1887
image of Listening and comprehension in interpreting
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The study of skilled listening comprehension shows that listening is a complex, dynamic, and interactive process that enables listeners to understand a message and respond adequately to the requirements of communicative interaction. Individual factors, such as language proficiency, working memory capacity, and previous knowledge, interact in the listening process and performance. Moreover, skilled listeners deploy controlled strategies directed at making the best use of their abilities to achieve a specific communicative goal. However, our understanding of individual variables, such as language proficiency, topic-specific knowledge, and the strategies that interpreters use when listening for interpreting, remain mostly unexplored. This article presents listening comprehension as a goal-directed activity and articulates recent research on individual factors involved in listening comprehension with current conceptions of comprehension for interpreting. This review identifies relevant gaps in our understanding about the comprehension process in interpreting.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.20074.dia
2020-09-15
2020-09-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahrens, Barbara
    2017 “Interpretation and cognition.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 445–460. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albl-Mikasa, Michaela
    2013 “Developing and cultivating expert interpreter competence.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter18: 17–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Linda
    1994 “Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects.” InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 101–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.11and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.11and [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, Neil
    2005 “L2 strategy research.” InHandbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. byEli Hinkel, 757–772. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Andringa, Sible,
    2012 “Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach.” Language Learning62 (s2): 49–78. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00706.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Baddeley, Alan D.
    2000 “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences4 (11): 417–423. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 “Working memory and language: An overview.” Journal of Communication Disorders36 (3): 189–208. 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baddeley, Alan D. and Graham J. Hitch
    1974 “Working memory.” The Psychology of Learning and Motivation8: 47–89. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(08)60452‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bajo, María Teresa
    2001 “Comprehension and memory processes in translation and interpreting.” Quaderns. Revista de traducció6: 27–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2006 “Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality.” Interpreting8 (2): 149–174. 10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  11. Blasco Mayor, María Jesús
    2015 “L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting: An empirical study.” Translation and Interpreting Studies10 (1): 108–132. 10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloomfield, Amber,
    2010What Makes Listening Difficult? Factors Affecting Listening Comprehension. Technical report TTO 81434 E 3.1. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. 10.21236/ADA550176
    https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA550176 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blumenfeld, Henrike and Marian, Viorica
    2007 “Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking.” Language and Cognitive Processes22 (5): 633–660. 10.1080/01690960601000746
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601000746 [Google Scholar]
  14. Blumenfeld, Henrike and Viorica, Marian
    2011 “Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension.” Cognition118 (2): 245–257. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bodie, Graham
    2008 “What would a unified field of listening look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors.” The International Journal of Listening22 (2): 103–122. 10.1080/10904010802174867
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010802174867 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brunfaut, Tineke and Andrea Révész
    2015 “the role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening.” TESOL Quarterly49 (1): 141–168. 10.1002/tesq.168
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.168 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chmiel, Agnieszka
    2018 “In search of the working memory advantage in conference interpreting–training, experience and task effects.” International Journal of Bilingualism22 (3): 371–384. 10.1177/1367006916681082
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916681082 [Google Scholar]
  18. Christoffels, Ingrid
    2006 “Listening while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology18 (2): 206–220. 10.1080/09541440500162073
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500162073 [Google Scholar]
  19. Christoffels, Ingrid and Anette M. B. de Groot
    2004 “Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition7 (3): 227–40. 10.1017/S1366728904001609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001609 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2005 “Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective.” InHandbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, ed. byJudith Kroll and Anette M. B. de Groot, 454–79. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Christoffels, Ingrid, Anette M. B. de Groot, and Judith Kroll
    2006 “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency.” Journal of Memory and Language54 (3): 324–45. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christoffels, Ingrid, Judith Kroll, and María Teresa Bajo
    2013 “Introduction to bilingualism and cognitive control.” Frontiers in Psychology4: 6–8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00199
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00199 [Google Scholar]
  23. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe 2001Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cowan, Nelson
    1999 “An embedded-processes model of working memory.” InModels of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, ed. byAkira Miyake and Priti Shah, 62–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174909.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.006 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000 “Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting.” Interpreting5 (2): 117–146. 10.1075/intp.5.2.05cow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.05cow [Google Scholar]
  26. Cutler, Anne
    2000/2001 “Listening to a second language through the ears of a first.” Interpreting5 (1): 1–23. 10.1075/intp.5.1.02cut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.1.02cut [Google Scholar]
  27. Cutler, Anne and Mirjam Broersma
    2005 “Phonetic precision in listening.” InA Figure of Speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, ed. byWilliam J. Hardcastle and Janet M. Beck, 63–91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Darò, Valeria and Franco Fabbro
    1994 “Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference.” Applied Linguistics15 (4): 365–381. 10.1093/applin/15.4.365
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  29. De Groot, Anette M. B.
