Specificities of numbers: training materials on dealing with figures in simultaneous interpreting

Master

Reference

Specificities of numbers: training materials on dealing with figures in simultaneous interpreting

MARTINEZ CERVERA, Maria

Abstract

Simultaneous interpreters cover the most urgent linguistic needs at conference settings, and often face arduous working conditions, with speakers reading very dense and readily-made statements at an outstanding speed. Figures rank among the elements that that can hinder and even collapse their information processing methods. Numbers are recurrent in human speech and have a pivotal role in supporting the logic and reasoning of a speech. In this work, a series of carefully crafted and organized materials will be offered for an interpreting training context. These training materials consist of short scripts with a high number ratio, as well as a self-correction grid and a questionnaire for students to analyze their performance.

MARTINEZ CERVERA, Maria. Specificities of numbers: training materials on dealing with figures in simultaneous interpreting. Master : Univ. Genève, 2019

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:154890

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

MARIA MARTINEZ CERVERA

Specificities of numbers: training materials on dealing with figures in simultaneous interpreting

Mémoire présenté à la Faculté de Traduction et d’Interprétation Pour l’obtention du MA en Interprétation de Conférence

Directeur de mémoire : Kilian Seeber Juré : Manuela Motta

Décembre 2019

STUDENT INFORMATION:

MARIA MARTINEZ CERVERA

Ecole de Traduction et d'Interprétation University of Geneva 40, boulevard du Pont-d'Arve,

CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland

CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT ... 4

2. INTRODUCTION ... 5

3. OBJECTIVES AND AIMS ... 6

4. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ... 8

4.1. WHAT ARE NUMBERS? ... 8

4.2. HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF NUMBERS ... 9

4.3. TYPES OF NUMBERS AND NUMERICAL SYSTEMS ... 13

4.4. SOME TERMS DEFINED ... 14

4.6. IMPORTANCE OF NUMBERS ... 19

5. NUMBER PROCESSING ... 21

5.1. MEMORIZING AND VISUALIZING ... 29

6. CONFERENCE INTERPRETING ... 34

6.2. NUMBERS AS PROBLEM TRIGGERS ... 40

7. CREATION OF TRAINING MATERIALS ... 50

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 57

9. REFERENCES ... 58

10. APPENDICES ... 62

10.1. APPENDIX 1:SPEECH 1 ... 64

10.2. APPENDIX 2:SPEECH 2 ... 71

10.3. APPENDIX 3:SPEECH 3 ... 76

10.4. APPENDIX 4:SPEECH 4 ... 84

10.5. APPENDIX 5:SPEECH 5 ... 91

10.6. APPENDIX 6:CORRECTION GRID AND QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS ... 97

1. ABSTRACT

Although numbers are not easy to define, those units that convey amounts have been paramount throughout human history to quantify and carry out numerical operations. Numbers have facilitated progress through the development of disciplines like mathematics or philosophy.

They are a recurrent element in human speech and have a pivotal role in supporting the logic and reasoning of a speech, through examples, statistics, and data in general. They are particularly used in the field of simultaneous interpreting, and rank among the elements that that can hinder and even collapse interpreters’ information processing methods. Their ubiquitous characteristics will be described in detail throughout this work, as well as an explanation of their inherent complexity. A series of carefully crafted and organized materials will be offered in this work, with the aim of having them used in interpreting training environments to help students practice and cope with numbers in simultaneous interpreting.

2. INTRODUCTION

It is no easy task to define numbers, those infinite units that convey amounts and that have been paramount throughout human history to quantify and carry out numerical operations. Without exaggeration, we can attribute a great importance to numbers in facilitating progress through the development of disciplines like mathematics or philosophy. They can be identified with bodily parts or represented with symbols, and can be expressed in very different manners, such as our common and widespread decimal system. They have a pivotal role in supporting the logic and reasoning of speech, through examples, statistics, and data in general. Historical references are also a common resource to contextualize and to offer background information. Ultimately, numbers are a recurrent element in human speech and are particularly used in conference interpreting settings.

Simultaneous interpreters cover the most urgent linguistic needs at conference settings, and often face arduous working conditions, with speakers reading very dense and readily-made statements at an outstanding speed. Among the elements that that can hinder and even collapse their information processing methods, we find these equally infamous and indispensable numbers.

Their ubiquitous characteristics will be described in detail throughout this work, as well as an explanation of their inherent complexity, that goes as far as having them rank as “problem triggers”

in simultaneous interpreting literature. In order to train interpreters to handle these problem triggers, a series of carefully crafted and organized materials will be offered in this work, the ultimate objective being having students practice with numbers in a training environment to eventually learn how to develop techniques to cope with them.

3. OBJECTIVES AND AIMS

The primary objective of this MA thesis is to produce training materials for students and novice interpreters to become familiarized with interpreting figures. These training materials will consist of short scripts specifically crafted to make simultaneous interpreting students practice with speeches with a high number ratio. Students will be provided with a self-correction grid and a questionnaire, to later analyze and reflect on their performance, as well as a detailed account of the figures contained in the speeches. Hopefully, this work will help students reflect about the strategies that can be used when encountering figures in a speech. Additionally, and through deliberate practice, students will be able to secure and automatize these strategies, which may help them decrease the levels of stress that can arise from interpreting a speech with a high density of numbers.

The overall objective is to prepare students for real life situations that they may encounter in their professional future, and help them build strong foundations since their training years to deliver the best possible results and become professionals who will supply high-quality standards.

This work will be organized in different sections. The first one, Chapter 4, will explore the background and significance of numbers themselves, to contextualize the object and scope of our work. Its subsections will dwell on a historical perspective on the use of numbers, some terms will be defined for further clarity and their role in language and importance in general will be reviewed.

Chapter 5 will focus on the processing of numbers, to see how they are handled by our brains, and how the processes of memorizing and visualizing are vital in operating with them. Later on, throughout Chapter 6, the case of conference interpreting will be studied, the different types of interpreting explained and a particular approach from the simultaneous interpreting perspective will be adopted. The complexities which are inherent to this type of interpreting will be explained,

including the elements that may be troublesome, the famous “problem triggers”. Later on, some strategies will be described and analyzed.

The most relevant and novel section of this work is the one contained in Chapter 7, that explains the process and reasons behind the creation of training materials, including both the choice and doctoring of speeches, as well as the correction grid for students’ self-assessment. The Discussion and Conclusion section will be covered under Chapter 8. Finally, the doctored scripts and the correction grid, together with the suggested strategies, will be found in the Appendices section.

4. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

4.1. What are numbers?

Finding a precise and accurate definition of what numbers are is not an easy task, because of the vast panoply of approaches that can be adopted, which can range from mathematical to philosophical ones. Nevertheless, we can rely on the definitions provided by researchers.

According to Greek mathematician Euclid, (as cited in Wiese, 2003); a number can be defined as

“a multitude composed of units”, and a unit as “that by virtue of which each of the things that exists is called one” (p.43). In contrast with this vision, we can mention Isaac Newton’s definition: “By Number we understand not so much a Multitude of Unities, as the abstracted Ratio of any Quantity to another Quantity of the same kind, which we take for Unity” (Mayberry, 1988, p.321).

Other researchers have further contributed to defining the concept of number. Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, logician, and historian analyzed this concept strenuously, until he found the following definition: “a number is anything which is the number of some class”

(Russell, 1920, p.20). Mayberry (1988) also devoted a full essay to finding a description of numbers and to reviewing ancient and modern views, from the Greeks to the nineteenth century.

He praises the surge of the axiomatic definition, which allowed for a clearer understanding of mathematical concepts. The author highlights the abstract nature of numbers and defines them as follows: “number are the things to which the familiar numerical operations apply” (Mayberry, 1988, p.317). The definition suggested by Dehaene focuses on the specification of numbers as “a property of sets in the external world, which must be recognized and mentally represented before any for of numerical cognition can develop” (Dehaene, 1992, p.9).

Furthermore, one of the main characteristics of numbers is their infinite nature, according to a theory introduced by Georg Cantor, who divided them into cardinal and ordinal (Conway, 1996).

A detailed definition of these concepts will be provided later on in this chapter. After having contextualized the concept of number, we believe that a historical overview is important to further understand their evolution and understanding.

4.2. Historic evolution of numbers

For the purposes of our work, contextualizing numbers in their historical frame is key to understanding their interweaving in humans’ lives, from past to present times; as well as their relevance as arithmetic factors and as elements of speech.

Smith and Ginsburg (1937) trace back a thorough history of numbers and numerals, and the difference between these two terms. The authors stress the importance of numbers, which have allowed humans to count, trade and carry out daily activities throughout the years. Indeed, trading was facilitated in ancient civilizations thanks to the symbolic representation of quantities.

Although we may claim that numbers would still exist in nature without the presence of humans, these are mere occurring quantities, and numbers are “a creation of the human mind”.

Their advent has undoubtedly transformed “how we see and distinguish quantities” (Everett, 2017, p.10). The idea of presuming that these quantities would have naturally existed in the past is further supported by researchers like Ifrah (1985), who claims that in the past, people already had a number sense by their insights of the physical world that surrounded them.

Starr & Brannon (2015) explain that even if humans traditionally think of numbers in terms of symbols, these are not always needed. Together with other animals, we share the capacity of representing quantities without symbols. This capacity is believed to have evolved from the so- called ANS (Approximate Number System). This system is inaccurate, as it name implies, and has two main characteristics: “the distance effect (1 vs. 9 items is easier to discriminate than 1 vs. 2 items) and the size effect (1 vs. 2 items is easier to discriminate than 8 vs. 9 items)” (Dehaene, 1997, p.123). The author also mentions research studies that have found that, even if the ANS is

innate; factors such as culture, education or training can contribute to improving this system’s accuracy (Dehaene, 1997).

Dantzig (2005) is another researcher that also refers to the concept of a number sense.

This skill would allow a person to “recognize that something has changed in a small collection when, without his direct knowledge, an object has been removed from or added to the collection”

(Dantzig, 2005, p.1). This faculty is different from counting, which arrived later and requires a complex mental process. However, as the author explains, we can claim that counting directly or indirectly affects our limited number sense, because of its deep entrenchment in our minds. Hence, the nature of our number sense is restricted by this fact, and also by its scope, since “the direct visual number sense of the average civilized man rarely extends beyond four, and that the tactile sense is still more limited in scope” (Dantzig, 2005, p.4). Evidence of this primary quantity estimation system, which led to the development of our mathematical skills, is also provided by Cantlon (2015). After having reviewed several brain studies, Dehaene et al. (2003) similarly point to the same conclusion, according to which our brains focus on the abstract registering of numbers and can unconsciously process them; which would account for an instantaneous and effortless comprehension of numbers (see Number Processing section).

When humans started talking, number names were among the first words they used.

Nevertheless, this process required thousands of years, as well as the process to learn how to use signs for numbers. As odd as it may sound, we can claim biological and anatomical factors (fingers and toes, for example) as key catalysts for the invention of numbers, since “we have regularly occurring quantities right in front of our faces” (Everett, 2017, p.26). This is what Everett (2017), an Andrew Carnegie Fellow and Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Miami, defines as “embodied cognition”, and has been supported by several researches (Dantzig, 2005;

Dehaene, 1997; Ifrah, 1985; Wiese, 2003). The foundations of the number concept can be traced back to parts of the body, “which provide simple and readily available model collections” (Ifrah, 1985, p.19).

Although authors like Dantzig (2005) assert the impossibility to track the exact moment when number words originated, it is believed that they predate written documents. Egyptians were one of the first peoples who began using numerals, sets by which “they could express numbers of different values from units up to hundreds of thousands” (Smith and Ginsburg, 1937, p.7), while the Sumerians “were apparently the first to use full-fledged numerals” (Everett 2017, p.50). This idea is backed by numerous authors (Conway, 1996; Dantzig, 2005; Dehaene, 1997; Ifrah, 1985), who mention that the oldest proof of written numerals is attributed to Sumerians and Egyptians, who recorded data on clay tablets. Everett (2017) argues that after written numerals originated in the Fertile Crescent, they evolved hand in hand with a shift from hunting-gathering societies to agricultural ones. Agricultural practices greatly rely on natural phenomena such as spring equinoxes or winter solstices, and numbers allowed to keep record of them. In terms of number words, Dantzig (2005) offers the following explanation:

