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; 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 2030 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

Cynthia B. Roy, Editor Chapter Seven From Theory to Practice: Making the Interpreting Process Come Alive in the Classroom Robert G. Lee 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 Short description Reminder Cokely’s stage Message reception Preliminary processing Short-term message retention Semantic intent realized The act of physically receiving the source message through the appropriate channel The act of recognizing the source message as a linguistic signal The act of storing enough of the source signal to achieve an understanding of the message The act of understanding the source message (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) The act of finding equivalents in the target language for the concepts expressed in the source message The act of (mentally) fashioning an equivalent target message The act of articulating the target message Perceive Recognize Chunk Understand

Semantic equivalent determined Syntactic message formulation Message production

Analyze Formulate 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.

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. 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.

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. 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 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 targetlanguage 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
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?

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

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. 2. 3. 2. Native language competence Second language competence Wide interests/broad knowledge base

Mapping Information into the Structure 1. 2. Code-switching ability Sensitivity to utterances


Shifting to New Structures 1. 2. Conducting different forms/types of interpreting 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 (skillbased 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 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? 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? 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). 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? 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.



4. 5.

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

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"

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful