Subido por Karol Castillo

li2019

Anuncio
Summarization Exercises in E-Interpreting Training
Yinghui Li
School of English and Education/Bilingual Cognition and Development Lab,
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Baiyun Avenue North 2#,
Baiyun District, 510420, Guangzhou, China
(86)020-36207201
liyinghui@gdufs.edu.cn
ABSTRACT
summarization; beginner; intermediate
Summarization is widely used as an exercise both in traditional
interpreting training and in distance or e-interpreting training to
promote trainees’ efficiency in comprehension and recall of the
source language information. So far, however, how student
interpreters’ performance in summarization exercises relates to
their interpreting performance remains unclear, let alone how the
relationship may differ at different interpreting training stages.
The current study thus invited 62 beginner student interpreters
(Group 1) and 19 intermediate student interpreters (Group 2),
examining and comparing how they performed in a task of
consecutive interpreting from L2 (in this case English) to L1 (in
this case Chinese) and how they performed in a post-interpreting
summarization task. With quantitative analyses three major
findings were obtained: (1) Group 2 had significantly better
performance in interpreting than Group 1, while the two groups
were not significantly different in their performance in
summarization; (2) Either group’s summarization performance
was significantly and positively correlated with their overall score
in interpreting and with the target language grammaticality and
appropriateness (one of the two interpreting sub-scores) as well;
however, a significant correlation between summarization
performance and information accuracy and completeness (the
other interpreting sub-score) was only found in Group 1 but not in
Group 2; (3) Group 1’s summarization performance significantly
explained more than 20% variance in either the overall
interpreting performance or the sub-score information accuracy
and completeness, and either group’s summarization performance
significantly explained no less than 20% variance in the target
language grammaticality and appropriateness. Pedagogical
implications are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
Emerging information technologies have played an increasingly
important role in the language service industry and the concerned
education and training. Interpreting training, traditionally
performed purely by humans, is now unexceptionally updated and
revolutionized as computer-assisted interpreting training (CAIT)
technology is employed by more and more interpreting trainers
and trainees. CAIT technology facilitates interpreting training
mainly with (1) digital interpreting laboratories equipped with
state-of-art technology, (2) interpreting websites providing
interactive virtual training environment, (3) terminology
management systems, (4) application of learning management
systems such as M oodle in interpreting training, and (5) corpora
of transcribed input and output texts from real-life interpreting
(aligned with audio-visual recordings) and various types of online exercises designed on the basis of these interpreting corpora
[6,7,11,13].
In terms of the exercise adopted in interpreting training,
summarization is the one frequently used both in traditional and
distance or e-interpreting training (see a review in [9]). A popular
type of summarization exercises is summarizing the source
language (SL) input immediately after interpreting (named “post interpreting summarization”). Due to a lack of empirical research
on this type of summarization, however, we do not understand yet
how performance in this summarization is related to interpreting
performance or how this exercise may help improve student
interpreters’ interpreting performance. The present study is thus
intended to explore the relationship between student interpreters’
post-interpreting summarization performance and interpreting
performance. In doing so, the present study also scrutinizes
potential difference in the relationship at different stages of
interpreting training. Post-interpreting summarization as an
exercise is usually used in training programmes of consecutive
interpreting (CI) (where the speech is divided into segments by
pauses made by the speech-maker and the interpreter renders what
the speech-maker have said in the latest segment when the speechmaker pauses or finishes speaking), given that this interpreting
mode features summarization and recall of information just as
summarization exercises do. The present study hence focuses on
CI rather than any other interpreting mode.
CCS Concepts
• Applied computing ➝ Distance learning • Applied computing
➝ E-learning
Keywords
interpreting training; student interpreter; interpreting performance;
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
ICDEL 2019, May 24–27, 2019, Shanghai, China
© 2019 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights
licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6265-8/19/05…$15.00
2. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Though summarization is a type of exercise widely used in
interpreting training [9,16], empirical research is scarce on the
relationship between interpreting and this exercise. To examine
the relationship between interpreting and recall of information
(which shares critical cognitive processes with summarization of
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3338147.3338156
88
information), a previous study [5] compared student interpreters’
recall of information (short-stories and digits) in several different
recall conditions. In the task of short-story recall, the student
interpreters recalled stories in two conditions (i.e., ① after
listening to the story to be recalled and ② after simultaneous
interpreting in which the story to be recalled was the SL input). In
the task of digit recall, the student interpreters recalled digits in
four conditions, including ① recalling after listening to digits, ②
recalling after shadowing digits (i.e., repeating digits out loud
immediately after listening to them), ③ recalling after listening to
digits with simultaneous articulatory suppression (i.e., listening to
digits while uttering irrelevant syllables), and ④ recalling after
simultaneously translating digits.
