Working Memory and Consecutive Interpreting Performance in Proficient Bilinguals: A Gender Perspective

By Mojtaba Amini, Azizollah Dabaghi & Dariush Nejadansari (University of Isfahan, Iran)

Abstract

Considering the importance of working memory (WM) in interpreting and the scarcity of studies devoted to consecutive interpreting (CI) compared to simultaneous mode, the present study examined the association of WM with English-Persian CI performance. Furthermore, gender differences on WM and CI performance, which has not received a proper attention, was investigated. Two working memory tests and one consecutive interpreting task were administered to 30 MA translation students. The results of a Pearson Correlation showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between both measures of WM and CI performance. Furthermore, according to the results of an independent samples t-test no gender differences were observed in terms of WM capacity and CI performance.

Keywords: working memory, consecutive interpreting, gender differences

©inTRAlinea & Mojtaba Amini, Azizollah Dabaghi & Dariush Nejadansari (2022).
"Working Memory and Consecutive Interpreting Performance in Proficient Bilinguals: A Gender Perspective"
inTRAlinea Volumes
Edited by: {specials_editors_volumes}
This article can be freely reproduced under Creative Commons License.
Stable URL: https://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/2584

1. Introduction

In interpreter-mediated events, Consecutive Interpreting (CI) is regarded as an important interpreting modality, which enables people who speak different languages to communicate with each other in various settings (e.g., at the police station, court, press conference, etc.). As Dong and Cai (2015) put it, CI is a cognitively demanding activity compared to other human activities because it includes a comprehension of input from the source language, either storing this input via note taking, storing it mentally, or a combination of both, and then producing a coherent target text. One of the cognitive components underlying interpreting is Working Memory (WM), which is regarded as a key factor in interpretation (Bajo, Padilla and Padilla 2000; Darò 1989).

Baddeley and Hitch (1974), as a modification of the concept of short-term memory, proposed the concept of working memory. WM has been traditionally conceptualized as an active memory system that is responsible for the temporary maintenance and processing of information (Bayliss et al. 2005). Dehn (2008) points out that WM is one of the most important concepts introduced in cognitive psychology. Since its emergence in 1974, WM has been presented using various models (Baddeley 1986, 2000, 2007, 2010; Baddeley and Hitch 1974; Baddeley and Logie 1999; Cowan 1988, 1999, 2005; etc.). The multi-component model is among those applied in the studies of WM in interpreting. According to Baddeley and Hitch’s multi-component model of WM (1974) and its later version introduced by Baddeley (2000), there are four components: central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer.

As Köpke and Nespoulous (2006) mention, many authors have investigated the importance of WM. Nevertheless, it is hard to arrive at any proper conclusions, especially in the context of CI, which has only rarely been addressed. According to Dong and Cai (2015), the studies in this domain have mainly been devoted to Simultaneous Interpreting (SI) and a few empirical investigations have been conducted on WM in the context of CI. Consequently, the effect of WM in CI is unclear. Dong and Cai (2015) further argue that considering the close match between CI process, which includes mental and material storage (i.e., notes on paper) and storage-plus-processing definition of WM, studying the role of WM in CI is more promising than studying its role in SI.

Two main problems motivated the authors to carry out the present study: a lack of proper attention given to CI, especially with a focus on Persian language, and the paucity of studies devoted to gender differences in interpreting. Therefore, this research intended to shed more light on these. The project reported in this article included 30 MA translation students as proficient bilinguals and early learners of CI, and had the further aim of probing the role of WM in short CI performance and gender differences in WM and CI performance in the English-Persian language pair. This language pair has rarely been explored in this domain (Amini, Dabaghi and Nejadansari 2020; Khatib 2003; Yenkimaleki and Van Heuven 2017). Amini et al. (2020) focused on WM and note quantity in CI, and as part of the findings, they reported that WM can be used as a reliable factor for predicting CI performance. Yenkimaleki and Van Heuven (2017) reported that memory training had a positive effect on the quality of CI. However, memory training is not focused in the present study. Khatib administered the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) to measure WM capacity. However, PASAT is frequently used to evaluate attentional functioning and information processing (Tombaugh 2006). Furthermore, PASAT appears to involve the storage and processing tasks (memorizing the previous digit and add it to the next one and so on) of only minimal information chunks (i.e., the digit), while WM is a combination of storing and processing longer chunks (e.g., a sentence, several digits, etc.). Therefore, general WM cannot be measured using this test, in our opinion, and more studies are thus required to measure WM effectively and examine the association between WM and CI performance with a focus on Persian language. It should be noted that, in the current study, wherever the authors refer to CI in their empirical study, they mean a short type of CI (see §4.1).

In this project, the following three research questions were posed:

  1. Is there any significant relationship between WM and CI performance in the English-Persian language pair?
  2. Is there any significant difference between males and females in terms of WM capacity?
  3. Is there any significant difference between males and females in terms of CI performance?

