term memory with novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.
1.2 Tests
1.2.1 Test One
Test One aims to test the capacity of the subjects’ short-term memory. I prepared five groups of letters and each group was shown to the subjects for three seconds. Then the subjects were required to write down the letters they can remember. 1.2.2 Test Two
Test Two aims to test the subjects’ working memory in consecutive interpreting. The material is easy and the reading speed is slow (204words, 1.7 words/s).
1.2.3 Test Three
Test Three has the same aim as Test Two, but the material is comparatively more difficult and the reading speed is faster (174words, 2.7 words/s).
One thing needs to be noted is that note-taking was not allowed in the experiment.
1.2.4 Measures of Working Memory Capacity
Measures of working-memory capacity are strongly related to performance in other complex cognitive tasks such as reading comprehension, problem solving, and with any measures of the intelligence quotient [1].
Since people have different “patterns” in remembering information: some people tend to remember the first information and some tend to remember the last better. Thus, I decided to measure the working memory capacity in two ways: the overall accurate rate and the span.
In Test Two and Three, I marked some words or phrases in each sentence as “key points” in the materials. In the subjects’ interpretation, as long as they included the “key points”, I considered this sentence correct.
In terms of the overall accurate rate, I counted the total of the key points and the ones that the subjects interpreted correctly then calculated the percentage.
In terms of the memory span, the method I adopted to calculate it by a formula: C (bit)=Ck(bit/s) × D(s). It has been suggested that working memory capacity can be measured as the capacity C of short-term memory (measured in bits of information), defined as the product of the individual mental speed Ck of information processing (in bit/s)[2], and the duration time D (in s) of information in working memory, meaning the duration of memory span. As in each test, the input speed for all the subjects was the same, which was the reading speed, what I do was to count the duration of the longest fragment in each test that they can interpret correctly and put the value into the formula.
1.3. Subjects
Professional interpreters A and B (hereafter “Pro A and B”) are two professional interpreters with years of experience and university lecturers. Novices A and B (hereafter “Nov A and B”) are two students who are graduates majoring in translation and interpreting.
2. Results
2.1 Test One
The results vary from person to person, but there is no significant difference between the two groups of subjects. The average short term memory span for them is approximately 8. 2.2 Test Two and Three
The professional group performed much better than the novice group in either measuring method. In the two tests, the average accurate rate of the professional group is 55% while that of the novice group is only 44%; and the average working memory capacity of the professional group is 63.1 and that of the novice group is 48.7. Also we can see that in terms of the accurate rate, the two groups both perform better in Test Two than in Three (in the professional group, approximately 70% in Test Two and 40% in Test Three; in the novice group, approximately 56% and 30% in Test Three), but in terms of the capacity calculated according to the formula, the professional group tends to perform better in Test Three (less than 60 in Test Two and approximately 65 in Test Three) while the novice group performed contrariwise (more than 50 in Test Two and less than 50 in Test Three).
3. Conclusion
From the main results for the short-term memory and working memory tests, we can see that the professional interpreters performed equal to the students in the short-term memory test, while they outperformed the students in the working memory test.
Comparisons between the professional interpreters and the students in Test One prove that the longest words length that the subjects could recall correctly in the given order, namely the “memory span” is identical. On the basis of the finding, it can be observed that the professional interpreters’ better performance in the Text Two and Three determined by their superior working memory.
After analyzing the test results, the author found that both the professional interpreters and novice interpreters had the similar short-term memory, while the professional group had superior working memory, which proved the hypothesis.
Furthermore, two related influencing factors on working memory and several methods of improving working memory in interpreting were listed in the paper, and the latter could help the novices become professional interpreters. Hopefully, in future research, more subtle understanding on working memory in interpreting could be obtained, which would facilitate the progress of the development of interpretation.
Bibliography
1. Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., Brown, G., & Mercer, R. (1995). The role of long-term memory mechanisms in memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 527-536.
2. Lehrl, S., & Fischer, B. (1988). The basic parameters of human information processing: their role in the determination of intelligence. Personality and individual Differences., 9, 883 - 896.
This paper aims to testify the author’s hypothesis “professional interpreters have similar short-term memory with unprofessional interpreters, but they have superior working memory.” After the illustration of literatures concerning with consecutive interpreting, short-term memory and working memory, experiments are designed and analysis are described.
Keywords: Interpretation; Short-term memory; Working memory
Introduction
As globalization becomes an inevitable trend, interpreting has been playing an increasingly important role in bilingual or even multi-lingual communication cases. There are many factors which influence the outcome of interpreting. Working memory, which stores and processes information in mind for brief periods of time, is a key cognitive function in interpreting.
Previous scientific research demonstrates that working memory is one of our most crucial cognitive capabilities, essential for countless daily tasks like following directions, remembering information momentarily, complex reasoning or staying focused on a project.
