The Interpreting Process

• Interpreters make communication between people easier...whether hearing, deaf or hard of hearing. Please
be aware that even though the D/deaf student may have worked with interpreters their entire life, he/she
may not be aware of the process of interpreting from the hearing person's or interpreter's view point.

Jargon, Terminology and Culture

• How a student identifies herself/himself may depend more on "identity issues" than "actual hearing loss".

• A person who is late deafened, that is, someone who lost some or all of their hearing as a teen or adult may
identify as "hard of hearing" person or a person with a hearing loss even though their audiological status
may show them to be "severely or profoundly deaf".

• A person who is audiologically severely or profoundly deaf and who went to a "school for the deaf",
learned American Sign Language (ASL) as a child, is a member of the Deaf community and supports Deaf
culture-- will probably identify as a "Deaf" person rather than a "deaf" person.

• The current nomenclature is to use the capital "D" in Deaf to show a person who is culturally Deaf and the
lower case "d" to show a person who does not identify with the Deaf community.
For additional information, read: A Journey into the Deaf-World, by Harlan L. Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, Ben
Bahan; Paperback - 560 pages (May 1996); Dawn Sign Press www.dawnsign.com; ISBN: 0915035634

Code of Ethics
Certified Interpreters follow a Code of Ethics, therefore, are not allowed to participate in class discussions,
activities, or state their opinion.

What will be signed?

As much as humanly possible, everything that is said in the classroom will be interpreted.

"I" the Interpreter or "I" the Student?

When the interpreter says "I", e. g. "I completed the assignment", he/she translated or interpreted into spoken
English what the student is signed...meaning "I the student".

Language Processing Time

The interpreter will be a sentence or two behind the spoken lecture as it takes a few seconds for the translation
process to happen. If the instructor pauses after asking the class a question, the interpreter will have time to catch up
and sign the question for the D/HH student to see. Now the D/HH student has an equal opportunity to answer or
comment.

Time Required to Convey Concepts

American Sign Language (ASL) was recognized as its own language in the 1980's, therefore, as a formal language it
is relatively new. It has its own grammar and syntax that is different from English.

Unfortunately, English has jargon, technical words and humor that cannot be translated directly into ASL. This
means that it may take the interpreter longer to convey the concept or meaning if there have not been conventional
signs developed. ASL also has its own jargon, technical words and humor that cannot be translated directly into
English.

No Universal Sign Language

Sign language is not universal as signed languages are usually based on the culture and spoken language of the
country or region. There are also different types of interpreting, for example: using ASL, pidgin signed English, or
Signed English. Depending on the educational experiences and cultural identity of the student, her/his signs may be
any combination of the above.

Team Interpreting
Due to a variety of reasons, the class may be "team interpreted" - which means two interpreters switching every 20-
30 min. to avoid carpal tunnel, overuse syndrome and interpreter fatigue which would compromise the integrity of
the interpreted message.

Translation Preparation Time

Interpreters prepare for each lecture and will use a copy of the text book, syllabus, and handouts to make sure they
understand the lecture. Please make an extra copy of any handouts for the interpreter to use.

Interpreting Tests
Interpreters may be asked to interpret test questions as long as the test is not evaluating reading comprehension or
other similar skills.

Homepage | Prospective Students | Current Students | Faculty/Staff | Alumni & Community | Emergency Response
© 2009 Palo Alto College - One of the Alamo Colleges
1400 W. Villaret - San Antonio, TX 78224 - (210) 486-3000
ADA/EOE/Accreditation

Contact Palo Alto College Online

http://www.accd.edu/pac/htm/Current/services/dss/info_instructor/instructor_process.htm

Cynthia B. Roy, Editor

Chapter Seven

From Theory to Practice:

Making the Interpreting Process Come Alive in the Classroom

Robert G. Lee

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven.html

One of the greatest challenges in teaching interpreting is providing students with both an abstract knowledge of a
theory of interpretation and a personal understanding of the application of the theory. The ability to recite the stages
in a specific theory is not a particularly helpful skill for a student interpreter. Along with knowing the outline of a
model, students must be able to experience the stages, thereby developing an awareness of their own control of the
interpreting process. A primary goal of teaching the interpreting process is providing students with a feeling of
control, something they can take away from the classroom and exercise on their own. The following exercise is
designed to help students in both acquiring knowledge of the interpreting process and understanding their control of
it. I begin by outlining the underlying model framing the exercise, then provide some preliminary notes, and finally
explain the exercise itself.

BACKGROUND
Having taught interpreting in both workshop and university settings, I have been struck that many interpreters,
novice or experienced, talk about the application of a theory of interpretation but rarely put theory into practice
outside a learning environment. In working with student interpreters, I want to instill an understanding of the
interpreting process from the very beginning to help them integrate the process in their work in and out of the
classroom.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The model I am working under is Dennis Cokely’s sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process (Cokely 1992).
I have chosen this model for a variety of reasons. First, I feel that the level of detail it offers is helpful in clarifying
for students the discrete stages that interpreters proceed through in order to successfully interpret between two
languages. Second, the model clearly delineates those specific skills needed at various points in the interpreting
process. The ability to know and articulate one’s work in terms of subparts can be very helpful in looking at
successful and less successful interpretations. Third, Cokely’s taxonomy of miscues is very helpful in having
students discuss why a specific interpreted message is successful or not.[1]

Some have claimed that Cokely’s model is too complicated for students to learn, let alone work with in a classroom
setting. I disagree; I think we underestimate the ability of students to both learn a complex theory of interpreting and
apply it. I have found that students may be somewhat daunted by the model initially but that clear presentation and
examples of application help students to learn the model as outlined by Cokely as well as use it in discussing their
own work and the work of their classmates. In addition, students have reported that the ability to look at the stages
of their work and see
1. Cokely defines a miscue as “a lack of equivalence between the s(ource)L(anguage) message and its interpretation
or, more specifically, a lack of concordance between the information in an interpretation and the information in the
s(source)L(anguage) message it is supposed to convey” (Cokely 1992, 74).