2. Working Memory and Interpreting

As Timarova et al. (2014) put it, in general, studies on WM in the context of interpreting have mainly focused on two topics: a) the comparison between interpreters and non-interpreters on WM or comparison between the interpreters of different levels: professionals, students, etc., and b) the association between WM and interpreting performance.

As for the first category, mixed results have been reported, though slightly in favor of the superiority of interpreters over non-interpreters (Chincotta and Underwood 1998; Christoffels, De Groot and Kroll 2006; Hermans, Van Dijk and Christofels 2007; Köpke and Nespoulous 2006; Liu 2001; Liu, Schallert, Carroll 2004; Padilla et al. 1995). In the second category, a positive and significant relationship between a higher WM and better interpreting performance has been reported (Amini et al. 2020; Christoffels 2004; Christoffels, De Groot and Waldorp 2003; Hodakova 2009; Khatib 2003; Tzou et al. 2012; Timarova et al. 2014) Nevertheless, several studies (i.e. Wang 2016), have reported a lack of such significant association between the variables in signed language interpreting.

In this section, the studies on the second category, which are directly related to the present study, are reviewed. Khatib (2003) studied the relationship between WM and CI performance in the English-Persian language pair and administered PASAT as a measurement for WM. He reported a positive and significant relationship between the variables. Christoffels et al. (2003) examined the role of memory and lexical retrieval in English-Dutch SI for untrained bilinguals. They measured WM capacity through reading and digit spans and concluded that reading span was directly related to SI performance. Christoffels (2004) tested a group of untrained bilingual students based on the digit and reading span tests. Digit span was found to be positively correlated with both interpreting measures of selected sentences and overall quality and reading span had a positive correlation with the accuracy of the selected sentences. Hodáková (2009) focused on both simultaneous and consecutive modes when testing a large group of beginner and advanced interpreting students. She found a correlation between the listening span and CI and between the Arithmetic Addition Test and SI. Tzou et al. (2012) tested three groups of Chinese-English bilingual participants. They reported that both SI measures positively correlated with English and Chinese reading spans and English digit span. Timarova et al. (2014) investigated SI and the executive control of WM and administered a variety of WM measurements. As part of their findings, they reported complex patterns of association between WM and SI, through which the different WM functions could predict different sub-processes in SI. Amini et al. (2020) studied the association between WM and note taking in CI; they applied reading span and digit span as measures of WM. As part of their findings, they reported that WM could be used as an efficient factor for predicting CI performance. Unlike the dominant results provided on this topic, Wang (2016) reported a lack of significant association between WM and interpreting performance. He investigated the relationship between the signed language interpreters’ Working Memory Capacities (WMCs) and their SI performances. After implementing a listening span test and an Australian Sign Language (Auslan) WM span test, no significant correlations between the bilingual WMCs and overall SI performances were observed.

Based on the literature on the consecutive mode and on WM mentioned here, and on the general perception of the authors, the consecutive mode has not received proper attention in this domain. Moreover, the Persian language has rarely been the object of study in this context. Therefore, the research presented in this article aims to probe these variables in the English-Persian language pair in hope of paving the way towards further future research, the results of which, together with the previous studies, may help researchers and interpreters improve their work on this topic.

3. Gender Differences in Working Memory and Interpreting

Mixed results have been reported by studies on gender differences in cognitive abilities and memory. Investigations on some cognitive abilities have shown that males and females are not significantly different in this regard (Hyde 2005; Hyde and Linn 1988; Miller and Halpern 2014). In their reviews of gender differences in memory, Loftus et al. (1987) concluded that there are no gender differences in memory per se, but males and females differ in terms of what type of information they can best remember. However, some studies have reported females’ superiority in some tasks, including generating synonyms, faster processing speed, etc. (Hines 1990; Keith et al. 2008), while some others like that of Click (2005), who has reported superiority of males in spatial WM, maintained males’ superiority.

Guillem and Mograss (2005) examined gender differences in memory processing using Event-Related Potentials (ERPs). They administered a recognition memory task for faces, recorded the behavioral data and ERPs, and reported that females performed better than males. Similarly, Baer, Trumpeter and Weathington (2006) found that females could generally recall more items and thus perform better on recalling gender neutrals (e.g., a pen and a book) and female-stereotyped items (e.g., a dress and lipstick). They observed no differences between males and females in recalling male-stereotyped items (e.g., a gun and a tie). Harness et al. (2008) reported that males and females were not significantly different on the verbal working memory test in no distraction conditions, while males performed better in a distraction condition. They further noticed that females could perform better in the visual working memory.

Nevertheless, gender difference in interpreting has received limited attention. In addition, the majority of the studies have focused on gender differences in the various components of interpreting rather than in the interpreting performance as a whole with some exceptions like that of Hasanshahi and Shahrokhi (2016). Cecot (2001) found that, unlike males, females used more filled pauses, while male’s unfilled pauses lasted longer than female’s. Magnifico and Defrancq (2016) reported that female interpreters used more hedges and toned down fewer unmitigated face-threatening acts than males. Hasanshahi and Shahrokhi (2016) reported that there was no significant difference between male and female interpreters in terms of SI quality. Similarly, Collard and Defrancq (2019b) in their corpus-based research analyzed the Ear-Voice Spans (EVSs) of male and female interpreters in the European Parliament. They observed no gender differences. In another study, Collard and Defrancq (2019a) found that male interpreters produced more disfluencies than female interpreters did. In her gender-based analysis of SI, Russo (2018) observed that for read speeches from English into Spanish, the mean delivery speed was faster among females compared to males, while Target Speech (TS) length was shorter among males in comparison to females. Verdini (2019) studied CI and reported that females maintained a higher degree of fluency in interpreting figurative language, while males were more fluent in interpreting numerical expressions.

In conclusion, we could say that the issue of gender differences in interpreting has not been sufficiently researched. Furthermore, mixed results have been reported from empirical studies on gender differences based on the various components of interpreting performance, as well as some other related factors, such as cognitive abilities and memory variables. As far as CI is concerned, no studies were found to have focused on WM and gender differences, especially in the English-Persian language pair. Therefore, the present investigation tried to shed some light on this area.

4. Method

4.1. (Consecutive) Interpreting in the Iranian Context

Consecutive Interpreting (CI) has been defined and described by different scholars. According to Gile (2009), in CI, the interpreters listen to a speech segment of a few minutes; they can take notes, and finally deliver the whole segment. Pöchhacker (2004) defines CI as the rendition of a whole source text segment by segment, during which the interpreter can take notes. He distinguishes between two types of CI: CI with note taking and a short CI without taking notes. However, it is almost impossible to define CI based on duration or note taking. As we can observe in real interpreting settings, a short CI may vary from a short sentence to a short paragraph or more. Furthermore, interpreters may take notes even in a short CI. Similarly, in a long CI with note taking, the length of speech and interpreting may range from 3 to 7 minutes or more. Besides, the setting and speaker’s preferences may have their influences and determine the duration of CI largely, unless the speaker and the interpreter agree on the duration prior to the interpreting event.

In the Iranian context, both types of CI defined by Pöchhacker (2004) are common: a long CI with note taking, which is applied in e.g., diplomatic meetings, and a short CI with or without taking notes, which is used in sport/diplomatic press conferences or post-match interviews. However, in both types, there is no precise limit in terms of speech length. In the current study, a short CI was examined in the English-Persian language pair, which is very common in sport press conferences and post-match interviews.

‘Interpreting Studies’ are not offered at Iranian universities, but the University of Applied Science and Technology offers SI to BA students. In addition, some institutes offer interpreter training programs. The students who study ‘Translation Studies’ take a course on interpreting and get familiar with it. As Dastyar (2019) stated, the new BA curriculum of Translation Studies, which was approved in 2018, includes three courses on interpreting: SI, CI, and a course of Introduction to Interpreting Modes.

Proficient bilinguals with different language backgrounds, who have acquired proficiency levels in a foreign language, can attend interpreter-training institutes to become professional interpreters. These candidates receive a certification after successfully attending the program. Interpreter training institutes and language centers offer various programs and courses. For example, the language center of Shahid Beheshti University offers an interpreter training program, which includes such courses as Introduction to Interpreting, Language and Non-language Skills Required for Interpreting, Methods of Improving Short-term Memory and Application of Multiple Senses, Note-taking and Paraphrasing Skills, and CI Practice in Social and Academic Settings, besides holding international meetings and seminars, etc. In addition to the interpreter training institutes, which offer interpreting certificates, the Judiciary provides interpreters with a formal certification, which enables them to establish a certified interpreter office, though working as a certified interpreter is limited to the capital city, Tehran (Dastyar 2019). Clients who need a qualified interpreter can refer to these institutes or certified translator/interpreter offices.

4.2. Participants

30 Persian-speaking MA translation students (14 males and 16 females) aged 22-30 years participated in this study. They were selected from among 50 students, who had a) passed the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and obtained at least a minimum score in the proficiency level (C2=55) and b) obtained a score of less than 2.5 (out of the total score of 5) in the self-report questionnaire. The combination of the OPT and questionnaire results allowed the researcher to have a homogeneous group. Therefore, the finally selected 30 participants as proficient bilinguals and early learners of CI were students of similar proficiency in English language and similar theoretical and practical familiarity with CI.

