Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T15:27:23.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The central processing bottleneck during word production: Comparing simultaneous interpreters, bilinguals and monolinguals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

LONGJIAO SUI ,
HAIDEE KRUGER  and
HELEN SLATYER
LONGJIAO SUI*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
HAIDEE KRUGER
Affiliation:
Macquarie University / North-West University
HELEN SLATYER
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
*
Address for correspondence: Longjiao Sui, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Macquarie Drive, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia[email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are simultaneous interpreters subject to the central processing bottleneck, which can postpone the reaction time and impair the performance of another concurrent task, during word production? Moreover, is there any difference between interpreters, bilinguals and monolinguals in the word production bottleneck? In this study, professional simultaneous interpreters, proficient bilinguals and monolinguals performed a dual task consisting of a picture naming task in sentence context (Task 1) and a pitch tone discrimination task (Task 2). The results show that interpreters are also subject to the central processing bottleneck during word production, and there is no significant difference between the three groups in the duration of the word production bottleneck. Unexpected differences in performance were found between English–Asian language and English–European language pairs within the interpreter group, but not within the bilingual group, showing that European-language interpreters were as fast as monolinguals in lexical access, and faster than Asian-language interpreters and bilinguals.

Keywords

simultaneous interpretinglexical accessbottleneckpsychological refractory period (PRP)
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , November 2019 , pp. 968 - 985
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The work reported in this paper was submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MPhil (Linguistics) at Macquarie University, Australia. The authors are grateful to Zenzi M. Griffin and Victor S. Ferreira for offering valuable testing materials. They would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jan-Louis Kruger in recruiting participants for this study, and three anonymous reviewers in providing feedback on aspects of the study.

References

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistics Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Campbell, S., & Wakim, B. (2007). Methodological questions about translation research: A model to underpin research into the mental processes of translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 19 (1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 326–348. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54 (3), 324–345.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2008). Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (4), 886–899.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 231–244.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual's two lexicons compete for selection?. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (3), 365–397.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (4), 782–796.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A.M. (eds.), Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition, 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (6), 1187–1199.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In Danks, J. H., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B. & McBeath, M. K. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, 196–214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory and Cognition, 33 (7), 1220–1234.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27 (2), 210–223.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 67–81.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38 (3), 313–338.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In Groot, A. M. B. de & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 225–254. Mal-wash, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hermans, D (2004). Between-language identity effects in picture-word interference tasks: a challenge for language-nonspecific or language-specific models of lexical access? Int. J. Biling. 8, 115–125.Google Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production?. Acta Psychologica, 127 (2), 277–288.Google Scholar
Jared, D., Poh, R. P. Y., & Paivio, A. (2013). L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin–English bilinguals: A test of bilingual dual coding theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 383–396.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 (4), 824–843.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Levy, J., & Pashler, H. (2001). Is dual-task slowing instruction dependent?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (4), 862–869.Google Scholar
Levy, J., Pashler, H., & Boer, E. (2006). Central interference in driving: Is there any stopping the psychological refractory period? Psychological Science, 17 (3), 228–235.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940–967.Google Scholar
McLeod, P. (1977). Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 41 (5), 381–396.Google Scholar
Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 273–310.Google Scholar
Navarrete, E., Basagni, B., Alario, F. X., & Costa, A. (2006). Does word frequency affect lexical selection in speech production? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59 (10), 1681–1690.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10 (3), 358–377.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16 (4), 826–842.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological bulletin, 116 (2), 220–244.Google Scholar
Pashler, H. (ed.). (2016). Attention. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991a). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991b). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41 (1), 19–45.Google Scholar
Riccardi, A. (2005). On the evolution of interpreting strategies in simultaneous interpreting. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 50 (2), 753–767.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. E. (2003). Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (1), 96–103.Google Scholar
Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Hazeltine, E. (2003). Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: Graded capacity sharing or central postponement?. Perception & Psychophysics, 65 (5), 801–816.Google Scholar
Schachter, S., Rauscher, F., Christenfeld, N., & Crone, K. T. (1994). The vocabularies of academia. Psychological Science, 5 (1), 37–41.Google Scholar
Šeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2014). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16 (2), 139–168.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6 (2), 174–215.Google Scholar
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29 (1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the Predictions of the Central Capacity Sharing Model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31 (4), 790–802.Google Scholar
Wang, B., & Li, T. (2015). An empirical study of pauses in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Perspectives, 23 (1), 124–142.Google Scholar
Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high‐speed performance: A review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 43 (1), 2–19.Google Scholar