Of course, once the number word has been created and adopted, it becomes as good a model as the object it originally represented. The necessity of discriminating between the name of the borrowed object and the number symbol itself would naturally tend to bring about a change in sound, until in the course of time the very connection between the two is lost to memory. As man learns to rely more and more on his language, the sounds supersede the images for which they stood, and the originally concrete models take the abstract form of number words. Memory and habit lend concreteness to these abstract forms, and so mere words become measures of plurality. (p.7-8)

Ifrah (1985) divides the evolution of number words in different stages: first, involving direct observation; then, developing one-to one correspondence (sometimes matching with body parts) and lastly, assigning symbols. This correspondence gives “a precise representation of numbers too large to be accurately memorized on the mental number line” (Dehaene, 1997, p.96). Within this process of assigning symbols to numbers, different systems have been employed, “material

objects”, “intuitive or conventional gestures”, “concrete terms”, and lastly; “written numerations”

(Ifrah, 1985, p.27-28).

Using symbols for numbers has allowed us to manage discrete quantities. This ability to generate complex symbol systems enables us to mark quantities infinitely, overcoming rudimentary approximation. Moreover, the possibility of arranging these numbers in multiple ways allows us to perform mathematical operations (Dehaene, 1997). Everett (2017) explains that number words are easy-to-use, abstract symbols we have developed thanks to digits. This can account for their rapid spread among populations.

The spread of numbers within a population and sometimes between neighboring populations can also be attributed to their usefulness and to the operations they allow. Everett (2017) specifies that, when integrated into new languages, they would be loanwords or calques in nature. Subsequently, as far as mathematics are concerned, we can explain its origins by human’s metaphorical thinking. Dehaene (2002) argues that the creation of a notation for numbers indisputably stems from linguistic skill and literacy, and hence can be considered as uniquely human.

Wiese (2003) adds that the very nature of the counting sequence, which generally follows regular patterns, enables this sequence to display the characteristics of being infinite and organized. Hence, counting words can be easily decoded and are unequivocal. This phenomenon occurs in opposition to referential words, which denote something. However, when numbers are put in a particular context out of the counting sequence, they can adopt this denotation nature. “To denote these number assignments, we integrate counting words into complex linguistic structures, where they take the form of cardinals (“three” like in “three stars”), ordinals (“third” as in “the third man”), and nominal number words (“three” as in “bus number three”) (Wiese, 2003, p. 82).

4.3. Types of numbers and numerical systems

Everett (2017) explains that even though number writing systems are normally open to evolution and bring new ones into existence, we can assert the existence of approximately a hundred systems, which have been recorded. These systems usually share common patterns.

Most of them are “based somehow on ten or some other multiple of five” (Everett, 2017, p.58).

Throughout history, mathematicians have strived to adapt numerical notations to our brains. This is another sign which evidences that numbers are steadily evolving (Dehaene, 1997).

Because of the limited scope of our work, we will only focus on the so-called Western numeral system. Smith and Ginsburg (1937) describe the origins of these numerals, which are widespread through Europe, the Americas and certain parts of Asia and Africa and Australasia’s colonies. In spite of the fact that the numerals used in these areas are often referred to as Arabic, Smith and Ginsburg (1937) clarify that “they have never been used by the Arabs” (p.20). Instead, they originated from the Indian Brahmi script, a book written in India; then translated into Arabic and later into Latin. Several scholars (Conway,1996; Dehaene, 1997; Everett, 2017; Ifrah, 1985;

Wiese, 2003) have further supported this explanation. The spread of these numerals in Europe occurred through “oral teaching of a reckoning technique using a new type of counting board that was advocated by Gerbert and his disciples” (Ifrah, 1985, p.477). These so-called “Arabic”

numerals have undergone a significant transformation over the years. This event is also true for

“the names for large numbers”, such as million, which “seems not to have been used before the thirteenth century” or billion, “a relatively new word” (Smith and Ginsburg, 1937 p.22) which has different meanings in British and American English.