The participants of the present study were regarded as proficient bilinguals and early learners of CI, who had passed an interpreting course during the BA program of Translation Studies, and therefore they had already gained some theoretical familiarity with interpreting. They had also practiced note-taking skills and developed their WM and short consecutive skills. However, the content of the course might partially differ from one class to another. Because of this potential difference in teaching materials, participants were selected based on a self-report questionnaire, which proved their homogeneity in interpreting and qualification for the study. To qualify as professional CI interpreters, these students must have attended the program offered by interpreter training institutes.

4.3. Tasks

4.3.1. Working Memory Tests

4.3.1.1. (Auditory and forward) Digit Span Test: This test is a simple span test, which measures verbal short-term memory; in the software version of the test that is administered via a computer, the test is verbally carried out and includes several trials. On each trial, a series of digits is presented at one time. At the end of each series, participants attempt to recall the digits in the order of their presentations and type them via key press. The test starts with two digits in the first series and ends with nine digits in the last one. After each successfully completed trial, the number of the digits presented increases by one digit in each next trial. After a failed trial (i.e., in case digits are missing and/or when they have a wrong order), the number of the presented digits remains the same for the next trial and the task ends when a participant makes errors at two sequential trials in a given digit span. A digit span includes the maximum number of digits correctly recalled. The Persian version of the test developed by Khodadadi and Amani (2014) was employed in the current study.

4.3.1.2. Reading Span Test: This test, which was devised by Daneman and Carpenter (1980), is a complex span test capable of measuring a general WM. Through this measurement, individual differences in WM capacity can be examined. As Daneman and Carpenter (1980) pointed out, the reading span significantly correlates with both reading and listening comprehension. The Persian version of this test (Khodadadi et al. 2014), which has been developed and validated based on Persian language criteria, was applied in this research with an automatic scoring procedure. In this test, both storing and processing abilities were scored and summed up to obtain the final score.

In the Reading Span Test (RST), a series of short sentences are presented on the screen. The test starts with two sentences in the first series and ends with seven sentences in the last series. They increase by one sentence in each next series (e.g., in the second series, there are 3 sentences and in the third series there are 4 sentences). After each series of sentences, a table is presented on the screen. The participants are expected to select two types of answers via key press: a) whether the sentences they have seen on the screen are true or false and b) whether they can recall the last word of each sentence in the exact order.

4.3.2. Consecutive Interpreting Task

A recorded video lecture of 4.48 minutes in English was used as a short CI task, the topic of which was ‘Why should we learn a new language?’ The lecturer was a Native American English speaker. The text did not have any technical terms and thus, knowledge of everyday language could suffice for the material interpretation. The source text included 702 words with a delivery rate of 146.25 WPM. After each short paragraph, the researcher paused the video to allow the participant to finish interpreting and then continued the video. There were totally 10 such pauses (see Appendix C). Participants were supposed to interpret the text from English into Persian after each pause. All of them were provided with pen and paper for note taking; they all took notes during interpreting task.

4.4. Procedure

First, the researcher informed the participants about the administration of WM tests and a CI task. Then, the participants took part in the data collection phase one by one in a quiet classroom. Each participant first took the Digit Span and then the Reading Span tests and finally the CI task. Task order was the same for all participants. The WM tests were automatically administered and scored on a laptop in the pre-established order. For the CI task, the recorded video speech was played on the laptop. The researcher recorded the entire interpreting tasks with a voice recorder for later analysis.

All the recorded interpreting tasks were transcribed verbatim. Each transcribed interpreting task was scored by three raters according to the revised version of Carrol’s scale by Tiselius (2009) (see Appendices A and B). This rubric is holistic and has two components: intelligibility and informativeness. Scoring is easy because of the non-componential nature of this scale and consistency is promoted during the scoring procedure. In this study, all the three raters were PhD candidates in translation studies and were trained in detail on how to apply the scales for scoring. The final score of each participant was the average of three scores given by raters. The reliability of the scoring procedure was ascertained with the high inter-rater reliability (r=.897, p˂.001).

4.4.1. Data Analysis

First, a Pearson Correlation was conducted to assess the association between WM variables (Digit Span and Reading Span) and CI performance. Then, to compare male and female’s CI performances, Digit Span, and Reading Span, an independent samples t-test was conducted in three replications.

5. Results

Descriptive statistics for all variables of the study are shown in Table 1. These variables include CI performance, Digit Span, and Reading Span Tests.

 

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Skewness

Kurtosis

CI Performance

9.78

1.74

6

12

-1.22

.14

Digit Span

7.93

1.25

5

10

-.64

.31

Reading Span

76.72

10.12

50

94.40

-.67

.72

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

The Pearson correlation analysis indicated that, there was a positive and significant relationship between CI performance and both variables of WM (Digit Span and Reading Span) as shown in Table 2.

 

CI Performance

CI Performance

1

 

Digit Span

 

.643(*)

 

Reading Span

 

.880(*)

Table 2. Pearson Correlations between Consecutive Interpreting Performance,
Digit Span, and Reading Span (*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level)

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare males and females on ‘CI Performance’. There was no significant difference on this variable for Males (M=9.61, SD=1.71) and females (M=9.93, SD=1.81) conditions; t(28)= -.49, p=.62. These results suggest that males and females performed similarly on CI (see Table 3).