as it is called in the field of interpreting). The present research
aims at answering two major research questions: (1) How do
student interpreters at different stages of interpreting training
perform in interpreting and in post-interpreting summarization? (2)
At different stages of interpreting training, how is postinterpreting summarization performance related to interpreting
performance?
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Participants
Two groups of participants (Group 1, Group 2) were recruited on
a voluntary basis. Group 1 consisted of 62 undergraduate students
who majored in English in a national key foreign studies
university and who were at the same time student interpreters at
the end of a one-year interpreting training programme. Group 2
were composed of 19 postgraduate students enrolled in an
intensive interpreting programme at the same university . When
the two groups took the test, Group 1 had received 85 hours’
interpreting training on average and Group 2, who all had
experience in real-life interpreting, had been trained in
interpreting for 300 hours on average. Therefore, Group 1 was
taken as beginner student interpreters and Group 2 was considered
as intermediate student interpreters. Both groups of student
interpreters, who had been English-as-a-foreign-language learners
and users for at least ten years in China before they were recruited
in the aforementioned undergraduate or postgraduate interpreting
training programme, were cons idered unbalanced Chinese-English
bilinguals with intermediate-high English proficiency.
After comparing the performance in recalling short stories and the
performance in recalling digits within group and between different
recalling conditions, the study found that the student interpreters’
performance in recalling the story after simultaneous interpreting
(SI) was not as good as their performance after only listening to
the story. Besides, their performance in recalling digits after SI
was not as good as their performance in the other three recalling
conditions (i.e., after listening to digits, after shadowing digits,
and after listening to digits with articulatory suppression). These
findings seemed to indicate that interpreting may negatively affect
one’s efficiency in recalling the SL information (either short
stories or digits). In despite of this previous study, more empirical
research is still warranted on the relationship between interpreting
and summarization of the SL information out of three major
reasons. First, owing to the scarcity in the related empirical
research, the aforementioned potential negative relation found in
this previous study still calls for further examination. Second, as
this previous study only examined student interpreters at an
advanced stage of interpreting training, research on student
interpreters at the other stages of interpreting training is still
needed. Third, given that interpreters in SI need to render the SL
information into the target language (TL) as quickly as possible
when the speech-maker speaks continuously, the interpreters who
are mainly trained in and practice SI are found to have an
advantage in updating information in their working memory
system [14,15]. Such an advantage, on the other hand, may reduce
their efficiency in storing and recalling the SL information and
thus
may
become a disadvantage
in
information
recall/summarization when they are compared with the
interpreters who are mainly trained in and practice CI, where
interpreters primarily recall the SL information in the latest
speech segment as efficiently as possible before being able to
render it into the TL. Therefore, the relationship between CI and
recall/summarization of information may not be identical as the
relationship between SI and recall/summarization of information
found in this previous study.
3.2 Materials and Procedure
Materials. The present study adapted a CI test from a speech that
lasts for eight minutes and mainly promotes laptops for children.
The original speech was made by a male speech-maker at a rate of
143 words per minute on average. Given that the participants were
unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals, the current study divided
the speech into segments, each of which comprised two to three
sentences. The length of each segment was proven appropriate for
the present participants based on (1) results of a pilot study
enrolling 20 participants from the population identical to Group
1’s and 3 participants from the population identical to Group 2’s,
(2) judgments on how difficult the CI test was made by five
interpreting instructors who had rich experience in instructing
interpreting and who instructed at the same university as the
participants, and (3) results of a questionnaire about the
appropriateness of the CI test materials finished by the
participants. A more detailed introduction to how this CI test was
developed could be found in [2].