It is interesting to note that “numerals are organized in structured systems and are formed by matching verbal expressions with numerical operations. Linguistically, they’re characterized by an extremely reiterative syntax” (Braun & Clarici, 1996). This will be confirmed later on by authors who explain the endless series of numbers that we can create with our number system. Indeed, Wiese (2003) states that Arabic numerals follow fixed patterns, starting from the ten primitive

elements and then creating new numerals by concatenation. Numerals can form an infinite collection of quantities, and thus a little set of words and syntactic rules can result in potentially all numbers (Mazza, 2001). According to this scheme, “the value of a digit depends on its position in the system (its place value)” (Conway, 1996, p.20). This place-value principle allowed for a greater effectiveness in noting numerals and for easier calculations (Dehaene, 1997).

Moreover, the nature of our numerals can be classified as decimal, since there are ten symbols in our notation system: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9. These elements are the base digits, that can spawn two lexical categories: teens and tens; and multipliers allow to express the magnitude of the base digits (Mazza, 2001). Within this system, “positions indicate an implicit multiplication by exponents of ten” (Everett, 2017, p.51), Ifrah (1985). Nevertheless, as Everett (2017) points out, this use of decimal system is not intrinsic to the Germanic languages within the broader family of Indo-European languages, since it is also employed in languages like Portuguese, part of the Romance branch. Moreover, this system is also the base of Semitic, Mongolian and other languages, as Dantzig (2005) and Ifrah (1985) affirm.

In addition to the decimal system, Conway (1996) and Everett (2017), enumerate other notation systems that exist in some cultures, like the binary, quinary, ternary, quaternary, senary, octonary, nonary, duodecimal and sexagesimal systems, depending on the base number they originate from.

4.4. Some terms defined

Here are some definitions of basic concepts that will regularly be mentioned in this work:

Numerals the written figures of numbers

graphic sign that represents a number but is not identical with it¹ Cardinals numbers used in counting, such as one, two, three

Ordinals adjectives that show the order of the objects counted, such as first, second, third.

Numbers Words and other symbolic representations we use to differentiate quantities.²

Corresponds to a concept that has quantity as one of its aspects.³

Furthermore, within the broad family of numbers, it is also interesting to mention fractions.

The authors Smith and Ginsburg (1937) divide fractions which are commonly used into:

astronomical fractions, measurement fractions, common fractions and decimal fractions. They dwell into explaining the historic evolution of the decimal point and period for decimals in different parts of the world, and further refer to measurement units, which differ between English-speaking countries and the rest. This is pertinent for the subject of our study, since numbers in speeches are often followed by units of measurement, and together they form indivisible units of meaning.

In spite of the close link between humans and numbers, we cannot assume they are present in every culture worldwide. As evidenced by Everett (2017), language is intrinsic to social groups, but numbers are not. He explains the case of two indigenous populations from the Amazonia area, the Munduruku and the Piraha, who lack precise words for number beyond “two”

and the rest of the numbers, respectively.

After having considered the definition of some basic terms, we will move onto contextualizing numbers in language and the role they place, since they help us concretize meaning. They affect language and vice versa.

2 Everett, 2017, p. 23

3 Ifrah, 1985, p.28

4.5. Numbers in language- numbers in their context

In this section, and bearing in mind that “languages shapes how we think” (Everett, 2017, p.21); we are going to observe the relation between numbers and language, and study quantification within the context of language.

Since numbers are very closely interconnected to language and are expressed by it, we will now explore the process of language acquisition. Currently, the most widely supported theory is that language is a “college of culturally variable but often similar strategies for communication and information management” (Everett, 2017, p.144). As far as counting words are concerned, they are initially memorized and then, through gradual exposure, associated with concepts and meanings.

These words are key elements to enlarge our quantitative reasoning and to attain a higher accuracy when thinking of numbers, as Everett (2017) explains. Associating numbers with tangible objects is a common practice when teaching, since by these means children and students can more easily apprehend arithmetical concepts.