 

N

Mean

SD

T

Df

Sig

Male

14

9.61

1.71

-.49

28

.62

Female

16

9.93

1.81

 

 

 

Table 3. T-test Results Comparing Males and Females on ‘CI Performance’

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare males and females on ‘Digit Span’. There was no significant difference on this variable for Males (M=7.86, SD=1.09) and females (M=8, SD=1.41) conditions; t(28)= -.30, p=.76. These results suggest that males and females performed similarly on Digit Span (see Table 4).

 

N

Mean

SD

T

Df

Sig

Male

14

7.86

1.09

-.30

28

.76

Female

16

8

1.41

 

 

 

Table 4. T-test Results Comparing Males and Females on ‘Digit Span’

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare males and females on ‘Reading Span’. There was no significant difference on this variable for Males (M=75.80, SD=10.01) and females (M=77.53, SD=10.48) conditions; t(28)= -.46, p=.64. These results suggest that males and females performed similarly on Reading Span (see Table 5).

 

N

Mean

SD

T

Df

Sig

Male

14

75.80

10.01

-.46

28

.64

Female

16

77.53

10.48

 

 

 

Table 5. T-test Results Comparing Males and Females on ‘Reading Span’

6. Discussion

The first research question concerned the relationship between WM and CI performance, a topic that has only attracted limited attention in the literature compared to SI. The study focused on the English-Persian language pair, which had rarely been addressed. According to the results of the statistical analysis, it was found that there was a positive and significant association between both measures of WM and CI performance. This result was in line with the findings of Khatib (2003), who reported a significant relationship between PASAT and (English-Persian) CI performance in professional interpreters, and those of Hodakova (2009), who found a significant correlation between the listening span and CI performance. However, the present study differed from both of these studies in terms of the types of WM measurements used: Digit Span and Reading Span. Furthermore, the result was in line with Amini et al. (2020) who reported WM as an efficient factor for predicting CI performance.

The results were also consistent with certain studies carried out in the simultaneous mode, such as those obtained by Christoffels (2004), who reported a significant relationship between a group of untrained bilingual students’ performance on Digit Span with selected sentences and the overall quality of their SI performance, as well as a positive correlation between their Reading Span and accuracies of the selected sentences. However, the results were inconsistent with those of Wang (2016), who reported a lack of significant relationship between the signed language interpreters’ WM capacities and their simultaneous Auslan interpreting performances.

Based on the results, it was concluded that consecutive interpreters with high performing WM perform better than those with low performing WM. The results also allowed us to conclude that WM capacity is one of the key prerequisites that underlie good CI. This factor together with some other factors can be considered for selecting candidates in interpreter training programs. Here, a word of caution should be added. Since CI was carried out in short chunks in this study, the results should be cautiously generalized to the other type of CI, i.e., a long CI with note taking. Although a short CI in the Iranian context is common in settings like sport press conferences or interviews after matches, e.g., football matches for foreign coaches, etc., it is different from a long CI with note taking (e.g., 5-7-min duration).

Studies on the association between WM and CI found in the literature have supported positive and significant relationships between the variables (Amini et al. 2020; Hodakova 2009; Khatib 2003). Our research was in line with the general literature in this area. Therefore, our results could extend the related literature and strengthen the body of knowledge in this domain. However, the number of studies can hardly considered sufficient and similar studies, which apply various WM measurements on other language pairs, are needed.

Some reported results on the association between WM and interpreting performance (whether in CI or SI) are partially different. For example, Christoffels (2004) reported a significant correlation between Digit Span and both interpreting measures (selected sentences and overall quality) and between Reading Span and only the accuracy of the selected sentences, whereas Tzou et al. (2012) reported that both SI measures (selected segments and overall quality) positively correlated with English and Chinese Reading Span and only with English Digit Span. Yet, we found a significant relationship between both WM measurements (Reading Span and Digit Span) and the overall quality of CI performance. The possible causes for such differences in the results might be attributed to the research designs adopted, such as participant selection and their L2 proficiencies, experiences, and ages, reporting criteria, differences in the scales for assessing interpreting performances, etc.

The second research question examined the gender differences in WM. The results of an independent samples t-test indicated that, there was no significant difference between males and females for this variable. This result is congruent with those of other studies in this domain, e.g., those obtained by Harness et al. (2008), who reported that males and females did not perform significantly different in the verbal WM task in no-distraction conditions. However, the results are inconsistent with studies that reported female superiority in memory tasks, e.g., with that of Guillem and Mograss (2005), who reported that females performed better on the recognition memory task, or that of Baer et al. (2006),  who found that females could recall more female-stereotyped objects (e.g., a dress, lipstick etc.), and neutral items (e.g., a pen, a clock, etc.) and total items compared to males. Furthermore, our findings differed from those of some other investigations, which have found that males perform better in memory tasks, e.g., those of Harness et al. (2008). Based on the above-mentioned results (mixed results in the contexts other than an interpreting context) and with regard to the lack of enough studies in this area, it was difficult to come to proper conclusions. Therefore, the issue of gender differences in WM in the context of interpreting needs to be further investigated in order to reach reliable conclusions and extend the relevant literature.

