ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
The Predicting Power of Cognitive Fluency for the Development of Utterance Fluency in Simultaneous Interpreting.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of executive functions on consecutive interpreting for Chinese-Japanese unbalanced bilinguals.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The role of psycholinguistics for language learning in teaching based on formulaic sequence use and oral fluency.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although simultaneous interpreting (SI) is generally recognized as a highly demanding cognitive activity in nature, the role of cognitive processes in SI fluency is yet to be determined. While utterance fluency refers to the set of objectively determined oral features of utterances, cognitive fluency means the speaker's efficient mobilization and integration of underlying cognitive processes responsible for utterance production. An investigation into the relationship of the two dimensions of fluency helps to reveal the cognitive bases of interpreting. This study explores the predicting power of cognitive fluency in the utterance fluency development of L2 (English)-L1 (Chinese) SI output of trainee interpreters. Cognitive fluency was operationalized as measures of lexical access, linguistic attention control, and working memory capacity. Measures of utterance fluency were obtained through simulated SI tasks under conditions of low and high input rates. Twenty-eight trainees interpreted two speeches, one with a high input rate and the other with a low input rate, at the beginning and end of an SI training period of 13 weeks. A bilingual corpus of the participants' SI output was built, and indicators of SI utterance fluency were annotated systematically. Utterance fluency was indexed by the speech rate, mean length of run, phonation time ratio, mean number of silent pauses, and mean number of disfluencies. Results of analyses indicated that (1) the predicting power of cognitive fluency for SI utterance fluency development was only shown under high cognitive load over a training period of 13 weeks; (2) predictors for the development of SI utterance fluency tended to be the efficiency of cognitive processes involved in the target language production stage; and (3) the inclusion of measures of working memory capacity significantly increased the predicting power of cognitive fluency for SI utterance fluency development. This study for the first time provides evidence for the role of cognitive fluency in trainee interpreters' SI utterance fluency development, having implications for the theoretical framework of cognitive fluency and the information processing mechanism in interpreting process, as well as for interpreter aptitude tests and interpreting pedagogy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.