Procedure of CI test. Both groups finished the CI test in a digital
laboratory for interpreting training. In the test, they listened to
segments one by one and when each segment ends, they were
given a cue to start interpreting. According to the results of a pilot
study, the spell allowed for rendering each segment was 1.5 times
the spell of the segment itself. When the interpreting time was up,
participants heard another cue and after a brief interval,
participants heard a new segment. During the test, participants
were allowed to take notes and refer to the notes.
To fill the aforementioned research gap , the present study mainly
investigates the relationship between performance in postinterpreting summarization and CI performance. Besides, the
current study aims at exploring potential difference in the
aforementioned relationship at different stages of interpreting
training, and it thus examines and compares the performance in
the two aforementioned tasks between two groups of student
interpreters who are currently at two different stages of
interpreting training. To avoid potential weaknesses due to a small
sample size, the current study collects data from more than 15
participants at each training stage. In accordance with student
interpreters’ interpreting training curricula, the present study
focuses on English-to-Chinese CI (i.e., L2-to-L1 CI or B-to-A CI
Procedure of post-interpreting summarization. Once participants
finished the CI test, they were required to write a summary in 150
to 200 words (in Chinese) about the SL input in no more than a
quarter of an hour.
Scoring of interpreting performance. Two interpreting instructors
(who also worked as professional interpreters with 5 years’
89
found between Group 1’s summarization performance and their
two interpreting sub-scores, including Information and TL
expressions (r = .60, p = .000 < .01; r = .52, p = .000 < .01).
These results indicate that the beginner student interpreters who
could comprehend and recall the SL information more efficiently
tended to interpret better (either in the sense of the overall
performance or in the two specific aspects of interpreting
performance), and vice versa.
interpreting experience on average) listened to recordings of all
the 81 participants’ interpreting output and, based on the same
scoring criteria, the instructors independently rated the
participants’ CI performance. According to the criteria, which are
generally accepted in CI training programmes, a participant's total
score (100%) is composed of two proportions: (1) information
accuracy and completeness (“Information” henceforth), taking up
67%, and (2) the TL grammaticality and appropriateness (“TL
expressions” henceforth), which holds 33%. Each participant’s
final score in interpreting was the average of the scores given by
the two raters (inter-rater coefficient r = .95)
Group 2’s summarization performance was also found positively
and significantly correlated with Overall Score (r = .47, p = .043
< .05). A significant and positive correlation was also found
between their summarization performance and TL expressions (r
= .53, p = .019 < .05). No significant correlation, however, was
found between Group 2’s summarization performance and
Information (r = .38, p = .109). The results suggest that in general,
the intermediate student interpreters who could comprehend and
recall the SL information in a more cost-effective way tended to
interpret better, just as it was found in the beginner student
interpreters. In comparison with the beginner student interpreters,
how efficiently the intermediate student interpreters comprehend
and recall the SL information did not seem to have an obvious
relation with one specific respect in their interpreting performance,
that is, information accuracy and completeness.
Scoring of post-interpreting summarization. The scoring of postinterpreting summarization focused on two issues: (1) how
accurately and completely the critical SL messages are
reformulated in the summary (2) how logically the summarized
messages are presented in the summary . Two English teachers (at
the same university as the participants) independently rated all the
81 participants’ summaries. They discussed until they attained a
consensus whenever they had different opinions about rating.
Each student interpreter’s final mark in summarization was the
average of the marks provided by the two raters (inter-rater
coefficient r = .93). In summarization, nine points was the full
mark since there were in total nine pieces of critical SL
information.
4.2.2 Explanatory power of summarization
performance on interpreting performance
4. RESULTS
Data from the 81 participants were analyzed with the software R
[17]. M ost of the comparisons were implemented with nonparametric analyses due to the unbalanced sample sizes between
the two groups. One exception lies in the comparison of overall
interpreting performance between the two groups (in which t-test
was conducted), given that the two data sets were found normally
distributed. The effect size r of statistic U in M ann-Whitney U test
was calculated with rcompanion package [12] and the effect size
of t values was computed with effsize package [18].
As summarization performance was significantly correlated with
interpreting performance, a question is raised whether the
performance in such a typical and frequently-used interpreting
training exercise can explain or contribute to student interpreters’
interpreting performance. To answer this question, the present
study conducted a series of linear regression analyses with the
data from either group, in which the dependent variable was the
interpreting performance (Overall Score and the two sub-scores)
and the main independent variable was the summarization score
(Table 2). Theoretically, the participants’ proficiency in either the
SL or the TL can relate to their interpreting performance [2] and
summarization performance, but in the current regressions only
the potential moderating effect of the SL proficiency was
controlled statistically. The major rationale is that in the current
English-to-Chinese CI task, both the interpreting performance and
the summarization performance related to the participants’
English proficiency (i.e., the SL proficiency) more than they
related to their Chinese proficiency (i.e., the TL proficiency).