Studies on gender differences in memory are inconclusive. Some studies have observed no gender differences, e.g., Miller and Helpern (2014); others have reported that males perform better, e.g., Click (2005); and certain others have shown that females perform better, e.g., Keith et al. (2008). Our results are in line with those that report no gender differences in this regard (e.g., Miller and Helpern 2014). However, part of the differences in the results might be caused by the different methodologies adopted and in particular, the different memory tasks used to measure memory capacity. In addition to the mixed results reported by these studies, they do not come from the context of interpreting and thus cannot easily be compared to our own results.

The third research question was to probe gender differences in CI performance. Based on the results of an independent samples t-test, no significant difference was observed between males and females in terms of CI performance. This finding is in line with that of Hasanshahi and Shahrokhi (2016), who reported that there was no significant difference between male and female interpreters based on the quality of their SI. However, their focus was on the simultaneous mode. Our results are not in line with those of Collard and Defrancq (2019a), who found that male interpreters produced more disfluencies than female interpreters did. In addition, this result is inconsistent with that of Russo (2018) and Verdini (2019), who reported that males performed better in some respects, e.g., interpreting numerical expressions, and females in others, e.g., interpreting a figurative language. Although, there are not many prior studies on this issue, we can posit that male interpreters may perform better in terms of certain components of interpreting e.g., interpreting numerical expressions while female interpreters may perform better in terms of other factors e.g., producing less disfluency. However, there may be no significant gender differences in terms of overall interpreting performance.

7. Conclusions

The aim of this research was to probe the relationship between WM and CI performance. Furthermore, it sought to determine whether there was a significant difference between males and females in CI performance and WM capacity. The results of Pearson Correlation further proved that there was a significant relationship between WM and CI performance, which is generally congruent with the literature in this domain. Hence, it can be concluded that CI interpreters with higher WM capacities are more likely to have better performance compared to those with lower WM capacities. These findings further support the WM-based cognitive models of interpreting and corroborate the results of those investigations that have reported the positive and significant role of WM in either modes of interpreting, especially in CI. Therefore, the findings can extend the literature in this domain, especially in connection to Persian language.

In connection to the second objective of the study, the findings of this research suggested that there were no gender differences in CI performance and WM capacity. Both genders performed similarly on Reading Span, Digit Span tests, and CI task. Considering the paucity of the previous studies, mixed reported results on this topic and the small number of participants, it was difficult to come to a particular conclusion, but it seems that both genders perform similarly on CI and memory tests.

This investigation is one of only a few studies devoted to CI rather than SI, besides being one of the first on the English-Persian language pair focusing on the association between WM and CI performance. Therefore, we hope that our study can pave the way towards further research on this topic. Despite their limited size, the findings of this research, together with those of similar studies, can provide researchers and scholars in this field with information on how to design or modify process models or other cognitive models of interpreting, especially in the area of CI. The CI models are expected to promisingly take into a greater consideration the role of WM according to the results of various language pairs.

References

Amini, Mojtaba, Azizollah Dabaghi, and Dariush Nejadansari (2020) “Working Memory and Note Quantity: Their Relationship with Consecutive Interpreting in Proficient Bilinguals. Implications for Aptitude Tests of Interpreting” Sendebar 31: 479-502.

Baddeley, Alan David, and Graham Hitch (1974) “Working memory” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Gordon H. Bower (ed.), New York, Academic Press: 47-89. 

Baddeley, Alan David (1986) Working memory, New York, Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, Alan David (2000) “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, no. 11: 417-423.

Baddeley, Alan David, and Robert H. Logie (1999) “Working memory: The multiple-component model” in Models of Working Memory. Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, Akira Miyake and Priti Shah (eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 28-61.

Baddeley, Alan David (2007) Working memory, thought, and action. Vol. 45., New York, Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, Alan David (2010) “Working memory”, Current biology 20, no. 4: 136-140.

Baer, April, Nevelyn N. Trumpeter, and Bart L. Weathington (2006) “Gender Differences in Memory Recall”, Modern Psychological Studies 12, no. 1: 3.

Bajo, Maria Teresa, Francisca Padilla, and Presentacion Padilla (2000) “Comprehension Processes in Simultaneous Interpreting” in Translation in Context, Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier (eds.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 127-142.