We must also acknowledge that counting words are incorporated in language in a syntactic fashion, and to each category of number words corresponds a particular type of “non-numerical linguistic items that have a similar semantic structure” (Wiese, 2003, p.82). As Fromkin, Rodman &

Hyams (2014) explain, grammar and lexicon must be accessed in order to allocate meaning to the words that are communicated to us. But these are not the only elements that are involved in a communicative situation, since pragmatics and context must be also considered. In the authors’

words:

Speakers’ knowledge of sentence meaning includes knowing the truth conditions of declarative sentences; knowing when one sentence entails another sentence; knowing when two sentences are paraphrases or contradictory; knowing when a sentence is a tautology, contradiction or paradox; and knowing when sentences are ambiguous, among other things (Fromkin et al., 2014, p.176).

It is worth reminding that context refers both to the linguistic one as to the situational one (Fromkin et al.,2014), and we will refer to this later on as a decisive factor in the interpreting field.

Languages like English constantly refer to numbers and quantities, and even require

“grammatical indications of the quantities being talked about, or of the amount of people involved in an interaction (e.g. “I” or “we”)” (Everett, 2017, p.86). The author notes that these grammatical indications are reflected in the use of plural, often conveyed by the adding of an -s at the end of the word. Nevertheless, some plurals are irregular “mouse vs. mice” and other words are invariable

“sheep”. In opposition to the unvarying English pronoun “the”, other languages like Portuguese, change possessive pronouns like “minha/ minhas”, when adjacent to a plural noun. This grammatical norm also exists in French and Spanish.

In addition to grammatical indicators, quantities may also lead to changes in verbal forms, for instance, in order to “show agreement with the grammatical number of the subject” (Everett, 2017, p.95). However, as the author specifies, when quantities are higher than 1, 2 and 3, languages might choose an approximative approach, using imprecise words such as many¸ or specific words expressing imprecise plural, like pod of dolphins. This will be explained later on around the concept of subitising.

It is worth noting, for the purposes of our work, that the use of that final -s can sometimes be problematic for the recipient of the oral message. In the case of certain words, that added letter may act as a “voiceless sound, meaning your vocal cords do not vibrate as you produce it”

(Everett, 2017, p.88). We can therefore infer that interpreters may at times struggle with recognizing whether a noun is singular or plural in a speech containing voiceless sounds and in the absence of an inflected verb form. These forms are commonly required to change by languages “to show agreement with the grammatical number of the subject” (Everett, 2017, p.95).

Syntax is another element that plays a key role in dealing with numbers, since it helps us understand the variations in word meaning depending on the order of the sentence. Indeed,

“syntax helps us appreciate the relationship of counted numbers to one another” (Everett, 2017, p.209). Additionally, syntactic effects may also stem from the semantic properties of a noun (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2014). The differentiated categories of “count” and “mass” nouns will influence which type of determiner (“a”, “many”) will precede them. As Fromkin et al. (2014) explain, this distinction is not universal in every language. The authors offer several words by means of example, whose classification as count or mass nouns varies from one language to another; and sometimes even within one specific language (“shoes” vs. “footwear”).

As linguistic elements, counting words have their own idiosyncrasies. As highlighted by Wiese (2003), they are non-referential and thus their instrumental use can be inferred.

We will now consider the signification of numbers within our mental structures and the role they play in specific context or speeches. In this regard, number assignment’s main aim is to focus on the “association between relations that hold between the empirical objects and relations that hold between the numbers” (Wiese, 2003, p.15). The importance of number assignment stems from this association, which is key to discern the equivalence between numbers and objects.

Numbers need two characteristics to be fit for purpose. “Numbers have to be (I) well distinguished from each other, and (2) elements of a progression” (Wiese, 2003, p.41). The author conceives three differentiated number assignments: cardinal, ordinal and nominal. In cardinal assignments, a number or N is “a progression”; in ordinal ones N “is a sequence” and in nominal ones “the elements of N are distinct” (Weise, 2003, p.42).

Incidentally, Wiese (2003), explains that using units of measurement reinforces the way of defining number assignments. We believe mentioning units of measurement will be key for our further research on the interpreting domain.