    2011Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. New York: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203841228
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841228 [Google Scholar]
  30. Desposito, Mark and Bradley R. Postle
    2015 “The cognitive neuroscience of working memory.” Annual Review of Psychology66: 115–142. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑010814‑015031
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015031 [Google Scholar]
  31. Diamond, Adele
    2013 “Executive functions.” Annual Review of Psychology64: 135–168. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑113011‑143750
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 [Google Scholar]
  32. Diamond, Bruce and Gregory Shreve
    2017 “Deliberate practice and neurocognitive optimization of translation expertise.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognitioned. byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 477–495. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch26
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch26 [Google Scholar]
  33. Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentación Padilla, and María Teresa Bajo
    2015 “The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of experienced and inexperienced interpreters.” Interpreting17 (1): 1–25. 10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  34. Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie and Constanza López
    2016 “La omisión en interpretación simultánea: ¿fallo involuntario o estrategia comunicativa?” Onomazein33: 427–455. 10.7764/onomazein.33.11
    https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.33.11 [Google Scholar]
  35. Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie and Alejandro Torres
    2019 “Comprehension in interpreting and translation: Testing the phonological interference hypothesis.” Perspectives27 (4): 622–638. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1569699
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1569699 [Google Scholar]
  36. Dong, Yanping and Fei Zhong
    2017 “Interpreting experience enhances early attentional processing, conflict monitoring and interference suppression along the time course of processing.” Neuropsychologia27 (95): 193–203. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  37. Duñabeitía, Jon Andoni, and Manuel Carreiras
    2015 “The bilingual advantage: Acta est Fabula.” Cortex73: 371–372. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Field, John
    2009Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511575945
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575945 [Google Scholar]
  39. García, Adolfo
    2014 “The interpreter advantage hypothesis: Preliminary data patterns and empirically motivated questions.” Translation and Interpreting Studies9 (2): 219–238. 10.1075/tis.9.2.04gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.2.04gar [Google Scholar]
  40. 2015 “Psycholinguistic explorations of lexical translation equivalents.” Translation Spaces4 (1): 9–28. 10.1075/ts.4.1.01gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.1.01gar [Google Scholar]
  41. Gearhart, Christopher, Jonathan Denham, and Graham Bodie
    2014 “Listening as a goal-directed activity.” Western Journal of Communication78 (5): 668–684. 10.1080/10570314.2014.910888
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2014.910888 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann
    1990Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.21236/ADA221854
    https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA221854 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gerver, David
    1969 “The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters.” InProceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate And/or Frequency Controlled Speech October 22–24, 1969, ed. byEmerson Foulke, 162–184. Louisville, KT: University of Louisville.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1974 “Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology26 (3): 337–341. 10.1080/14640747408400422
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400422 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Second Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Goh, Christine
    2000 “A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems.” System28 (1): 55–75. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(99)00060‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3 [Google Scholar]
  47. Griffiths, Carol and Rebecca Oxford
    2014 “The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue.” System43: 1–10. 10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hild, Adelina
    2007 “Establishing rigour in a between-method investigation of SI expertise.” InDoubts and Directions in Translation Studies, ed. byYves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 99–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.72.12hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.12hil [Google Scholar]
  49. 2011 “Effects of linguistic complexity on expert processing during simultaneous interpreting.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research. Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.19hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.19hil [Google Scholar]
  50. Hulstijn, Jan
    2012 “The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15 (2): 422–433. 10.1017/S1366728911000678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000678 [Google Scholar]
  51. Imhof, Margarete
    2010 “What is going on in the mind of a listener? The cognitive psychology of listening.” InListening and Human Communication in the 21st Century, ed. byAndrew Wolvin, 97–126. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444314908.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314908.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ivanova, Adelina
    1999 Discourse Processing during Simultaneous Interpreting: An Expertise Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge.
