Abstract
Many factors can affect the translation and interpreting process, but the quality of source texts has been explicitly identified as an issue in surveys of professional translators and interpreters as well as in recent workplace studies. If translators and interpreters encounter resistance in carrying out their tasks, for example by difficulties in extracting meaning from non-native English input, then flow can be interrupted and performance affected. In this paper, we explore how English as a lingua franca (ELF) input could potentially increase the cognitive load not only for translators and interpreters but also for other multilinguals. We describe the range of methods that can be used to measure the cognitive effort and stress associated with processing ELF input and explain the challenges that can be encountered when researchers are committed to using authentic ELF material to make comparisons under relatively controlled but ecologically valid conditions. One of the driving motivators for this type of research is to understand how interpreters and translators deploy their expertise to deal with ELF input in work settings in order to draw inferences about strategies for other segments of the population.
Zusammenfassung
Dolmetsch- und Übersetzungsprozesse werden von einer ganzen Reihe von Faktoren beeinflusst. Der Ausgangstextqualität kommt dabei ein besonderer Stellenwert zu, wie sich in Umfragen unter professionellen Dolmetschenden und Übersetzenden sowie in jüngsten Arbeitsplatzstudien erwiesen hat. Wenn Dolmetschende und Übersetzende auf Widerstände bei der Ausübung ihrer Tätigkeit stossen, beispielsweise durch Schwierigkeiten bei der Bedeutungserschliessung im Fall von nichtmuttersprachlichem englischen Input, kann es zu Störungen im Verarbeitungsfluss und einer erschwerten Translationsleistung kommen. Im vorliegenden Artikel wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit ELF zu erhöhter kognitiver Belastung für Dolmetschende und Übersetzende, aber auch für andere Mehrsprachige führen kann. Es werden darin die verschiedenen Methoden zur Messung von kognitivem Aufwand und Stress, die mit der Verarbeitung von ELF-Input einhergehen, beschrieben. Weiterhin wird aufgezeigt, auf welche Herausforderungen Forschende beim Einsatz authentischen ELF-Materials stossen, wenn sie Vergleiche unter relativ kontrollierten und zugleich ökologisch validen Bedingungen anstellen wollen.
Funding source: Swiss National Science Foundation http://www.snf.ch/en/
Award Identifier / Grant number: CRSII5_173694
About the authors
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow is Professor of Translation Studies in the ZHAW Institute of Translation and Interpreting in Switzerland and teaches on both the BA and MA programmes. Her main research interests are cognitive load, professional translation workplaces, multilingual text production, translation processes, and various types of digital literacy.
Michaela Albl-Mikasa is Professor of Interpreting Studies at the ZHAW Institute of Translation and Interpreting in Switzerland. Her main research interests are interpreting and translation in relation to English as a lingua franca (ITELF) and the cognitive foundations of conference and community interpreting. She is principal investigator of the SNSF Sinergia project CLINT (Cognitive Load in Interpreting and Translation).
Katrin Andermatt, MA, is a research assistant in the ZHAW Institute of Translation and Interpreting. Her main research interest is ELF and its implications for interpreting and translation. She is currently pursuing a PhD in the area of ELF and simultaneous interpreting.
Andrea Hunziker Heeb, PhD, is a research associate in the ZHAW Institute of Translation and Interpreting and teaches on both the BA and MA programmes. Her main research interests are cognitive load in translation, ergonomics at the translation workplace, and processes and products of translation into a second language.
Caroline Lehr, PhD, is a research associate in the ZHAW Institute of Translation and Interpreting and teaches on both the BA and MA programmes. Her main research interests include translation processes, interactions between cognition and emotion in multilingual language processing, cognitive load, emotional intelligence in the workplace and various types of digital literacy.