Based on the results of two national English proficiency tests for
English-majored university students in China [8,20], the
participants’ English proficiency probably varied among them, but
their Chinese proficiency would not since they were all native
speakers in this language and had all passed a competitive
entrance examination in which Chinese was a core subject before
enrolled in the current interpreting programme. In the regression,
the participants’ English proficiency was indicated by their scores
in an English verbal fluency test, in which they were asked to
produce as many English words as possible in accordance with the
category presented (e.g., jobs, sports) in 60 seconds. The verbal
fluency so measured is considered a strong indicator of
vocabulary size [1], which forms an important part of language
proficiency.
4.1 Performance in Summarization and in
Interpreting
As demonstrated in Table 1, Group 1’s performance in postinterpreting summarization was rated 2.20 (SD = 1.16) on average,
which was not significantly different from Group 2’s, which was
rated 2.29 (SD = .92) on average (U = 518.50, p = .43). On the
other hand, Group 2’s overall score in interpreting (“Overall Score”
hereafter) (M ean = 82.00, SD = 5.16) was significantly higher
than Group 1’s (M ean = 66.24, SD = 13.55), t (75) = -7.55, p
= .000 < .01). Similarly, significant differences were found in the
two sub-scores of interpreting performance between the two
groups (i.e., Information and TL expressions, see Table 1 for
details). These results show that the student interpreters who had
been trained for a longer period of time achieved better
interpreting performance (both in Overall Score and in terms of
each sub-score). Nonetheless, the student interpreters who had
received more interpreting training did not show significant
difference in summarization performance from those who had not
received so much interpreting training.
4.2 Relationship between Summarization and
Interpreting
4.2.1 Correlation
Results show that when the potential moderating effect of SL
proficiency was controlled, Group 1’s summarization score
significantly explained 25% variance in the students’ Overall
Score (ΔR² = .25 = .25 × 100% = 25%, ΔF = 24.85, p = .000
The correlation between Group 1’s summarization performance
and Overall Score was found significantly positive (r = .60, p
= .000 < .01). Positive and significant correlations were also
90
Table 2. Explanatory power/contribution of summarization performance on interpreting performance, with the potential effect
of English proficiency controlled statistically (N = 62 in Group 1; N = 19 in Group 2)
Regression
Dependent variable
Independent variable
Group
ΔR²
F
β
1
1
0.25
24.85***
6.07
Overall Score
2
2
0.14
4.48?
2.12
3
1
0.23
20.58***
4.18
summarization
Information
4
performance
2
0.09
2.21
.93
5
1
0.21
18.86***
1.89
TL expressions
6
2
0.20
6.06*
1.15
Note. ***: p < .001; *: .01 ≤ p < .05; ?: .05 ≤ p < .10.
for/contribute no less than 20% variance in their interpreting
< .001), 23% variance in Information, and 21% variance in TL
performance. These results indicate that to student interpreters
expressions (see Table 3 for details). M eanwhile, the explanatory
(especially at the beginning stage of interpreting training), those
power of Group 2’s summarization score on their interpreting
who are more efficient in comprehending and recalling the SL
performance was marginally significant (ΔR² = .14 = .14 × 100%
Table 1. S tudent interpreters’ summarization performance and interpreting performance at two stages
summarization performance
Information
TL expressions
interpreting performance
Overall Score
Group 1 (N=62)
M ean
SD
2.20
1.16
41.99
9.90
24.24
4.60
66.24
13.55
Group 2 (N=19)
M ean
SD
2.29
0.92
53.16
2.85
29.18
2.34
82.00
5.16
U/t
effect size†
518.50
158.50***
200.00***
-7.55***
r= .09
r= 0.53
r= 0.48
Cohen’s d = -1.30
Note. ***: p < .001.