TABLE 1. Stages of the Cokely Model http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven2.html

Short description Reminder
Cokely’s stage
Message reception The act of physically receiving the source Perceive
message through the appropriate channel
Preliminary processing The act of recognizing the source message as a Recognize
linguistic signal
Short-term message retention The act of storing enough of the source signal Chunk
to achieve an understanding of the message
Semantic intent realized The act of understanding the source message Understand
(Importantly, as Cokely states, “Ideally, of
course, the semantic intent of the message
realized by the interpreter is that originally
intended by the speaker” (Cokely 1992, 127)
Semantic equivalent determined The act of finding equivalents in the target Analyze
language for the concepts expressed in the
source message
Syntactic message formulation The act of (mentally) fashioning an equivalent Formulate
target message
Message production The act of articulating the target message Produce
successes in some stages is quite helpful. Often students perceive their own work in a binary fashion: as either all
good or (more often, unfortunately) all bad. Having the ability to look for success (or lack thereof) in stages of the
process is empowering to students; they can see where they are using strategies that are successful and where they
need to improve.

Table 1 provides a brief outline of the Cokely model. The reader is referred to Cokely (1992) for a more complete
discussion. I have provided a description of each stage in terms of acts in order to underscore to students that
interpreters are actively engaged in the work at all stages of the process. In addition, I have added a one-word
reminder that captures the essential focus of each stage.

Discussion of the model is sometimes helpful in having the students grasp what the model is capturing. I begin with
the idea that every day, almost automatically, students receive messages from other people, decode them, and
understand them. In addition, students every day have ideas, encode them, and express them. Therefore, individual
components of the interpreting process are already a part of the skill set that the student brings to the classroom (of
course, students vary in their ability to deal with the languages they work with). Students begin to realize that when
perceiving and understanding a message, they are going through the first four stages of the model (message
reception through semantic intent realized). When expressing their own ideas, they go through the last four stages of
the model (semantic intent realized through message production). Semantic intent realized is the stage when one
understands what someone has said and also formulates what to say to another.

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven3.html

Figure 1. Process stages by language focus

Another way to frame subparts of the model is to look at which language (source or target) is the primary focus at
each stage of the process. This shift in focus is outlined in figure 1.

Note that semantic intent realized appears in both listings. This is the “overlap” stage, in which the source message
is understood by the interpreter and in which the interpreter begins to cast the message in the target language. This
stage can be considered both the output of the source language stages and the input to the target language stages.
Figure 2, discussed more below, pictures it as the interface between the source and the target languages rather than
as both of them.

One area that is not overtly addressed in the model is monitoring, which is the part of the task in which the
interpreter makes sure the process is going smoothly, checking for and repairing errors in both content and form as
well as analyzing and incorporating feedback from the audience or a team interpreter. Monitoring is a metaskill; it
requires a high level of knowledge of one’s own work and the ability to analyze what is happening in the moment. I
feel it is important that students realize, as early as possible in their training, that monitoring is a vital part of the
interpreting process. In order to make the idea of monitoring more concrete, I use analogies to a factory, with the
interpreting process being akin to an assembly line. I present students with the idea that an interpreter may do three
types of monitoring:

1. Process monitoring: This type of monitoring is an “overall” monitor. It is the process by which an interpreter
assesses the big picture, looking at the incoming source language and seeing if the overall process is going well. I
compare this type of monitor to the supervisor of a factory looking down from overhead to see that all is flowing
smoothly through the assembly line.
2. Preproduction monitoring: This type occurs between the syntactic message formulation and message production
stages. In it an interpreter “tries on” the target interpretation before actually articulating it (I believe this is similar to
what Betty Colonomos means by “rehearsal” [Colonomos 1989]). The analogy here is the final inspector, the person
who inserts the “Inspected by Number 7” tag we often find in new articles of clothing.

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven4.html
Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters

Figure 2. Modified Cokely model

3. Postproduction monitoring: Interpreters sometimes catch themselves after uttering something that is a mismatch
between the source and target messages (or some other type of miscue)—something that prompts a repair in the
interpretation.[2] This type of monitoring can be compared to a factory worker looking out the door, seeing a
substandard product being shipped, and issuing a recall.
When interpreters are overwhelmed by aspects of the process (be it source message speed, density of information, or
internal filters), monitoring is often the first element of the process to stop working. We have known for many years
that the number of interpreting errors or miscues increases as an interpreter becomes fatigued, but recent research
has shown that interpreters’ recognition of errors becomes impaired as well. A recent article promoting the use of
interpreters in teams cited a study of conference interpreters as follows:
During the first 30 minutes the frequency of errors—as measured with an elaborate error scale—rose steadily. The
interpreters, however, “appeared to be unaware of this decline in quality,” according to the report, as most of them
continued on task for another 30 minutes. (Vidal 1997, citing Moser-Mercer, Kunzli, and Korac)

Because the activity of interpreting, as well as the concept of monitoring, can be overwhelming, I have designed an
exercise that separates the tasks while providing students with experiences of the interpreting process. In the
exercise described below, some of the work of monitoring, usually done internally by an interpreter, is performed
externally by a peer.

Figure 2 is a visual representation of the stages of the interpretation process grouped into source and target language
tasks. It includes the one-word “reminders” of the focus of each stage as well as the location of pre- and
postproduction monitors.
2. Note that in this form of monitoring, it is the interpreter who recognizes the miscue. The fact that an end
consumer of interpreting may catch a miscue is a similar issue but external to the interpreter’s cognitive processes.

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven5.html

Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters

Figure 3. Student placement for interpretation process exercise.

Arrows indicate the direction the students face during the exercise.