References
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2010. Global English and English as a lingua franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. trans-kom 3(2). 126–148. https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/2454/1/2010_Albl-Mikasa_Global_English_trans-kom.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2013a. ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. Translation and Interpreting Studies 8(2). 191–210 https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.04alb.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2013b. Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1). 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0005.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2014a. The imaginary invalid. Conference interpreters and English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(3). 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12076.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2014b. English as a lingua franca in international conferences. Interpreting and Translation Studies (Korea) 18(3). 17–42.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2017. ELF and translation/interpreting. In Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker & Martin, Dewey (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca, 369–383. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315717173-31Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2019. ITELF: (E)merging interests in interpreting and translation studies. In Eugenia Dal Fovo & Paola Gentile (eds.), Translation and interpreting. Convergence, contact, interaction, 45–62. Oxford: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Albl-Mikasa, Michela, Sandra Guggisberg & Fenja Talirz. 2017. (Source) texting ELF: Native and non-native English speaker discourse production and conference interpreters’ preference for the native speaker. In Lew N. Zybatow, Andy Stauder & Michael Ustaszewski (eds.), Translation studies and translation practice: Proceedings of the 2nd International TRANSLATA Conference 2014, 267–275. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Alexieva Bistra. 1999. Understanding the source language text in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 9. 45–59. https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/2212/1/03Alexsieva.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio & José Luiz Gonçalves. 2013. Investigating the conceptual-procedural distinction in the translation process. Target 25(1). 107–124 https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.72.09alv.Search in Google Scholar
Andres, Dörte. 2014. Easy? Medium? Hard? The importance of text selection in interpreter training. In Dörte Andres & Martina Behr (eds.), To know how to suggest… Approaches to teaching conference interpreting, 103–124. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Search in Google Scholar
Bakti, Maria. 2009. Speech disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation. In Dries de Crom (ed.), Selected papers of the CETRA research seminar in translation studies 2008. Available at: https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/bakti.pdf (accessed 29 December 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, Margaret, Laura Miccoli, Miguel Escrig & Peter Lang. 2008. The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology 45(4). 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00654.x.Search in Google Scholar
Brookings, Jeffrey B., Glenn F. Wilson & Carolyne R. Swain. 1996. Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biological Psychology 42. 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(95)05167-8.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Fang, Natalie Ruiz, Eric Choi, Julien Epps, M. Asif Khawaja, Ronnie Taib, Bo Yin & Yang Wang. 2012. Multimodal behaviour and interaction as indicators of cognitive load. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 2(4). 22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2395123.2395127.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives 25(4). 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2016.1278026.Search in Google Scholar
Cheung, Andrew K. F. 2013. Non-native accents and simultaneous interpreting quality perceptions. Interpreting 15(1). 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.02che.Search in Google Scholar
Choi, Jongyoon, Beena Ahmed & Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna. 2012. Development and evaluation of an ambulatory stress monitor based on wearable sensors. Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 16(2). 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2011.2169804.Search in Google Scholar
Dael, Nele, Marcello Mortillaro & Klaus R. Scherer. 2012. Emotion expression in body action and posture. Emotion 12(5). 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025737.Search in Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. Indicators of difficulty in translation: Correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures 13(1). 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1556/acr.13.2012.1.5.Search in Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2014. Challenges of translation process research at the workplace. MonTI – Monographs in Translation and Interpreting (Special issue) 1. 355–383. https://doi.org/10.6035/monti.2014.ne1.12 (accessed 29 December 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen & Gary Massey. 2013. Indicators of translation competence: Translators’ self-concepts and the translation of titles. Journal of Writing Research 5(1). 103–131. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.5.Search in Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul, Richard J Davidson & Wallace V Friesen. 1990. The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(2). 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.342.Search in Google Scholar
Gerver, David. 1976. Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Richard W. Briskin (ed.), Translation: Applications and research, 165–207. New York: Gardner Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2005. Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view. In Rita Godijns & Michaël Hindedael (eds.), Directionality in interpreting. The “retour” or the native? 9–26. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.Search in Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2009 [1995]. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.8Search in Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Howard, Nusbaum, Spencer D. Kelly & Susan Wagner. 2001. Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science 12. 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00395.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2013. English as a lingua franca and translation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7(2). 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798855.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2015. Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. In Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich & Sharon O’Brien (eds.), Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.72.05houSearch in Google Scholar
Hunziker Heeb, Andrea. 2016. Professional translators’ self-concepts and directionality: Indications from translation process research. The Journal of Specialised Translation 25. 74–88. https://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_hunziker.php.Search in Google Scholar
Hunziker Heeb, Andrea. 2019. Effects of directionality on professional translators’ processes, products and effort. Hildesheim: University of Hildesheim dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hunziker Heeb, Andrea, Caroline Lehr& Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. Submitted. Situated translators: Cognitive load and the role of emotions. In Defeng Li, Ricardo Muñoz Martín & Sanjun Sun (eds.), Advances in cognitive translation studies. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-981-16-2070-6_3Search in Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T. 2017. Four fundamental types of reading during translation. In Arnt L. Jakobsen & Bartolomé Mesa-Lao (eds.), Translation in transition: Between cognition, computing and technology, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.133.02hveSearch in Google Scholar
