How Does Consecutive Interpreting Training Influence Working Memory: A Longitudinal Study of Potential Links Between the Two

Abstract

With an intention to contribute to the issue of how language experience may influence working memory (WM), we focused on consecutive interpreting (CI), analyzed its potential links with WM functions and tested these links in a longitudinal experiment, trying to answer the specific question of how CI training may influence WM. Two comparable groups of Chinese learners of English received either CI or general second language (L2) training for one semester, and were tested before and after the training with the tasks of n-back (non-verbal updating), L2 listening span, and letter running span (verbal spans). CI performance was tested in the posttest. The results showed that (1) updating efficiency in both the pretest and posttest predicted CI performance, and CI training enhanced updating efficiency while general L2 training did not; (2) the relationship between verbal spans and CI performance was weaker (i.e., only pretest L2 listening span correlated with CI performance and predicted CI performance with marginal significance), and CI training did not make a unique contribution to these spans (i.e., no group differences). The results indicated an “interpreter advantage” in updating, which was probably due to that updating was more central in the CI task than WM spans. Theoretically, we believe that updating and CI are closely related because they share the same underlying mechanism, or more specifically updating and the recalling process in the CI task share the same attentional control process, a unique link between updating and the CI task. Methodological implications are discussed.

Predicting Fluency With Language Proficiency, Working Memory, and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting

“…Research into the first question has assessed the WM capacity of interpreters with different levels of expertise, such as trained or professional interpreters, bilinguals, and SI students. The results indicate that interpreters with higher level of expertise outperform non-interpreters in WM capacity (e.g., Padilla Benitez et al, 1995 ; Christoffels et al, 2006 ; Shen and Liang, 2015 ; Dong et al, 2018 ). However, Liu et al (2004) and Injoque-Ricle et al (2015) claimed that no significant difference in WM exists across professional interpreters with different length of experience.…”

Adaptive control in interpreters: Assessing the impact of training and experience on working memory

“…Firstly, WM has a time limitation in the sense of information storage and processing; likewise, interpreting involves immediacy that is not present during translation. A recent longitudinal study by Dong, Liu and Cai (2018) revealed that consecutive interpreting students show more progress than general L2 students in WM using an n-back task. We hypothesised that the immediacy factor may lead to better WM performance in interpreting groups.…”

Attentional control in interpreting: A model of language control and processing control

“…Updating and WM spans have been investigated for the issue of an interpreter advantage in WM. Based on Cowan's (1988) process model of WM, Dong, Liu and Cai (2018) analyzed in detail similarities between consecutive interpreting features (e.g., recalling in another language what has been heard in the input language) and features of WM updating and WM spans. They then predicted that consecutive interpreting training would first enhance WM updating and then WM spans.…”