There are plenty of articles and researches about working memory but few of them are related to consecutive interpreting. For this reason, in this article, the author aimed to testify the hypothesis which is “professional interpreters have similar short-term memory compared to novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.” The author designed three experiments aiming to test subjects’ short-term memory and working memory. Furthermore, the author analyzed the test results and discussed two factors, namely interpreting experience and knowledge background, which cause the differences in the test results of the two groups of subjects. Finally, the author drew the conclusion that professional interpreters do have similar short-term memory compared to novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.
1. The Experiments
1.1 Hypothesis
Since working memory is influenced by some factors such as experience and background knowledge, therefore our hypothesis is professional interpreters have similar short-term memory with novice interpreters, but they have superior working memory.
1.2 Tests
1.2.1 Test One
Test One aims to test the capacity of the subjects’ short-term memory. I prepared five groups of letters and each group was shown to the subjects for three seconds. Then the subjects were required to write down the letters they can remember. 1.2.2 Test Two
Test Two aims to test the subjects’ working memory in consecutive interpreting. The material is easy and the reading speed is slow (204words, 1.7 words/s).
1.2.3 Test Three
Test Three has the same aim as Test Two, but the material is comparatively more difficult and the reading speed is faster (174words, 2.7 words/s).
One thing needs to be noted is that note-taking was not allowed in the experiment.
1.2.4 Measures of Working Memory Capacity
Measures of working-memory capacity are strongly related to performance in other complex cognitive tasks such as reading comprehension, problem solving, and with any measures of the intelligence quotient [1].
Since people have different “patterns” in remembering information: some people tend to remember the first information and some tend to remember the last better. Thus, I decided to measure the working memory capacity in two ways: the overall accurate rate and the span.
In Test Two and Three, I marked some words or phrases in each sentence as “key points” in the materials. In the subjects’ interpretation, as long as they included the “key points”, I considered this sentence correct.
In terms of the overall accurate rate, I counted the total of the key points and the ones that the subjects interpreted correctly then calculated the percentage.
In terms of the memory span, the method I adopted to calculate it by a formula: C (bit)=Ck(bit/s) × D(s). It has been suggested that working memory capacity can be measured as the capacity C of short-term memory (measured in bits of information), defined as the product of the individual mental speed Ck of information processing (in bit/s)[2], and the duration time D (in s) of information in working memory, meaning the duration of memory span. As in each test, the input speed for all the subjects was the same, which was the reading speed, what I do was to count the duration of the longest fragment in each test that they can interpret correctly and put the value into the formula.
1.3. Subjects
Professional interpreters A and B (hereafter “Pro A and B”) are two professional interpreters with years of experience and university lecturers. Novices A and B (hereafter “Nov A and B”) are two students who are graduates majoring in translation and interpreting.
2. Results
2.1 Test One
The results vary from person to person, but there is no significant difference between the two groups of subjects. The average short term memory span for them is approximately 8. 2.2 Test Two and Three
The professional group performed much better than the novice group in either measuring method. In the two tests, the average accurate rate of the professional group is 55% while that of the novice group is only 44%; and the average working memory capacity of the professional group is 63.1 and that of the novice group is 48.7. Also we can see that in terms of the accurate rate, the two groups both perform better in Test Two than in Three (in the professional group, approximately 70% in Test Two and 40% in Test Three; in the novice group, approximately 56% and 30% in Test Three), but in terms of the capacity calculated according to the formula, the professional group tends to perform better in Test Three (less than 60 in Test Two and approximately 65 in Test Three) while the novice group performed contrariwise (more than 50 in Test Two and less than 50 in Test Three).
3. Conclusion
From the main results for the short-term memory and working memory tests, we can see that the professional interpreters performed equal to the students in the short-term memory test, while they outperformed the students in the working memory test.
Comparisons between the professional interpreters and the students in Test One prove that the longest words length that the subjects could recall correctly in the given order, namely the “memory span” is identical. On the basis of the finding, it can be observed that the professional interpreters’ better performance in the Text Two and Three determined by their superior working memory.
After analyzing the test results, the author found that both the professional interpreters and novice interpreters had the similar short-term memory, while the professional group had superior working memory, which proved the hypothesis.
Furthermore, two related influencing factors on working memory and several methods of improving working memory in interpreting were listed in the paper, and the latter could help the novices become professional interpreters. Hopefully, in future research, more subtle understanding on working memory in interpreting could be obtained, which would facilitate the progress of the development of interpretation.
Bibliography
1. Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., Brown, G., & Mercer, R. (1995). The role of long-term memory mechanisms in memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 527-536.
2. Lehrl, S., & Fischer, B. (1988). The basic parameters of human information processing: their role in the determination of intelligence. Personality and individual Differences., 9, 883 - 896.