PRELIMINARIES TO THE EXERCISE

Before introducing the model to the students, I discuss with them some background assumptions:

• We all have only a limited amount of cognitive energy for all the tasks we have to do (I often refer to this
 amount as a “bank” of energy). These tasks include, but are not limited to, getting the message, processing
the message, remembering the message, self-talk, worrying, monitoring the process, monitoring the
audience, predicting, repairing, looking for feeds from a team member, deciding whether or not to take a
feed, processing feedback from the audience, processing feedback from the team, and more.

• The more energy used at the beginning of the process, the less available later in the process.

• Conversely, using less energy at the beginning leaves more energy for later stages of the process.

• Using energy wisely is one of the most important skills an interpreter can have. Another term for it is
resource allocation. (It has also been called process management, but it involves more than just the
interpreting process, including, for example, self-talk.)

• Being aware of where they are in the process allows interpreters to control the process, not be controlled by
it.

• Discussing the decisions that led to an interpretation is more helpful than discussing whether a particular
interpretation is right or wrong.

To get students into the habit of looking at interpreting through the lens of this model, I ask them to draw the model
on the board for every class meeting. Any student can do it; I just ask that it be on the board before class begins.
Students can use notes to write the stages or do it from memory; they can also do it as a team. By drawing the model
on a regular basis, students become used to the vocabulary of the stages. In addition, having the model above the
area where the students will be working serves as a reminder that we are discussing the interpreting work, not the
interpreter.

THE EXERCISE

The objective of this exercise is for students to gain experience with the various stages in the interpreting process as
well as with the concept of monitoring the interpretation. One student is responsible for providing an interpretation
of a text, and two other students divide up the interpreting task based on the model described, one focusing on those
stages dealing with the source language, the other focusing on those stages that deal with the target language.[3] I
have called this the “three-chair” exercise because it involves the three students working together, seated in front of
a television, as shown in Figure 3.[4]

3. An additional benefit to this exercise was pointed out to me by Cindy Roy. It allows students to get used to the
idea of team interpreting as well as how and when they may need to receive feeds. A component that can be added is
having students look at the types of information they ask for and the types of information they give when working in
a team.
4. I have done this exercise primarily with ASL as the source language and English as the target language because
this direction is logistically easier and because students often feel they “don’t know where to begin” when
interpreting from ASL to English. With minor modifications, the exercise could be done with English as the source
language.

http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven6.html
The source text that is on the television can be one that is familiar to the students, or it can be a novel text.[5] A
fifteen-to-twenty-minute text is the right length for this exercise because it contains enough information for students
to work with and provides them familiarity with the speaker and subject as the text goes on. The student in the
middle, student B, is the one ultimately responsible for producing an interpretation of the text. Students taking a turn
in the B position are given the remote control for the VCR and can stop (but not rewind) the tape when they feel
they have enough information to provide an interpretation for the text up to that point. Student B can do this without
any help but may get assistance from the other two students. Student A, who is also watching the text, can provide
assistance with the source-language part of the task (i.e., the first three stages of Cokely’s model). That is, student A
can repeat what was said, paraphrase it, or in another way provide the information that student B needs, but only in
the source language.[6] All communication between students A and B is to be in the source language. Student C, who
is not watching the source text, can provide assistance only in the target language (i.e., the last three stages of
Cokely’s model). Student B can ask C specific questions about target-language production (but not interpretation of
meaning), such as “What is the word for the person who runs an entire school system?” or “Does [example] sound
like grammatical English?” In this way, student C can function as the preproduction monitor, assisting in the
formulation of the target message.
After student B provides the interpretation of the relevant portion of the text, student C can provide immediate
feedback about the target-language production (but not the accuracy of the message vis-à-vis the source). Some
examples:

• The interpretation is somehow not clear. For example, the interpretation contains a pronoun with an unclear
or ambiguous antecedent. (Student B: “So John took it with him.” Student C: “What does ‘it’ refer to?”)

• The interpretation contains a word that seems not to make sense in the context of the utterance. (Student B,
talking about building a house: “So he hit the nail with a haddock.” Student C: “A haddock?”)

• The interpretation is unintelligible or inaudible.

When student B is satisfied with the interpretation of a portion of the text, he or she restarts the tape and continues,
stopping when ready to interpret another portion of the text. Looking at a part of the text, getting whatever assistance
is needed, and producing an interpretation of that portion counts as one whole turn. It is usually best to allow a
student at least five turns (depending on the length of each portion of text).

When first using this exercise with a class, I have found it helpful to have the students stop and talk about the
experience, beginning with student B. This can be done after the first round of five or so turns, long enough to give
the students a chance to get used to the exercise. It is important to guide students to talk about the work in a specific
way: focusing on the process, talking about stages, and looking at decisions made. For example, a student who needs
to have a portion of the source text repeated may say “I definitely got through message reception and preliminary
processing; I am not sure

5. There are benefits and drawbacks to using either a novel or a familiar text. One advantage of a novel text is that
students can get a feel for applying the process as one would in real life. An advantage of using a known text is that
students may have more time and energy to focus on the individual stages of the process. One approach is to start
students with a known and predictable text and work up to using the exercise with completely novel texts.
6. Note that, should student A be unable to provide assistance, the instructor can serve as a backup, providing
information in the source language that student B asks about. Indeed, one may start the exercise this way, with the
instructor modeling the types of information the source-language assistant can give.
Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/ATSLIseven7.html

if I had an issue with short-term memory retention or semantic intent realized” as opposed to saying “I missed it.”
Further discussion may help the student uncover what was problematic. The teacher can pose such questions as the
following: Did you understand all the signs you saw but not realize what the speaker’s point was? Were there any
unfamiliar signs? Did you just not perceive some part of the message and therefore could not come to an
understanding of it? Helping students evaluate what they just did provides them with tools to analyze their own
work more thoroughly by themselves.[7]
After student B is finished, students A and C can talk about how they felt the process went. Finally, the rest of the
students in the class should be noting how the process goes. Students should think about the following questions:

• What seemed to drive the interpreter’s decisions to stop the text?

• How did the interpreter take advantage of the other two students in the process?