Bayliss, Donna M., Christopher Jarrold, Alan David Baddeley, Deborah M. Gunn, and Eleanor Leigh, (2005) “Mapping the developmental constraints on working memory span performance”, Developmental Psychology 41, no. 4: 579.

Carrol, John B. (1966) “An Experiment in Evaluating the Quality of Translations”, Mechanical Translations and Computational Linguistics 9, no. 3-4: 55-66.

Cecot, Michela (2001) “Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: a contrastive analysis of professional interpreters' performances”, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 11: 63-85.

Chincotta, Dino, and Geoffrey Underwood (1998) “Simultaneous Interpreters and the Effect of Concurrent Articulation on Immediate Memory: A bilingual digit span study”, Interpreting 3, no. 1: 1–20.

Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. De Groot, and Lourens J. Waldorp (2003) “Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating lexical retrieval working memory, and simultaneous interpreting”, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6, no. 3: 201–211.

Christoffeles, Ingrid K., and Annette M. B. De Groot (2004) “Components of simultaneous interpreting: A comparison with shadowing and paraphrasing”, Bilingualism Language and Cognition 7, no. 3: 227-240.

Christoffeles, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. De Groot., and Judith F. Kroll (2006) “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency”, Journal of Memory and Language 54, no. 3: 324–345.

Click, Ivy A. (2005) Gender Differences in Working Memory in Humans Tested on a Virtual Morris Water Maze, MA Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, East Tennessee State University.

Collard, Camille, and Bart Defrancq (2019a) “Disfluencies in simultaneous interpreting, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex” in New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting, , Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems and Bart Defrancq (eds.), London/New York, Routledge: 264-299.

Collard, Camille, and Bart Defrancq (2019b) “Predictors of Ear-Voice Span, a corpus-based study with special reference to sex”, Perspectives 27, no. 3: 431-454.

Cowan, Nelson (1988) “Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system”, Psychological Bulletin 104, no. 2: 163-191.

Cowan, Nelson (1999) “An embedded-processes model of working memory” in Models of working mem­ory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control, AKira Miyake and Priti Shah (eds.), Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press: 62-101.

Cowan, Nelson (2005) Working Memory Capacity, Hove, UK, Psychol. Press.

Daro, Valeria (1989) “The role of memory and attention in simultaneous interpretation: A neurolinguistic approach”, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2: 50-56.

Dastyar, Vorya (2019) “Innovation in Iran”, ITI bulletin May-June 2019: 17.

Dehn, Milton J. (2008) Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Daneman, Meredyth, and Patricia A. Carpenter (1980) “Individual differences in working memory and reading”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, no. 4: 450–466. 

Dong, Yanping, and Rendong Cai (2015) “Working Memory and Interpreting: A Commentary on Theoretical Models” in Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing, Zhisheng Wen, Mailce. Borges Mota and Arthur McNeill (eds.), Multilingual Matters: 63-81.

Gile, Daniel (2009) “Conference interpreting, historical and cognitive perspectives” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha (eds.),  London/New York, Routledge: 51-56.

Guillem, Francois, and Melodee Mograss (2005) “Gender differences in memory processing: Evidence from event-related potentials to faces”, Brain and cognition 57, no. 1: 84-92.

Harness, Ashley, Lorri Jacot, Shauna Scherf, Adam White, and Jason E. Warnick, (2008) “Gender differences in working memory”, Psychological Reports 103, no. 1: 214-218.

Hasanshahi, Poorandokht, and Mohsen Shahrokhi (2016) “The Relationship between Simultaneous Interpreters’ Speed of Speaking in Persian and the Quality of their Interpreting: A Gender Perspective”, International Journal of English Linguistics 6, no. 3: 11-20.

Hermans, Daan, Rick Van Dijk and Ingrid K. Christofels (2007) De efectiviteit van gebarentaaltolken in de communicatie tussen dove en horende mensen [Efectiveness of sign language interpreting in communication between deaf and hearing people]. Unpublished final project report. Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands.

Hines, Michael R. (1990) “Gonadal hormones and human cognitive development” in Brain and behaviour in vertebrates 1: Genderual differentiation, neuroanatomical aspects, neurotransmitters, and neuropeptides, Jacques Balthazart (ed.), Basel, Karger: 51-63.

Hodakova, Soňa (2009) Pamat V Simultannom a Konzekutivnom tlmoceni. [Memory in Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpreting.] Unpublished Ph.D. Diss., Konstantin Filozof University, Nitra.

Hyde, Janet S. (2005) “The gender similarities hypothesis”, American Psychologist 60, no. 6: 581–592.

Hyde, Janet S. and Marcia C. Linn (1988) “Gender differences in verbal-ability - a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin 104, no. 1: 53–69.

Keith, Timothy Z., Matthew R. Reynolds, Puja G. Patel, and Kristen P. Ridley (2008) “Sex Differences in Latent Cognitive Abilities Ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities”, Intelligence 36, no. 6: 502-525.