4.6. Importance of numbers

In this section, we would like to highlight the importance of numbers, drawing this conclusion from the previous sections and for the purposes of our work. Indeed, without numbers, we would be unable to “precisely and consistently grasp exact quantities beyond three” (Everett, 2017, p.24). These grasping, or measurement is defined by linguist Heike Wiese as “a mapping between empirical objects and numbers”. (Wiese, 2003, p.14)

As previously stated by authors like Dantzig (2005) and Smith and Ginsburg (1937), numbers are pivotal. They have allowed humans to develop a wide range of activities which required, to a greater or lesser extent, convoluted calculations. Everett (2017) also confirms this idea, underlining that numbers have played a major role in altering the human condition. They allow us to differentiate quantities conceptually, and these verbalized symbols are crucial to develop our built-in sense for mathematics. Undoubtedly, “the facilitation of mathematical problem- solving means the facilitation of architecture, science and in general represents a clear boon to technological development” (Everett, 2017, p.234). Dantzig (2005) corroborates the link between numbers and progress, and he advances that thanks to counting we can overcome our limited number sense and successfully convey our universe.

Additionally, Dantzig (2005) and Everett (2017) point to the spiritual meaning and lore of numbers in certain cultures. Numbers are often the object of “unaccountable omens and superstitions” (Dantzig, 2005, p.39), and the author mentions numbers with special meanings in Christian theology, Greek mythology or in Hebrew scriptures, for instance. This endows a further signification on numbers and consequently implies that interpreters must bear this in mind when transposing messages cross-culturally. Not only numbers have influenced trading activities and helped developed several sciences, as Conway (1996) affirms, they have also had a significant impact on culture and languages. The author mentions different examples, such as the word centurion, who was “in charge of one hundred soldiers” (Conway, 1996, p.12) or the Italian term million, which means “great thousand (…) from which we get out “million”” (Conway, 1996, p.13).

We believe that, after being familiarized with the reasons that prove the importance of numbers in our lives and their study to understand how they shape our knowledge, we will continue to the next Chapter, which will focus in the ways we apprehend and process numbers.

5. NUMBER PROCESSING

As it happens with other types of cognition, humans process numbers thanks to their brains. “About 80% of our brain’s mass is found in the cerebral cortex (…), that is divided into two hemispheres and four major lobes. The cortex has, according to some estimates, 21-26 billion neurons that enable all sorts of uniquely human forms of thought” (Everett, 2017, p.210). In addition to these neurons, researchers like Fromkin et al. (2014) mention glial cells, in charge of safeguarding neurons; and the corpus callosum, that connects and allows for the information flow between the right and left hemispheres. Since the focus of our work is on numbers, we are now going to find out how these are processed by our brains. Indeed, neural activity is educed by

“symbolic numerical judgments of numerals and number words” (Cantlon, 2015, p.237). Several authors like Dehaene et al.(2003) and Everett (2017) report the precocious nature of numerical thought, as well as its primitive origins in our species; due to a biological predisposition of our cerebral networks that makes them able to underpin the necessary numeric processing. In order to understand the complex way in which our brains process numerical thought, we can rely on the research conducted by different authors.

Firstly, we can claim that our brain converts visual stimuli of Arabic numerals into a quantity as a reflex (Dehaene, 1997).

Secondly, for humans to process numbers, individuals must have stored numerical symbols in memory (Cantlon, 2015). The hippocampus is in charge of storing “numerical symbols and rote memorized mathematics facts” (Cantlon, 2015, p.241). Memorizing these facts, including the multiplication tables, is no easy task, probably due to the fact that our memories work “by association of ideas” (Dehaene, 1997, p.7). After reviewing several studies in the field of number comparison, Dehaene suggested that “digits are not compared at a symbolic level, but are initially recorded and compared as quantities” (Dehaene, 2002, p.20).

Thirdly, Dehaene (1997) and Wiese (2003) suggest that we visualize numbers in a sequential order or progression, and also refer to the fact that some people associate specific correlations between Arabic numerals and colours. Visualizing is also key due to the fact that objects are better remembered by humans than abstract ideas, hence “thinking of numbers in terms of physical object facilitates their mental storage, representation and manipulation” (Everett, 2017, p.204). Braun & Clarici (1996) summarize the process as a mental picture of the figure which will be converted into words or digits.

Researchers in the field of interpreting also mention the importance of visualization, since this mental image allows the interpreter to “evoke the same image in the target language without remembering the words which described it” (Seleskovitch, 1978, p.55).