• Which stages in the process seemed fairly easy for the interpreter? Which presented more challenge? What
is the evidence on which you base your observations?
After the discussion has run its course, the students should rotate roles: student A (who was watching the source
text) becomes the interpreter, student B becomes student C, and student C moves to the role of student A. The
process continues, allowing each student at least five turns and a break for discussion. After all three students have
been in all three roles, a wrap-up discussion is helpful. The teacher can lead students to discuss the following
questions:

• In which role did you feel most comfortable? Least comfortable? Why do you think that was so?

• At what point(s) did you need to turn to one of the other students for assistance? What drove your decision
to get help? Did you receive the kind of help you needed? Why or why not?

• What was it like being in either of the “less active” roles (i.e., A or C)?

I have found that this exercise can also be diagnostic. Those students who struggle with the source language (due to
either skill limitations or psychological factors) tend to turn to the source-language “helper” (student A) more often.
Those who struggle with the target language (or who are less confident in this area) tend to turn to student C more
often. Instructors can note both the type and the quantity of help that students elicit from the source- and target-
language assistants. In addition, a student’s self-report of comfort levels when in each role can be helpful in
identifying patterns of strength and weakness as well as areas where students feel more confident or less confident
about their skills.
7. It is entirely possible for student B to complete this task without ever turning to A or C for help. In this case, the
teacher can ask student B to reflect on the interpretation and the experience of going though the stages as an internal
process. Because part of the goal is for students to experience portions of the task, it is important that student B be
able to articulate the decisions made, not merely produce an interpretation. In addition, the teacher can ask students
A and C about their experience of focusing on only one portion of the entire process.

Visual Language Interpreting

Synopsis

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Visual_Language_Interpreting
This book is being communally written (at least that's the idea) to fulfill what is seen as a gap in the literature on
Visual Language interpreting. There are many erudite works on the interpreting process, and still others for those
who are current practitioners. However, the current introductory texts all suffer from one fault or another:
inaccuracy, obsolescence, poor writing, or some combination of these.

The solution proposed here is that material be written by practitioners, clients, and academics to produce a text that
is both current (and designed to stay that way) and reflective of what is actually practiced by real working
interpreters. In short, a text that is theoretically rigorous, unflinchingly realistic, and up to date. For this, we count on
you, the reader to help us build something which embodies our collective wisdom.

Remember, you can edit any page to add information - simply click on "Edit this page" on the right. Your changes
will be visible immediately, but don't worry if you make a mistake - other users of the wikibook can fix it for you if
you do something wrong. This wikibook is still active; check the Talk pages by clicking on "Discuss this page" on
any page to see what we are working on, and to contribute to discussion.

The process of interpreting and organizing the information received to the brain and making sense out of the
i?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408224801AA4iUQJ
The process of interpreting and organizing the information received to the brain and making sense out of the
information is called

hyperopia.

myopia.

sensation.

perception.

Positive Transfer: A Neuropsychological Understanding of Interpreting and the Implications for Interpreter
Training

http://accurapid.com/journal/21interpret.htm
by Lin Wei, Ph.D. (林　巍)
Abstract
There are many definitions of interpreting according to different academic disciplines. This paper will
attempt to approach the topic from a neuropsychological perspective, exploring the area based on some
recent discoveries and my own practice with the intention of revealing some implications for interpreter
training.

The neuropsychological evidence and the established mental structure have equipped us with a better
understanding of the interpreting process, where the transfers taking place have both negative and positive
aspects. This study will concentrate on three key areas: code-switching, attention, and working memory,
and it will explore the possibilities of improving the interpreter training process in each of these areas.

Although we will make no attempt to discredit traditional teaching methods, both students and teachers will
be encouraged to more frequently adopt learning and teaching strategies based on the effects of transfer.
Obviously, this is only a first step toward a comprehensive approach. The aim is to maximize and fully
utilize the positive influence of transfer, while minimizing the negative side for the purpose of enhancing
the training efficiency.

The Neuropsychological Basis of Interpreting and the Mental Structure

aving been teaching interpreting/translation courses in China, Hong Kong, and overseas and working with students
with different native languages, I truly believe that probing into the neuropsychological basis of interpreting will
deepen our understanding and benefit our practice.

as we advance in our research, we In

should replace the term “short-term
memory” with “working memory.”

neuropsychological terms, interpreting can be viewed as an operation related to the development and function of the
neural structure. We know that most of the brain's functions depend on remarkably precise interconnections among
its 100 billion neurons, and the activity of interpreting is no exception (Andrew, 2001). Essentially, the interpreting
process has three stages: receiving the utterances, switching the utterances, and delivering the utterances.
At the first stage, when the interpreter receives the utterance in the source language (SL), the information signal
stimulates a correlated area in the cortex. As the audio stimuli evoke increased brain activity in the striate cortex and
the extrastriate cortex, the nuclei of the cells start to proliferate, the nucleus of the cell migrates upward from the
ventricular surface toward the pial surface; the cell's DNA is copied. Then the nucleus containing two complete
copies of the genetic instructions, settles back to the ventricular surface and the cell retracts its tentacle from the pial
surface (Bear & Connors & Paradiso, 2001).

The switch takes place at the second stage, where the SL utterance is matched with the stored signal in the target
language (TL). While the brain activities dramatically further increase during this crucial transitional process, the
regional blood flow accelerates. As a result, many daughter cells migrate by slithering along thin fibers that radiate
from the ventricular zone toward the pia mater. These fibers originate from specialized radial glial cells, providing
the scaffold on which the cortex is built. The immature neurons, called neuroblasts, follow this radial path from the
ventricular zone toward the surface of the brain. When the cortical assembly is complete, the radial glial cells
suspend their radial processes. However, not all migrating cells follow the path provided by the radial glial cells.
About one-third of the neuroblasts wander horizontally on their way to the cortex. Nevertheless, this is the period of
fastest cell transfer due to the intensified exchanges and increased brain activities (Mark, 2001).