  53. Jiang, Hong
    2013 “The interpreter’s glossary in simultaneous interpreting. A survey.” Interpreting15 (1): 74–93. 10.1075/intp.15.1.04jia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.1.04jia [Google Scholar]
  54. Kalina, Sylvia
    2000 “Interpreting competences as a basis and a goal for teaching.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter10: 3–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kade, Otto
    1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kintsch, Walter
    1988 “The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.” Psychological Review95: 163–82. 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  57. Köpke, Barbara and Jean-Luc Nespoulous
    2006 “Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters.” Interpreting8 (1): 1–23. 10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.1.02kop [Google Scholar]
  58. Lamberger-Felber, Heike
    2003 “Performance variability among conference interpreters: Examples from a case study.” InLa evaluación de la calidad en la interpretación: investigación, ed. byÁngela Collados, María Fernández Sánchez, and Daniel Gile, 147–168. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lambert, Sylvie
    1988 “Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis.” Meta: Translators’ Journal33 (3): 377–387. 10.7202/003380ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003380ar [Google Scholar]
  60. Lemhöfer, Kristin and Mirjam Broersma
    2012 “Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods44 (2): 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  61. Linck, Jared A.
    2012 “Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review21 (4): 861–883. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0565‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Liu, Minhua
    2001 Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting. A Working Memory Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas.
  63. 2008 “How do experts interpret? Implications from research in Interpreting Studies and cognitive science.” InEfforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research, ed. byGyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 159–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
    2004 “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting6 (1): 19–42. 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  65. Luk, Gigi and Ellen Bialystok
    2013 “Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology25 (5): 605–621. 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.795574 [Google Scholar]
  66. Macaro, Ernesto, Robert Vanderplank, and Suzanne Graham
    2005A Systematic Review of the Role of Prior Knowledge in Unidirectional Listening Comprehension. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Macaro, Ernesto
    2006 “Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework.” The Modern Language Journal90 (3): 320–337. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2006.00425.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Macizo, Pedro and María Teresa Bajo
    2006 “Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes?” Cognition99 (1): 1–34. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2009 “Schema activation in translation and reading.” Psicológica30: 59–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McDonald, Janet
    2006 “Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners.” Journal of Memory and Language55 (3): 381–401. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  71. Mellinger, Christopher D. and Thomas A. Hanson
    2019 “Meta-analyses of simultaneous interpreting and working memory.” Interpreting21 (2): 165–195. 10.1075/intp.00026.mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00026.mel [Google Scholar]
  72. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    1994 “Aptitude testing for conference interpreting: Why, when and how.” InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 57–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.07mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.07mos [Google Scholar]
  73. Nation, Paul
    2006 “How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?” Canadian Modern Language Review63: 59–82. 10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 [Google Scholar]
  74. Nation, Paul and David Beglar
    2007 “A vocabulary size test.” The Language Teacher31 (7): 9–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. O’Malley, J. Michael and Anna Uhl Chamot
    1990Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524490
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490 [Google Scholar]
  76. Oxford, Rebecca L.
    1990Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Paap, Kenneth R., Hunter A. Johnson, and Oliver Sawi
    2015 “Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances.” Cortex69: 265–278. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  78. Padilla, Presentación
    1995 Procesos de atención y memoria en interpretación de lenguas [Attention and memory processes in language interpreting]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Granada.