Hyönä, Jukka, Jorma Tommola & Anna-Mari Alaja. 1995. Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 48(3). 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401407.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke & Lasse Schou. 1999. Translog documentation. In Gyde Hansen (ed.), Probing the process in translation: Methods and results, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samsfundslitteratur.Search in Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin, Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 44(3). 281–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000115.Search in Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Patricia A. Carpenter. 1993. The intensity dimension of thought: Pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 47(2). 310–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078820.Search in Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro, Martha W. Alibali & Mingyuan Chu. 2017. How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review 124(3). 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000059.Search in Google Scholar
Korpal, Paweł. 2017. Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2016. What’s happening when nothing’s happening? Combining eyetracking and keylogging to explore cognitive processing during pauses in translation production. Across Languages and Cultures 17(1). 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2016.17.1.2.Search in Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 2003. Physiological stress during simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of experts and novices. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 12. 51–67. https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/2472/1/03.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid. 2008. The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance. In Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman & Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research, 179–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.80.15kurSearch in Google Scholar
Lambert, Silvie. 1988. Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis. Meta 33(3). 377–387. https://doi.org/10.7202/003380ar.Search in Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard S., Joseph C. Speisman & Arnold M. Mordkoff. 1963. The relationship between autonomic indicators of cognitive stress: Heart rate and skin conductance. Psychosomatic Medicine 25(1). 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-196301000-00004.Search in Google Scholar
Lerner, Jennifer S., Ronald E. Dahl, Ahmad R. Hariri & Shelley Taylor. 2007. Facial expressions of emotion reveal neuroendocrine and cardiovascular stress responses. Biological Psychiatry 61(2). 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.08.016.Search in Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Changshuan. 2010. Coping strategies for fast delivery in simultaneous interpretation. The Journal of Specialised Translation 13. 19–25. https://www.jostrans.org/issue13/art_li.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
MacGregor, Lucy J. 2008. Disfluencies affect language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials and recognition memory. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2017. Good texts in bad English? In Kumiko Murata & Mayu Konakahara (eds.), Waseda working papers in ELF, vol. 6, 15–39. Tokyo: Waseda University.Search in Google Scholar
McAllister, Robert. 2000. Perceptual foreign accent and its relevance for simultaneous interpreting. In Birgitta Englund-Dimitrova & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting, 45–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.40.05mcaSearch in Google Scholar
Meghanathan, Radha N., Cess van Leeuwen & Andrey R. Nikolaev. 2014. Fixation duration surpasses pupil size as a measure of memory load in free viewing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8. 1063. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01063.Search in Google Scholar
Meuleman, Chris & Fred Van Besien. 2009. Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 11(1). 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu.Search in Google Scholar
Mortensen, Janus. 2013. Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1). 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Moser, Barbara. 1978. Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In David Gerver & H. Wallace Sinaiko (eds.), Language interpretation and communication (NATO Conference Series), 353–368. Boston: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_31Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2007. Eye tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives 14(3). 185–205.10.1080/09076760708669037Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2010. Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. In Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves & Susanne Göpferich (eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 251–266. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Search in Google Scholar
Pellecchia, Geraldine L. 2003. Postural sway increases with attentional demands of concurrent cognitive task. Gait & Posture 18(1). 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00138-8.Search in Google Scholar
Phakiti, Aek & Brian Paltridge. 2015. Approaches and methods in Applied Linguistics research. In Brian Paltridge & Aek, Phakiti (eds.), Research methods in Applied Linguistics. A practical resource, 5–25. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Piolat, Annie, Jean-Yves Roussey, Thierry Olive & Murielle Amada. 2004. Processing time and cognitive effort in revision: Effects of error type and of working memory capacity. In Linda Allal, Lucile Chanquoy & Pierre Largy (eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes, 21–38. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1_3Search in Google Scholar
Reithofer, Karin. 2010. English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting – Battleground or peaceful co-existence. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15. 143–157. https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/4755/1/ReithoferIN15.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. 2011. Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Existing theories – new models. Interpreting 13(2). 176–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see.Search in Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. & Dirk Kerzel. 2012. Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2). 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982.Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Setton, Robin. 2015. Models. In Franz Pöchhacker (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, 263–267. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Seubert, Sabine. 2019. Visuelle Informationen beim Simultandolmetschen: eine Eyetracking-Studie. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Search in Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence. 2014. The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315775845Search in Google Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C. 2013. Cognitive effort in metaphor translation: An eye-tracking and key-logging study. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Spielberger, Charles D., Richard L. Gorsuch, Robert Lushene, P. R. Vagg & Gerard A. Jacobs. 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sweller, John, Jeroen, J. G. van Merrienboer & Fred G. W. C. Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10. 251–295. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205.10.1023/A:1022193728205Search in Google Scholar
Thayer, Julian, Fredrik Åhs, Mats Fredrikson, John Sollers & Tor Wager. 2012. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36. 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.009.Search in Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma & Jukka Hyönä. 1990. Mental load in listening, speech shadowing and simultaneous interpreting: A pupillometric study. In Jorma Tommola (ed.), Foreign language comprehension and production, 179–188. Turku: AFinLA.Search in Google Scholar
Vallacher, Robin R. & Daniel M. Wegner. 1987. What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review 94. 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.3.Search in Google Scholar
Zagar Galvao, Elena. 2009. Speech and gesture in the booth – A descriptive approach to multimodality in simultaneous interpreting. In Dries de Crom (ed.), Selected papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008. Available at: https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/galvao.pdf (accessed 29 December 2019).Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