At the final stage, the transferred TL utterance will be delivered based on the form of cell differentiation in the
relevant cortex. As neurons differentiate, they extend axons that must find their appropriate targets. Consequently,
the pathway formation in the central nervous system occurs in three phases: pathway selection, target selection, and
address selection. Each of the three phases of pathway formation depends critically on communication between
cells. This communication occurs in several ways: direct cell-to-cell contact, contact between cells and the
extracellular secretions of other cells, and communication between cells over a distance via diffusible chemicals. As
the pathways develop, the neurons also begin to communicate via action potentials and synaptic transmission—the
transformed utterances to be delivered (Berg, 2002).

Based on this biological process, a more comprehensible mental structure can be built. Generally speaking, any
information remains irrelevant to anyone until it is received by a "structured mind" for a certain purpose. In
particular, there are three principal components in the mental structure mechanism: laying a foundation, mapping
information onto the structure, and shifting to a new structure. In relation to the interpreter training process, these
components can be structured as follows:

1. Laying a Foundation

1. Native language competence

2. Second language competence

3. Wide interests/broad knowledge base

2. Mapping Information into the Structure

1. Code-switching ability

2. Sensitivity to utterances

3. Shifting to New Structures

1. Conducting different forms/types of interpreting

2. Relating to different pieces of information

Laying A Foundation The term "interpretation study" has often, to a large extent, been synonymized with "second
language acquisition" among students and educators. However, despite an overlapping area between the two, they
are fundamentally different. In fact, after a period of time in training, students often find out that they are not
competent enough in their native language! Meanwhile, their interests in wide range of issues such as politics,
finance, education, culture, environment, and so on should be constantly broadened, which is the precondition for
achieving interpreting competence.

Mapping Information into the Structure The competence in both languages may not necessarily be translated into
interpreting competence, which is essentially the switching ability between two language codes and cultural
systems. Moreover, sensitivity to utterances can make a difference in interpreting results and can be trained
throughout the training courses.

Shifting to New Structures Different forms and types of interpreting require different terminologies, sentence or
even thinking patterns and ways of expression; a competent interpreter should be able to shift skillfully from one
structure to another, while conveying coherent and related information.

To fully explain and implement this process of building mental structures requires much research, which goes
beyond the scope of this paper. Concerned mainly with transferability, this investigation focuses on three crucial
issues:

Targeting on code-switching

Distributing attention

Shifting to working memory

Let's discuss them in the following sections.

Targeting on Code-Switching

The term "code-switching" was initially used in linguistics, meaning that there is a systematic interchange of words,
phrases, and sentences between two or more languages (Odlin, 1989). However, the term is borrowed here to
illustrate a key phenomenon in interpreting.

In acquiring a second language, an important task is to observe the target linguistic code system and overcome the
native language influence, which is the negative aspect of linguistic transfer (Chastain,1988). In interpreting, on the
contrary, the positive aspect of linguistic transfer could be emphasized for the purpose of training the code-switching
skills.

Quite often, we see students who may have excellent linguistic competence in both source and target languages, but
are still unable to interpret with a reasonable skill level because they are incompetent in code-switching between the
languages. Neuroscientifically speaking, the stimulated neurons are confined in an area of the cortex and are unable
to induce cell migration across the locations in cortex. Therefore, linguistic competence is not necessarily identical
to interpreting competence.

When I taught several translation courses in the Department of Translation at the Chinese University of Hong Kong,
I developed a set of SCS (Sense of Code-Switching) exercises targeting students' code-switching abilities, placing
one set of language elements, ranging from words, phrases, sentences to paragraphs, alternated with a set in another
language on the task sheets. Whatever language the students encountered, they had to read loudly what was written
in the alternative target language. The guidelines consisted of two parts: first, the interpreting strategy, guiding
students to grasp the theme and keywords; second, the interpreting techniques, dealing with specific problems, such
as grammar, vocabulary, expressions, and so on. The students found the exercises very helpful, and their test results
improved steadily.

At the University of Tasmania, during the time I was teaching translation courses to native English and Japanese
speakers, assisted by some software specialists, I developed a set of multimedia programs mainly for matching
exercises between English words and Chinese/Japanese characters. The target language was Chinese. Basically, the
exercises were conducted on three levels: semantic, syntactic and discourse levels.

At the semantic level, the phonological and semantic aspects of the characters were mapped onto a particular form—
the bilingual lexical matrix. This was based on the assumption that equivalent words in two languages are connected
in a learner's lexicon via one underlying non-linguistic concept (Odlin, 1989). Thus the relations of the Chinese
characters to the concept it expresses are assumed to be the same as the relations of the corresponding words in the
student's native language to the same concepts; the two kinds of form are simply regarded as synonyms. Therefore,
the following method was developed in a program. On the computer screen, there are two boxes with arrows
between them. One is labeled "Characters" and the other "Meanings." The arrows indicate that the learner may start
with a character and retrieve the appropriate meanings; or vice versa, start with a meaning and look for appropriate
characters to express it. The mapping can be done in many ways—some characters have several different meanings,
and several different characters can express the same meaning. Repeating the drills, the students were engaged in
extensive code-switching exercises.

At the syntactic level, the focus was on the formation and restructuring of grammatical and sentence frames. The
purpose was to help the students make the correct connections between the target syntactic pattern with students'
native syntactic patterns. Unlike English—where grammar, particularly verbs and tenses, plays a vital role in
determining the meanings of sentences, and also unlike Japanese, which is often considered a "free word order"
language—Chinese is a root-isolated language which has no inflection of words (in particular, verbs) according to
their function in the sentence. The meaning of a sentence in Chinese is largely determined by the word order and by
different functional particles. To accommodate this feature, a special program has been developed for carrying out
interactive processing of the Chinese language elements, based on partial synthesis by determining the grammatical
and structural accuracy of the sentences produced as a guide in composing each sentence. The program enables the
system to offer the possibility of modifying and generating sentences on a comparative basis using English and
Japanese sentences having the same meaning. The users then have to produce the correct or acceptable ones in
Chinese.