  79. Padilla, Francisca, María Teresa Bajo, and Pedro Macizo
    2005 “Articulatory suppression in language interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word knowledge.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition8 (3): 207–219. 10.1017/S1366728905002269
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002269 [Google Scholar]
  80. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  81. 2011 “Assessing aptitude for interpreting: The syncloze test.” Interpreting13 (1): 106–120. 10.1075/intp.13.1.07poc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.1.07poc [Google Scholar]
  82. Rost, Michael
    2002Teaching and Researching Listening. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2014 “Listening in a multilingual world: The challenges of second language (L2) listening.” International Journal of Listening28 (3): 131–148. 10.1080/10904018.2014.937895
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.937895 [Google Scholar]
  84. Russo, Mariachiara and Pippa Salvador
    2004 “Aptitude to interpreting: Preliminary results of a testing methodology based on paraphrase.” Meta49 (2): 409–432. 10.7202/009367ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009367ar [Google Scholar]
  85. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1976 “Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating.” InTranslation. Applications and research, ed. byRichard Brislin, 92–115. New York: Gardner Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Setton, Robin
    2015 “Inferencing.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker, 189–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Skaaden, Hanne
    1999 “Lexical knowledge and interpreter aptitude.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics9 (1): 77–97. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1999.tb00160.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1999.tb00160.x [Google Scholar]
  88. Staehr, Lars
    2009 “Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition31: 577–607. 10.1017/S0272263109990039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039 [Google Scholar]
  89. Stavrakaki Stavroula et al.
    Stavrakaki Stavroula et al. 2012 “Working memory and verbal fluency in simultaneous interpreters.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology34 (6): 624–633. 10.1080/13803395.2012.667068
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2012.667068 [Google Scholar]
  90. Swender, Elvira, Daniel Conrad, and Robert Vicars
    2012ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Tiselius, Elisabet
    2013 “Expertise without deliberate practice? The case of simultaneous interpreters.” Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting: An Investigation of Swedish Conference Interpreters. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tiselius, Elisabet and Gard Jenset
    2011 “Process and product in simultaneous interpreting. What they tell us about experience and expertise.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 269–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.20tis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.20tis [Google Scholar]
  93. Tommola, Jorma and Jukka Hyöna
    1990 “Mental load in listening, speech shadowing and simultaneous interpreting: A pupillometric study.” Paper Presented at the9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, AILA90, 2–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Tyler, Michael
    2001 “Resource consumption as a function of topic knowledge in non-native and native comprehension.” Language Learning51 (2): 257–280. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00155
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00155 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tzou, Yeh-Zu
    2011 “Effect 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 Bilingualism16 (2): 213–227. 10.1177/1367006911403197
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403197 [Google Scholar]
  96. Van Hell, Janet and Darren Tanner
    2012 “Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation.” Language Learning62 (2): 148–171. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00710.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00710.x [Google Scholar]
  97. Van Zeeland, Hilde and Norbert Schmitt
    2013 “Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension?” Applied Linguistics34 (4): 457–479. 10.1093/applin/ams074
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074 [Google Scholar]
  98. Vandergrift, Larry
    1997 “The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study.” Foreign Language Annals30 (3): 387–409. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1997.tb02362.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x [Google Scholar]
  99. 2007 “Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research.” Language Teaching40 (3): 191–210. 10.1017/S0261444807004338
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004338 [Google Scholar]
  100. Vandergrift, Larry and Christine Goh
    2003 “Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener.” Language Learning53: 463–496. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00232
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00232 [Google Scholar]
  101. 2006 “Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency?” Modern Language Journal90: 6–18. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2006.00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00381.x [Google Scholar]
  102. 2012Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203843376
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843376 [Google Scholar]
  103. Vandergrift, Larry and Marzieh H. Tafaghodtari
    2010 “Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study.” Language Learning60 (2): 470–497. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00559.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Vandergrift, Larry and Susan Baker
    2015 “Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis.” Language Learning65 (2): 390–416. 10.1111/lang.12105
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105 [Google Scholar]
  105. Wen, Zhisheng, Mailce Borges Mota, and Arthur McNeill
    eds. 2015Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093595
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595 [Google Scholar]
  106. Wolvin, Andrew
    1995 “On competent listening.” Listening Post4.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 2010Listening and Human Communication in the 21st Century. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444314908
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444314908 [Google Scholar]
  108. Yudes, Carolina, Pedro Macizo, and María Teresa Bajo
    2011 “The influence of expertise in simultaneous interpreting on non-verbal executive processes.” Frontiers in Psychology2: 1–7. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00309
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00309 [Google Scholar]
  109. Zwaan, Rolf and Gabriel Radvansky
    1998 “Situation models in language comprehension and memory.” Psychological Bulletin123 (2): 162–85. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.20074.dia
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error