†
: The effect size r ranges from -1.00 to 1.00, with .10 being the threshold for a small effect, .30 for a moderate effect, and .50 for a large
effect [4]. In t-test, the effect size of statistic t (Cohen’s d) ranges from .01 to 2.00, with .20 being the threshold for a small effect, .50 for
a moderate effect, and .80 for a large effect [3].
= 14%, ΔF = 4.48, p = .050) and the explanatory power on
Information was not significant (ΔF = 2.21, p = .157). By contrast,
Group 2’s summarization score was found to significantly and
positively explain 20% variance in TL expressions (ΔR² = .20
= .20 × 100% = 20%, ΔF = 6.06, p = .026 < .05).
messages are more likely to perform better in interpreting. Given
that both groups’ summarization performance were reported to
have significant and positive correlations with the TL
grammaticality and appropriateness, the results suggest that how
students comprehend and recall the SL information plays an
important role in the quality of their interpreting output. To
interpreting instructors, these results indicate that if we aim at
improving students’ interpreting performance, we can develop and
integrate into our online interpreting training systems more
summarization exercises that combine both on-line and off-line
resources, as well as providing a proper amount of memory
practice such as retrieval exercises that can improve trainees’
summarizing ability [10,19].
5. DISCUSSION
The present cross-sectional study invited 62 beginner student
interpreters and 19 intermediate student interpreters, examining
and comparing their performance in post-interpreting
summarization and their interpreting performance. With a series
of quantitative analyses, three major findings were attained. First,
the intermediate student interpreters achieved better interpreting
performance (both in the overall performance and in terms of two
specific aspects of interpreting performance) than the beginner
student interpreters did. Nonetheless, the former group, who had
been trained in interpreting for a longer period of time, was not
found significantly different from the latter group in
summarization performance. The significant differences in
interpreting performance between the two groups found in the
current study are consistent with one’s intuition since the former
group received more interpreting training and were thus supposed
to be more competent in interpreting. With respect to the
summarization performance, the results did not support the
conclusion in [5] that the more interpreting experience one had,
the less efficient one became in recalling the SL input. These
results suggest that as the CI training proceeded, the current
student interpreters’ efficiency in recalling SL information may
gradually lose its close relation with their interpreting (training)
experience. This may be due to the fact that interpreting training
programmes (either delivered in a traditional way or in a
distance/e-training way) usually focus on interpreting skills rather
than on language proficiency or language-learning drills, while
language proficiency is an essential support of summarization
quality.
M eanwhile, Group 1’s summarization performance was found
closely related to their interpreting performance in information
accuracy and completeness and also to their performance in the
TL grammaticality and appropriateness (underpinned by the
significant correlations and the significant explanatory power
reported above), while in Group 2 similar close relationship was
found only between their summarization performance and the
performance in the TL grammaticality and appropriateness, but
not between their summarization performance and the
performance in information accuracy and completeness. The
results show that student interpreters’ efficiency in recalling the
SL input may not change even when their interpreting
performance in information accuracy and completeness
significantly improved. Further research is thus needed to
scrutinize what factor, if it is not efficiency in the recall of SL
messages, may have played a more critical role in helping student
interpreters render SL messages accurately and completely.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The present study mainly investigated student interpreters’
performance in CI and in post-interpreting summarization at
different stages of interpreting training (beginner and
intermediate). When doing so, the current study also examined the
relationship between summarization performance and CI
performance. The results showed that although the student
interpreters who received more interpreting training were more
Another finding is that both groups’ summarization performance
had significant positive correlations with their overall interpreting
performance. Besides, their summarization performance (in
particular Group 1’s) was found to significantly account
91
likely to achieve better interpreting performance, they may not
differ significantly from those with less interpreting training
experience in the sense of summarization. With respect to the
relation between summarization performance and CI performance,
the results demonstrated that the two performances were
significantly and positively related to each other for both the
beginner student interpreters and the intermediate ones. Besides,
summarization performance made positive contribution to CI
performance (especially for beginner student interpreters).
