Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:2 (2019) ► pp.283–304
Thematic section

“A lot to think about”

Online monitoring in dialogue interpreting

| Century College (USA)
This paper takes a process-focused approach to investigating the dialogue interpreting task from the perspective of the task performer. It reports on a portion of a research study aimed at better understanding the cognitive and interactional processes involved in dialogue interpreting. Eight interpreters interpreted a simulated interaction and subsequently completed a retrospective process-tracing session. The results shed light on the complexities of dialogue interpreting performance as experienced by the task performer, specifically with regard to interpreters’ online monitoring of affect, behavior, cognition, and context.
Keywords: dialogue interpreting, community interpreting, public service interpreting, self-regulation, online monitoring, retrospective process tracing
Article outline
  • 1.The interpreter as task performer: A process-focused approach to studying dialogue interpreting
  • 2.Online monitoring and control
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Targets of online monitoring: Results and discussion
    • 4.1Monitoring affect
      • 4.1.1Monitoring the interlocutors’ affect
      • 4.1.2Monitoring the interpreter’s affect
    • 4.2Monitoring behavior
      • 4.2.1Monitoring the interlocutors’ behavior
      • 4.2.2Monitoring the interpreter’s behavior
    • 4.3Monitoring cognition
    • 4.4Monitoring context
  • 5.Modelling online self-regulation in dialogue interpreting
  • 6.Directions for further research
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00030.her
References (51)
References
Bélanger, Danielle-Claude. 2004. “Interactional Patterns in Dialogue-Interpreting.” Journal of Interpretation 171: 1–18.Google Scholar
Bontempo, Karen and Karen Malcolm. 2012. “An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure: Educating Interpreters about the Risk of Vicarious Trauma in Healthcare Settings.” In In our Hands: Educating Healthcare Interpreters. Edited by Laurie Swabey and Karen Malcolm, 105–130. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Bontempo, Karen and Jemina Napier. 2011. “Evaluating Emotional Stability as a Predictor of Interpreter Competence and Aptitude for Interpreting.” Interpreting 13(1): 85–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carver, Charles S. 2004. “Self-regulation of Action and Affect.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Edited by R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs, 13–39. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier. 2000. On the Structure of Behavioral Self-Regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 41–84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Self-Regulation of Action and Affect.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 2nd edition. Edited by R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs, 3–21. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Crezee, Ineke, David Atkinson, Robyn Pask, Patrick Au, and Sai Wong. 2015. “Teaching Interpreters about Self-Care.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 7(1): 74–83.Google Scholar
Dean, Robyn K. and Robert Q. Pollard. 2013. The Demand Control Schema: Interpreting as a Practice Profession. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Dinsmore, Daniel L., Patricia A. Alexander, and Sandra M. Loughlin. 2008. “Focusing the Conceptual Lens on Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Self-Regulated Learning.” Educational Psychology Review 20(4): 391–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunlosky, John and Janet Metcalfe. 2009. Metacognition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta and Elisabet Tiselius. 2009. “Exploring Retrospection as a Research Method for Studying the Translation Process and the Interpreting Process.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, Copenhagen Studies in Language, 381. Edited by I. M. Mees, F. Alves, and S. Göpferich, 109–134. Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Retrospection in Interpreting and Translation: Explaining the process?” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 177–200. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Cognitive Aspects of Community Interpreting: Toward a process model.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz, 195–214. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders. 2000. “Expertise in Interpreting: An expert-performance perspective.” Interpreting 5(2): 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Edited by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman, 223–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, Dinghong. 2012. The Development of Expertise in Interpreting through Self-Regulated Learning for Trainee Interpreters. PhD Diss., University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Accessed 21 July 2018 at [URL]
Fontes, Lisa A. 2008. Interviewing Clients across Cultures: A practitioner’s guide. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. and Alison Mackey. 2000. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gile, D. 1994. “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation and Translation Research.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Edited by B. Moser-Mercer and S. Lambert, 39–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Douglas J. 1998. “Definitions and Empirical Foundations.” In Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Edited by D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, 1–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Gyde. 2005. “Experience and Emotion in Empirical Translation Research with Think-Aloud and Retrospection.” Meta, 50(2): 511–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Michael. 2015. “Reaping the Benefits of Vicarious Trauma.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 7(2): 5–20.Google Scholar
Henderson, Lynette D. and Julie Tallman. 2006. Stimulated Recall and Mental Models: Tools for Teaching and Learning Computer Information Literacy. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Herring, Rachel E. 2018. ‘I Could Only Think About What I Was Doing, and That Was a Lot to Think About’: Online self-regulation in dialogue interpreting. PhD Diss., University of Geneva, Switzerland. Last accessed 1 May 2019 at [URL]
Ivanova, Adelina. 1999. Discourse Processing during Simultaneous Interpreting: An Expertise Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Lai, Miranda, Georgina Heydon, and Sedat Mulayim. 2015. “Vicarious Trauma among Interpreters.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 7(1): 3–22.Google Scholar
Lyle, John. 2003. “Stimulated Recall: A Report on its Use in Naturalistic Research.” British Educational Research Journal 29(6), 861–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macnamara, Brooke N., Adam B. Moore, Judy A. Kegl, and Andrew R. A. Conway. 2011. “Domain-General Cognitive Abilities and Simultaneous Interpreting Skill.” Interpreting 13(1): 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian. 2001. “Introduction.” In Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Edited by I. Mason, i–vi. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Introduction.” The Translator 5(2): 147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian and Wen Ren. 2012. “Power in Face-to-Face Interpreting Events.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 7(2): 233–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Monacelli, Claudia. 2000. “Mediating Castles in the Air: Epistemological issues in Interpreting Studies. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Edited by M. Olohan, 193–213. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2016. “Processes of What Models? On the cognitive indivisibility of translation acts and events.” Translation Spaces 5(1): 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas O. and Louis Narens. 1990. “Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory Vol. 261. Edited by G. H. Bower, 125–173. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pintrich, Paul R. 2000. “The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation. Edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 451–502. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, Paul R. and Akane Zusho. 2002. “The Development of Academic Self-Regulation: The role of cognitive and Motivational factors.” In Development of Achievement motivation. Edited by A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles, 249–284. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “From Operation to Action: Process-orientation in Interpreting Studies.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 50(2): 682–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet. 2018. “Exploring Cognitive Aspects of Competence in Sign Language Interpreting of Dialogues: First impressions.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business 571: 49–61.Google Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet and Gard B. Jenset. 2011. “Process and Product in Simultaneous Interpreting: What They Tell us about Experience and Expertise.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Edited by C. Alvstad, A. Hild, and E. Tiselius, 269–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Dialogue Interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world.” Target 16(1): 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman and Barbara Shaffer. 2005. “Towards a Cognitive Model of Interpreting.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice. Edited by T. Janzen, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winne, Philip H. 2001. “Self-Regulated Learning Viewed from Models of Information Processing.” In Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, 2nd edition. Edited by B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk, 153–189. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Barry J. 2000. “Attaining Self-Regulation: A social cognitive perspective.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation. Edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13–39. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. “Achieving Academic Excellence: A self-regulatory perspective.” In The Pursuit of Excellence through Education. Edited by M. Ferrari, 85–110. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2006. “Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes and Beliefs.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Edited by K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, 421–438. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects.” American Educational Research Journal 45(1): 166–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gumul, Ewa
2022. Changing the text through explicitation. How trainee interpreters perceive the role of explicitating shifts. The Translator 28:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa & Rachel E. Herring
2022. Employing retrospective process tracing in an international exploratory study. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.