At the discourse level, students are exposed to more advanced code-switching exercises. Apart from the functions
that a digital camera can capture, they are shown vivid and adequately dubbed scenes (which are hard to duplicate to
that extent in the classroom textbook or by tape recording), and given substantial "cultural notes" explaining the
relevance of details both verbally and visually (Lin, 2000).

By participating in this course, students have acquired not only pure "linguistic competence," but also "switching
competence" between the two languages based on the positive influence of transfer from their native tongues. Such a
switching is obviously different from code-switching in a purely linguistic sense. Also it is not fall-back on the
native language. Rather, it is intentional manipulation of positive transfer of linguistic and cultural influences in
training for the development of interpreting skills.

Distributing Attention

Attention or, more precisely, the distribution of attention is another crucial issue in interpreter training. Language
and attention have been studied for many years by linguists and psychologists, and now the underlying brain
processes are being examined by neuroscientists. Our interpreter training can also benefit from the recent research in
that academic field.

Students often experience the following: they know the words, sentences, and expressions perfectly under normal
circumstances; however, just at the very moment of interpreting, their memory fails or they cannot keep their
attention focused. Or some "storage" area in their memory is unable to attract sufficient attention during the
interpreting process. As they usually say, "something went wrong with my brain in the attention area at that
moment."

Neurophysiological experiments on attention provide a dramatic view of brain function in which the receptive field
properties of neurons change to suit the needs of ongoing behavior. Recent studies using functional magnetic
resonance imaging (FMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) enable us to see the changes in human brain
activity that result from increased attention (Andrew, 2001).

With the advent of modern imaging techniques, it has become possible to observe normal language processing. With
PET, the level of neural activity in different parts of the brain is inferred from regional blood flow. In one study of
language processing, the researcher used PET imaging to observe the differences in brain activity between the
sensory responses to words and the production of speech. They began by measuring cerebral blood flow with the
subject at rest. They then had the person either listen to words being read or look at words presented on a monitor.
By subtracting the levels of blood flow at rest from the levels during listening or seeing, they determined the blood
flow levels specifically corresponding to the activity evoked by the sensory input. The results show that the attention
stimuli evoked increased brain activity in the striate cortex and the extrastriate cortex, and the auditory stimuli
elicited activity in the primary and secondary auditory cortex (Millar, 2000).

There are two kinds of attention: general attention and selective attention. The ability to select one conversation to
listen to out of many going on at the same time is an example of selective attention. The trained mind of an
interpreter should be equipped with the special skill of selective attention. A mind does not naturally process all the
incoming sensory information simultaneously for a special task; it needs to and can be trained. In Hong Kong, we
used to conduct exercises called "spin and reel at the same time", virtually guiding students to read a paragraph
while listening to a conversation on a completely different subject, or listen to two different conversations
simultaneously. Following a pause, students were required to repeat the main points of the two. The judging criteria
were: A. Accuracy (theme and key words), B. Fluency (linguistical and cultural), C. Speed (reaction and repetition).
The main aim was to train students to apply themselves to two jobs at once; or, in neuroscientific terms, to learn to
allocate the distributed attention adequately, which is part of the fundamental mindset in interpreting.

Biologically speaking, it is possible to learn and manipulate two different things at the same time. Nevertheless, only
recently have neuroscientists begun to explore the neural effects of attention. In a recent experiment, two different
visual stimuli appeared simultaneously on the test screen: a pencil in the left visual field and an apple in the right
visual field. Then the subject was asked to simultaneously reach into two bags—one with each hand—and grasp
with each hand the object that was on the screen. After grasping the objects, but before withdrawing them, the
subject was asked to tell the experimenter what was in the two hands, and the subject (left hemisphere) replied "two
apples." Much to the bewilderment of the verbal left hemisphere, when the hands were withdrawn, there was an
apple in the right hand and a pencil in the left. The two hemispheres of the split-brain subject had learned two
different things at exactly the same time (Mark, 2001). The implications of this neropsychological discovery for our
future interpreter training curricula will be profound.

Meanwhile, a similar experimental technique has demonstrated that attention increases the reaction speed in
perceptual studies. In a typical experiment, an observer fixated on a central point on the computer screen, and target
stimuli were presented to either the left or the right of the fixation point. The observer was told to wait until he or
she perceived a stimulus at either location and then to press a button. The researchers measured how long it took the
observer to react to the presentation of a stimulus and press a button. Preceding the target was a cue stimulus, either
a plus sign or an arrow pointing left or right. The arrows indicated the side to which a stimulus was more likely to
appear, whereas the plus sign meant that either side was equally likely. Results from this experiment demonstrated
that an observer's reaction times were influenced by where the central cue directed the observer's attention. When
the central cue was a plus sign, it took about 250-300 msec to press the button. When an arrow cue correctly
indicated where a target would appear (e.g. right arrow and right target), reaction times were 20-30 msec faster.
Conversely, when the narrow pointed in one direction and the target appeared at the opposite location, it took 20-30
msec longer to react to the target and press the button (Bear & Connors & Paradiso, 2001).

There has long been an assumption that interpreters have no control whatsoever over their target language(s) and the
contents; they can only passively deal with whatever interpreting task they are given at a speed decided by the
subject. But this may not be the case anymore based on recent experimental evidence. The speed of interpreting can
be much improved by relating the subject to more distributed attention, in a way that the subject can become a more
"attention-based target" (Mark, 2001). Surely, much more extensive research is required in this new frontier.

Shifting to Working Memory

In classic psychological terms, interpreting has been considered to heavily rely on "short-term memory" which
required holding information in mind for a short period of functional time. Short-term memory was commonly
studied by measuring a person's digit span, the maximum number of randomly chosen numbers a person can repeat
after hearing a list read. The normal digit span is seven plus or minus two numbers (John, 1992). However, as we
advance in our research, we should replace the term "short-term memory" with "working memory." The terms have
historically had different connotations (Smith & Minda, 2000).