Pedagogically, these results suggest that summarization exercises
have a potential positive effect on interpreting performance, and
thus more finely-designed summarization exercises and related
quiz items can be introduced into distance or e-interpreting
training. Internet- or corpora-based platforms for interpreting
training can make full use of the rich and most updated
interpreting materials online when developing summarization
exercises of various topics and of different difficulty levels so that
the exercises can better meet the needs of students of different
interpreting competence levels and better serve different training
purposes. M oreover, training platforms empowered by
technologies like Big Data and artificial intelligence can provide
immediate feedback on students’ summaries as well as advice for
further exercises, which helps students become more selfmotivated in the future interpreting training. By so practising
summarization via distance or e-interpreting-training programmes,
student interpreters are more likely to achieve better interpreting
performance with an increased sense of achievement.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to Prof. Yanping Dong from Guangdong
University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS) for her supervision to the
current research. The author also thanks members from Bilingual
Cognition and Development Lab, GDUFS for their assistance in
data collection. Besides, the author thanks the two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful suggestions. The research was
supported by a grant (BCD201702) from Bilingual Cognition and
Development Lab, GDUFS, a grant (290-XGS17023) directly
from GDUFS, and a grant (GD18YWW02) from Guangdong
Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science.
[15]
[16]
8. REFERENCES
[1] Bialystok, E. 2009. Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the
indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 12,1 (Jan.
2009), 3-11. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003477
[2] Cai, R., Dong, Y., Zhao, N., and Lin, J. 2015. Factors
contributing to individual differences in the development of
consecutive interpreting competence for beginner student
interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 9, 1
(M ar. 2015), 104-120. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1016279
[3] Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences (2nd Edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
M ahwah.
[4] Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 112,
1 (Jul. 1992), 155-159. DOI= https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.112.1.155
[5] Darò, V. and Fabbro, F. 1994. Verbal memory during
simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
92
interference. Applied Linguistics. 15, 4 (Dec. 1994), 365-381.
DOI= https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.4.365
Fantinuoli, C. 2017. Computer-assisted preparation in
conference interpreting. Translation & Interpreting. 9, 2, 2437. DOI= https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.109202.2017.a02
Fantinuoli, C. 2018. Computer-assisted interpreting:
challenges and future perspectives. In Trends in E-Tools and
Resources for Translators and Interpreters, G. C. Pastor and
I. Durán-M uñoz Eds. Brill | Rodopi, Leiden, 153-174. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004351790_009
Jin, Y. and Fan, J. 2011. Test for English M ajors (TEM ) in
China. Language Testing. 28, 4 (Oct. 2011), 589-596. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211414852
Jones, R. 2014. Conference Interpreting Explained.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Karpicke, D. and Roediger, L. 2008. The critical importance
of retrieval for learning. Science. 319, 5865 (Feb. 2008), 966968. DOI= https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408
Ko, L. and Chen, S. 2011. Online-interpreting in
synchronous cyber classrooms. Babel. 57, 2 (Jul. 2011), 123143. DOI= https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.57.2.01ko
M angiafico, S. 2016. Summary and Analysis of Extension
Program Evaluation in R, Version 1.15.0. URL
https://rcompanion.org/handbook/
M ayor, B. and Ivars, J. 2007. E-Learning for interpreting.
Babel. 53, 4 (M ay 2008), 292-302. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.53.4.01may
M orales, J., Padilla, F., Gomez-Ariza, J., and Bajo, T. 2015a.
Simultaneous interpretation selectively influences working
memory and attentional networks. Acta Psychologica. (Amst.)
155 (Feb. 2015), 82-91. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.004
M orales, J., Yudes, C., Gomez-Ariza, J., and Bajo, T., 2015b.
Bilingualism modulates dual mechanisms of cognitive
control: evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia. 66 (Jan.
2015), 157-169. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.014
Niedzielski, H. and Kummer, M . 1989. Learning translating
and interpreting through interlanguage. In Translator and
Interpreter Training and Foreign Language Pedagogy, P. W.
Krawutschke Ed. State University of New York at
Binghamton, New York, NY., 132-146.
R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.Rproject.org/
Torchiano, M . 2018. Effsize: Efficient Effect Size
Computation. DOI= https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624
Zhou, A., M a, X., Li, J., and Cui, D. 2013. The advantage
effect of retrieval practice on memory retention and transfer:
Basedon explanation of cognitive load theory. Acta
Psychologica Sinica. 45, 8 (Aug. 2013), 849-859. DOI=
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00849
Zou, S. and W. Chen. 2010. TEM Tests: Past, Present and
Future [in Chinese]. Foreign Language World. 30, 6(Dec.
2010): 9-17.
Descargar