Khatib, Fuad (2003) The Relation between Working Memory and Consecutive Interpreting performance, Unpublished MA. Thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran.

Khodadadi, Mojtaba, and Hossein Amani (2014) WORKING MEMORY WIS Software, Institute for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. Tehran, Iran.

Khodadadi, Mojtaba, Hassan Asad Zadeh, Monir Kalantar Ghoreishi, and Hossein Amani (2014) Working Memory Test. Daneman, M. & Carpenter Software. Institute for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. Tehran, Iran.

Kopke, Barbara, and Jean-Luc Nespoulous (2006) “Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters”, Interpreting 8, no. 1: 1-23.

Liu, Minhua, (2001) Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Working Memory Analysis, Unpublished Doctoral Diss, the University of Texas at Austin.

Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll  (2004) “Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting”, Interpreting 6, no. 1: 19–42.

Loftus, Elizabeth F., Mahzarin R. Banaji, Jonathan W. Schooler, and Rachael A. Foster (1987) “Who remembers what?: gender differences in memory”, Michigan Quarterly Review 26: 64–85.

Magnifico, Cedric, and Bart Defrancq (2016) “Impoliteness in interpreting: a question of gender?”, Translation and interpreting 8, no. 2: 26-45.

Miller, David I., and Diane F. Halpern (2014) “The new science of cognitive sex differences”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18, no. 1: 37-45.

Padilla, Presentacion., Maria Teresa Bajo, Jose Juan Cañas, and Padilla Francisca (1995) “Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation” in Topics in Interpreting Research, Jorma Tommola (ed.), Turku, University of Turku Press: 61-71.

Russo, Mariachiara (2018) “Speaking patterns and gender in the European Parliament Interpreting corpus: A quantitative study as a premise for qualitative investigations” in Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli and Bart Defrancq (eds.), Singapore, Springer: 115-131.

Timarova, Sarka, Ivana Cenkova, Reine Meylaerts, Erik Hertog, Arnaud Szmalec, and Wouter Duyck ) 2014( “Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Executive Control”, Interpreting 1 , no. 2: 139-168.

Tiselius, Elizabeth (2009) “Revisiting Carroll’s Scales” in Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies, Claudia V. Angelelli, and Holly E. Jacobson (eds.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 95-121.

Tombaugh, Tom N. (2006) “A comprehensive review of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)”, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 21, no. 1: 53–76

Tzou, Yeh-Zu, Zohre EslamiRasekh, Hsin-Chin Chen, and Jyotsna Vaid (2012) “Effects of Language Proficiency and Degree of Formal Training in Simultaneous Interpreting on Working Memory and Interpreting Performance: Evidence from Mandarin-English speakers”, International Journal of Bilingualism 16, no. 2: 213-227.

Verdini, Agostina (2019) "Consecutive interpreting performance. Women and men compared: An empirical analysis", Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 5, no. 3: 292-306.

Wang, Jihong (2016) “The relationship between working memory capacity and simultaneous interpreting performance: a mixed methods study on professional Auslan/English interpreters”, International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 18, no. 1: 1-33.

Yenkimaleki, Mahmood, and Vincent J. van Heuven (2017) “The effect of memory training on consecutive interpreting performance by interpreter trainees: An experimental study”, FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction/International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 15, no. 1: 157-172.

About the author(s)

Mojtaba Amini is PhD in Translation and Interpreting Studies, the University of Isfahan, Iran. He spent his sabbatical period at Ghent University, Belgium (2018-2019). His main line of research is cognitive approaches to consecutive interpreting. He is also interested in certain other domains including translation and interpreting quality assessment, sociology of translation, translation teaching methodology as well as philosophical approaches to translation.

Azizollah Dabaghi is currently an associate professor of applied linguistics at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, the University of Isfahan. He completed his degrees in Sheffield, Isfahan and Auckland. He has had several years of teaching experience in translation studies and practice as well as in second language acquisition and psycholinguistics. His main line of research includes integration of translation ability with psycholinguistic and cognitive issues among translators.

Dariush Nejad Ansari is assistant professor at the University of Isfahan, Iran. He has been teaching at different levels in English Department of the Faculty of Foreign Languages. He graduated with an MA in applied linguistics from Tarbiat Modarres University and completed his PhD at Allame Tabatabaei University in TOEFL in 2008. His areas of interest are issues in second language acquisition, and translation.

Email: [please login or register to view author's email address]

©inTRAlinea & Mojtaba Amini, Azizollah Dabaghi & Dariush Nejadansari (2022).
"Working Memory and Consecutive Interpreting Performance in Proficient Bilinguals: A Gender Perspective"
inTRAlinea Volumes
Edited by: {specials_editors_volumes}
This article can be freely reproduced under Creative Commons License.
Stable URL: https://www.intralinea.org/specials/article/2584

Go to top of page