Historically, most of the progress in neuroscience research on memory has come from experimental studies, but
today theoretical neuroscience is playing an increasing role, and the use of computational models of neural systems
is also widespread. In some cases, a model can provide insights into the workings of a memory system which are
otherwise difficult to gain.

A typical study in this regard was the examination of a nervous system consisting of three sensory neurons (the
inputs) and three postsynaptic neurons. The outputs and the inputs represented patterns of activity in visual afferent
nerve fibers in response to the faces of three people (in an alternative system, learning the three faces would again
alter the synaptic weights, but none of them would be zero). The result shows that the synaptic changes that store the
memories can make the inputs more or less effective; memory formation does not involve only increases in synaptic
strength. This is a transferred memory system because the memory of each face is stored in three synapses.
Recognition of one of the input faces requires comparing the strength of activity across all of the output neurons—
the memory is "transferred" across the boundary in the cortex. In a working nervous system, many thousands of
synapses are involved (Andrew, 2001).

Research has further developed the assumption of an information-mapping mechanism in the mental structure
building process and provided us with fascinating evidence which will persuade us to shift to the new concept—
working memory.

This conceptual transition may result in changing attitudes and strategies in our interpreting practice and interpreter
training. Short-term memory is a relatively passive term we usually use when the focus is on the input and storage of
new information. When a rapidly presented string of digits is tested for immediate recall, for example, we generally
refer to short-term memory and imply a simple recycling kind of mental activity as an explanation of recall.
Likewise, concerning the interpreting process, when we focus on the role of rehearsal, we examine memory aids in
the memorization of received utterances, highlighting the "control process."

Working memory, on the other hand, is the newer term for this "short" component of the memory system and has
the connotation of a mental workbench, a place where conscious cognitive effort is applied and expended (Mark,
2001). During the interpreting process, an interpreter can actually more positively retrieve the utterances based on
distributed attention and transferred memory system, as the neuro-experiments have demonstrated the biological
possibilities. Therefore, traditional immediate memory tasks for interpreting may still be a component of working
memory research, but now they are only secondary tasks to those of reasoning, comprehension, or retrieval.
Therefore, it is proposed that the short-term memory responsible for digit span performance is but one component of
the more elaborate working-memory system.

Moreover, further shifting of working-memory may have more meaningful relations with long-term memory,
declarative memory, and non-declarative memory. Traditionally, there is a postulation that memories are stored in
short-term memory and gradually converted into a permanent form via a process called memory consolidation
(John, 1992). Recent discoveries, however, have proven that memory consolidation does not necessarily require
short-term memory as an intermediary; working-memory and long-term memory may exist in parallel; different
digit spans in different modalities are consistent with the notion of multiple temporary storage areas in the brain. In
fact, there are cases where some professional dealings, terminologies, events, and special techniques during
interpreting processes are held not only temporarily in interpreters' minds, but have been translated into their
permanent knowledge and skills. Also, interpreting as a skill has long been regarded as one of the non-declarative
memories—procedural memory. With the mechanism of "working memory" in place, its new connections with both
declarative memory (knowledge-based memory, known as "conscious memory") and non-declarative memory (skill-
based memory or "unconscious memory") can be established. Further exploration in this area will certainly have
some considerable impact on our future interpreter training.

Conclusion

Recent neuropsychological discoveries and the studies of the brain structure have equipped us with a better
understanding of the interpreting process where both negative and positive transfer takes place. This study has
concentrated on three key areas—code-switching, attention and working memory, and explored the possibilities of
improving the interpreter training process in each of those areas. Obviously, this is only a first step toward a
comprehensive approach to the topic. There are many other issues requiring further exploration, such as the positive
transfer relationships between the three principal components in the mental structure building process, especially the
transition to new structures and its juxtaposing nature of handling different pieces of information simultaneously,
and many other related topics in the training process. The intention is to maximize and fully utilize the positive
transferring influence while minimizing the negative side of it for the purpose of enhancing our training efficiency.

Bibliography

Andrew, David G. (2001) Neuropsychology: From Theory to Practice. Hove: Psychology Press.

Bear, Mark F. & Connors, Barry W. & Paradiso Michael, A. (2001). Neuroscience Exploring the Brain. Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.

Berg, Jeremy Mark (2002). Biochemistry. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 5th Edition.

Chastain, Kenneth (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory and Practice. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers.

Hayward, Sheila. (1997) . Houndmills: Macmillan.

John, P.J. Pinel (1992) Biopsychology. Allyn and Bacon.

Lin, Wei, "Engaging in Creative Information-Reconstruction: An Exploration into the Framework of Multimedia
Design for Teaching Chinese-English Translation to Native English and Native Japanese Speakers in An English
Speaking Country". Educational Media International, (Taylor and Francis) (Issue 1 of Volume 38, 2000).

Mark H. Ashcraft (2001). Cognition. Prentice Hall.

Goals and research questions

http://www.cs.uta.fi/~oleg/speechtext/en/
1. Understanding the process of print interpreting. Which factors influence the interpreting process and the
accuracy of interpretation? Which methods are used (verbatim/edited etc.)? What are the demands of
various settings? How is the interaction between deafened and hearing persons conducted?

2. The relation of the interpreted output to the spoken source text (including nonverbal elements). What kind
of expression is the product? How close is it to the speech, and which factors affect the acceptability and
the adequacy of the text? What are the effects of delay? How are the nonverbal elements conveyed?

3. The target text will be examined also in its own right, as an independent message: the object is the
comprehensibility of the written text including its processing (perception, reading, understanding; effects of
display mode, errors and corrections, text coherence).

4. Reading process of the emerging text. How is the target text read? How does it differ from the reading of
static text? How do the various rendering options affect the reading?

