Working Memory 1

Running Head: Working Memory

Working memory and related systems

Caitlin Arnold and Jacob Cameron
Salt Lake Community College

Working Memory 2

Working memory is the part of short term memory used by interpreters to process
linguistic information. It is a main focus in most interpreting training programs, and is
considered an essential part of the interpreting process. There are other cognitive systems that are
relied upon by interpreters including expertise, strategies used to encode information, as well
fluid intelligence. In this paper, the role of working memory and these related processes used in
interpreting is explored. It is hypothesized that more than a large working memory capacity is
needed in the interpretation process. The following four papers are presented to support this
hypothesis.
A paper by James and Gabriel show how encoding strategies can help or hinder an
interpreters ability to recall certain lexical items. Their study examined the impact language
modality had on students memory performance, and examined how different encoding strategies
could improve the students ability to recall specific lexical items. Their claim was that
phonological and semantic encoding strategies would enhance students memory span size in
English, and what they call formational and semantic encoding strategies would enhance their
memory span sized in American Sign Language.
They found is that semantic encoding strategies aided student interpreters ability to recall
the lexical items presented to them in both languages. They also found that formational strategies
aided the students ability to recall lexical items in ASL, but phonological encoding strategies did
not assist them in recalling items in English. They also found that as a general rule students were
able to recall more information when it was encoded semantically as opposed to being encoded
using other methods. They said that semantic encoding techniques may be more effective
because it enhances memory while reducing errors in recall. They also noted that phonologically
encoded information is more susceptible to interference and disruption than information encoded
using other strategies.

Working Memory 3

According to these findings, encoding strategies, particularly semantic strategies, are very
beneficial for interpreters to utilize. They hypothesize that this is the reason so many experienced
interpreters stress the importance of getting the gist of the source message before beginning to
interpret the message. This shows that encoding strategies, in addition to working memory,
improves an interpreters ability to recall information and can improve their overall ability to
interpret.
In another study conducted by Lui, Schallert, and Carroll evaluated the role expertise
plays in the interpretation processes. They aimed at determining performance differences in
interpreters that have the same general cognitive abilities but have different skills relating to the
process of interpreting. The goal of the study was evaluate the reasons why experienced
interpreters outperform student interpreters who possess similar working memory capacity.
They found that experienced interpreters outperformed student interpreters due to - at
least in part their ability to manage competing demands using limited cognitive resources. They
noted that professional interpreters were more proficient at selecting more relevant information
for processing thus reducing the amount of effort spent on processing less relevant information.
The difference in performance may also be a result of selective encoding of relevant information.
This may include the use of mechanisms like the encoding strategies discussed in the paper by
James and Gabriel.
They also concluded that because entrance into the graduate level training programs
guarantee general similarities in language proficiency and academic ability between the three
groups involved in the study, they could not attribute this higher level of performance to a larger
working memory capacity in professional interpreters. Expertise in specific tasks relating to the
interpretation process clearly aid the more experienced interpreters.
Working memory may also be affected by biological factors and language experience. In
a paper by McDonald and Christiansen, the works of Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and

Working Memory 4

Caplan (1996) are reassessed. It is proposed that the differences in working memory capacity
amongst the general population can be attributed to biological factors such as age, physical and
mental ability, injury, and mental disorders as well as linguistic experience. They do not align
with the idea of separate working memories for different tasks nor do they think that linguistic
knowledge and working memory are separate.
Their claim is that language experience assists working memory in decoding the meaning
of sentences. In their paper they claim, that experience has a reach well beyond vocabulary
size, forming critical expertise in syntactic structures and in probabilistic constraints that govern
on-line language comprehension (McDonald, Christiansen, 2002, p37). They say that working
memory is directly influenced by ones language experience and language experience is
paramount in language comprehension. They point out that not only does phonological analysis
have a role in comprehending sentences that are syntactically difficult, but individuals with lower
language skill require more phonological activation to aid them in syntactic comprehension for
these sentences. More effort is required for these individuals to process the meaning of a
sentence than those with more language experience.
This inability to readily process information will inhibit an interpreters ability to
understand the meaning of a message. According to James and Gabriels work this dependency
on phonologic analysis of a message will likely result in more errors in recall as well as more
intrusion errors. This means that interpreters with more language experience in both source and
target languages will better comprehend the meaning of the source message, have more success
encoding information, will need to rely less upon their working memory, and be able to interpret
more successfully.
Working memory capacity can also be enhanced by developing what Jaeggi, Buschkuehl,
Jonides, and Perrig call fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence refers to ones ability to reason and
solve new problems independent of previously obtained knowledge. It is important in the

Working Memory 5

execution of many cognitive tasks and is essential to learning. As interpreters, we are constantly
having to solve new problems and determine how to express concepts in at languages that are
very rarely similar to each other. The ability to problem solve and resolve syntactic differences
between languages is essential to our ability to render a successful interpretation.
In this work, the authors gave tasks to four groups of volunteers using newly developed
training models consisting of demanding memory tasks. As performance increased the tasks were
made more difficult and as performance worsened the tasks were made easier. Thus the tests
were tailored to each participant and were adaptive ensuring that the tasks were always
demanding. This would ensure that they participants increased performance was not due to the
acquisition of procedural knowledge but by increased fluid intelligence.
They notes that differences in performing the tasks were caused by differences in fluid
intelligence, not working memory capacity. They also noted that for the first time this study
confirmed that by using working memory, people could improve fluid intelligence. This is
important for interpreters because this gives them the ability to train themselves to develop
higher levels of cognitive function. The more an interpreter trains, the better their recall will
become and they will be able to perform tasks more successfully.
In conclusion, cognitive mechanisms that are relied upon by interpreters like expertise,
encoding strategies, and fluid intelligence are just as important for successful interpretation as
working memory. These studies show that performance can be enhanced when these mechanisms
are developed. Many of these articles stress the importance of memory training in ITPs in order
to develop these devices. They say that when these tools are used, performance will be enhanced.
It is clear that more than a large working memory capacity is needed to become a skilled
interpreter.

Working Memory 6

Works Cited
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence
with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105(19), 6829-6833. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829.full
James, J. R., Gabriel, K. I. (2012). Student interpreters show encoding and recall differences for
information in English and American Sign Language. Translation &
Interpreting, 4(1),
21-37. Retrieved from http://www.transint.org/index.php/transint/article/view/141/95
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous
interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19-42. Retrieved from
http://www.miis.edu/media/view/36120/original/liu_schallert_carroll_2004_working_me
mory_and_expertise_in_si.pdf
MacDonald, M.C., Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing Working Memory: Comment on Just
and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1) 3454. Retrieved from http://www3.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/mhc27/mc-psych-rev2002.pdf