5. The development of a new technology as well as methods for print interpreting. We will experiment with
buffering the text so that it does not appear letter-by-letter but in suitable burst, in the style of Rapid Serial
Visual Presentation. The tool used by the interpreter will be enhanced by allowing quick access to common
operations.
Summary
The aim of this project is to study the real-time transmission between two communication modes, speech and
writing in human interaction with a method called "print interpreting". It means translation of spoken language and
accompanying significant audible information into written text simultaneously with the talk. The text is typed on a
computer and displayed on a screen where the letter-by-letter emerging text is visible. Print interpreting is needed as
a communication aid for people with hearing disability to give them access to the speech. Since they have acquired
the language in a hearing speech culture and usually can speak it, they need an interpretation which is as close as
possible to the original speech. This interpretation must also give an impression of the speaker and the linguistic
variation. The challenges of print interpreting are the demands of simultaneity (requiring a high production rate) and
verbatim transcription. Another important challenge is to transfer all the relevant auditory information (including
non-language sounds from surroundings, etc.) into a visible modality which is understandable to the hearing
impaired.

The objectives of the study are 1) to investigate the process of print interpreting and 2) the comprehensibility of the
interpretation; and 3) to develop new technology and methods for analyzing and supporting print interpreting. The
process means in the narrow sense the real-time conversion act and the changes in the message; in the broader sense
it covers the whole communicative event, including the activity of interpreting and the actions of the participants
and their interaction. The comprehensibility will be examined in terms of readability and coherence. The main
research methods are textual and multimodal analysis, and eye movement analysis. Because the research problems
are multidisciplinary, they will be studied in an interdisciplinary collaboration combining approaches from
Linguistics, Translation Studies (especially Interpreting Studies), and Computer Sciences.

The practical aim of the study is to develop new technological solutions and to improve the accessibility of
communication. Results on the reading process can provide valuable information to develop better ways of
rendering the text, and thereby help in making the hearing impaired persons more equal partners in the ubiquitous
communication situation. In addition, the study will contribute to deeper understanding of the relationship between
writing and speaking, verbal and non-verbal communication, and produce new information of their
interchangeability in various media.

Process Capability Part 3: Interpreting Capability Indices

Copyright © 1995-2008 Quality America Inc. All Rights Reserved

http://www.qualityamerica.com/knowledgecente/articles/cqeivh4_3.htm

Interpreting Process Capability

Part three of a three part series.

The following is an excerpt from The Quality Engineering Handbook by Thomas Pyzdek, © Quality Publishing. It
may be ordered from the Quality Publishing Order Form.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of using process capability indexes is that they take the analysis a step away from the
data. The danger is that the analyst will lose sight of the purpose of the capability analysis, which is to improve
quality. To the extent that capability indexes help accomplish this goal, they are worthwhile. To the extent that they
distract from the goal, they are harmful. The quality engineer should continually refer to this principle when
interpreting capability indexes.

CP
Historically, this is one of the first capability indexes used. The "natural tolerance" of the process is computed as 6s .
The index simply makes a direct comparison of the process natural tolerance to the engineering requirements.
Assuming the process distribution is normal and the process average is exactly centered between the engineering
requirements, a CP index of 1 would give a "capable process." However, to allow a bit of room for process drift, the
generally accepted minimum value for CP is 1.33. In general, the larger CP is, the better. The CP index has two major
shortcomings. First, it can’t be used unless there are both upper and lower specifications. Second, it does not account
for process centering. If the process average is not exactly centered relative to the engineering requirements, the CP
index will give misleading results. In recent years, the CP index has largely been replaced by CPK (see below).

CR
The CR index is algebraically equivalent to the CP index. The index simply makes a direct comparison of the process
to the engineering requirements. Assuming the process distribution is normal and the process average is exactly
centered between the engineering requirements, a CR index of 100% would give a "capable process." However, to
allow a bit of room for process drift, the generally accepted maximum value for CR is 75%. In general, the smaller
CR is, the better. The CR index suffers from the same shortcomings as the CP index.

CM
The CM index is generally used to evaluate machine capability studies, rather than full-blown process capability
studies. Since variation will increase when normal sources of process variation are added (e.g., tooling, fixtures,
materials, etc.), CM uses a four sigma spread rather than a three sigma spread.

ZU
The ZU index measures the process location (central tendency) relative to its standard deviation and the upper
requirement. If the distribution is normal, the value of ZU can be used to determine the percentage above the upper
requirement by using Table 4 in the appendix of The Complete Guide to the CQM. The method is the same as
described in Chapter III.B using the Z statistic, simply use ZU instead of using Z. In general, the bigger ZU is, the
better. A value of at least +3 is required to assure that 0.1% or less defective will be produced. A value of +4 is
generally desired to allow some room for process drift.

ZL
The ZL index measures the process location relative to its standard deviation and the lower requirement. If the
distribution is normal, the value of ZL can be used to determine the percentage above the upper requirement by using
Table 4 in the appendix of The Complete Guide to the CQM. The method is the same as described in III.B [of The
Complete Guide to the CQM] using the Z transformation, except that you use -ZL instead of using Z. In general, the
bigger ZL is, the better. A value of at least +3 is required to assure that 0.1% or less defective will be produced. A
value of +4 is generally desired to allow some room for process drift.

ZMIN
The value of ZMIN is simply the smaller of the ZL or the ZU values. It is used in computing CPK.

CPK
The value of CPK is simply ZMIN divided by 3. Since the smallest value represents the nearest specification, the value
of CPK tells you if the process is truly capable of meeting requirements. A CPK of at least +1 is required, and +1.33 is
preferred. Note that CPK is closely related to CP, and that the difference between CPK and CP represents the potential
gain to be had from centering the process.

CPM
A CPM of at least 1 is required, and 1.33 is preferred. CPM is closely related to CP. The difference represents the
potential gain to be obtained by moving the process mean closer to the target. Unlike CPK, the target need not be the
center of the specification range.
Follow these links to read Parts One and Two of the Process Capability Series:

• Part One "How to Perform a Process Capability Study"

• Part Two "Statistical analysis of process capability data"