So, which brain areas are activated when dealing with numbers? Everett (2017) reveals that the answer lies on the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), located in the parietal lobe, as shown in Figure 1. Brain studies have shown that numerical reasoning can further be tracked down to the horizonal IPS (hIPS), a section of the aforementioned sulcus (Dehaene, Piazza, Pinel & Cohen, 2003; Everett, 2017). In fact, some studies have pointed to the activation of this cerebral area whenever individuals are processing numbers, performing mental arithmetic or comparing numbers. Hence, the hIPS is a key area, at the epicenter of many number processing operations (Dehaene et al., 2003).

Figure 1: Location of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS)

Indeed, “The hIPS fires when numerals are viewed, or when spoken numbers are heard”

(Everett, 2017, p.211). Eger, Sterzer, Russ, Giraud & Kleinschmidt; Piazza, Mechelli, Price &

Butterworth have found that, thanks to neuroimaging data, we can understand this duality of the vision and sound senses. Neuroimaging data helps us identify how both auditory and visual stimuli are represented as numerical values in this particular region of our brains (as cited in Cantlon, 2015). This could be explained by the hypothesis that “the HIPS codes the abstract quantity meaning of numbers rather than the numerical symbols themselves” (Dehaene et al., 2003, p.493).

However, cerebral activity elicited by numbers might not only be restricted to the hIPS. Von Aster (2000) mentions that the models that have received more attention in research point to several areas in both cerebral hemispheres, hence not restricted to the hIPS. Even if it is likely that our brains do not have a specific arithmetical space which is already predetermined for mathematics, brains fill this gap “by tinkering with alternative circuits that may be slow and indirect, but are more or less functional for the task at hand” (Dehaene, 1997, p.6). The left angular gyrus is a key brain area in this sense, since it is linked to verbal processing; or rather, to tasks that require calculation and “language-mediated processes such as reading of verbal short-term memory tasks” (Dehaene et al., 2003, p.494). Braun & Clarici (1996) point to the left cerebral

hemisphere as the one where linguistic functions happen whenever the individual is translating into his/her mother tongue. Lastly, the posterior superior parietal lobule is also involved in number processing tasks. All this evidence points out that “much of the human capacity for number processing relies on representations and processes that are not specific to the number domain (Dehaene et al., 2003, p.501).

Dehaene et al. (2003) point to three different systems engaged in number processing:

quantity, verbal, and visual; and stress the significance of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as a highly functional tool that will enable further research on brain studies. Thanks to brain imaging studies, scholars have been able to determine that our brains discriminate smaller and bigger quantities differently. When it comes to the former, a “parallel individuation” system applies, allowing an accurate quantification; whereas the latter would be apprehended by approximative estimation. Consequently, humans have forged counting schemes and number words to identify every quantity. In this regard, it is worth mentioning Wiese’s (2003) contribution. She identifies two main systems to differentiate quantities, or to represent cardinality: subitising and noisy magnitudes. Wiese (2003) provides a definition for the first item, subitising:

Subitising refers to a nearly instantaneous process that allows us to discriminate small sets of different sizes. Subitising occurs automatically, accurately, and without conscious attention; it enables us to recognise the cardinality of sets with up to three or four elements (…) without invoking numerical strategies like counting. (p.95)

According to this author, subitising does not suffer any disruptions when an individual has to “perform an articulatory task simultaneously with the cardinality assessment” (Wiese, 2003, p.96), whereas counting might be disturbed under these circumstances. Subitising is also described by Dehaene (1997) as a process for which visual operations are needed; and which is not instantaneous, contrary to what its etymology might suggest. The word subitise comes from

Latin subitus, that means sudden.⁴ The term was first suggested by Kaufman, Lord, Reese &

Volkmann (1949), who led research around the concept of numerousness, as a feature of a collection of things we can discriminate without counting. They reviewed studies related to the perception of number and counting objects. In their paper, they claim that subitizing is usually more precise and faster than estimating.

Apart from subitizing, the concept of noisy magnitudes is also interesting for our field of study, as we will argue later. Having this capacity means that these noisy magnitudes are “a representation of quantities that allows us to estimate the size of sets” (Wiese, 2003, p.95).

According to this hypothesis, humans would have a sort of innate ability to grasp orders of magnitude. Humans are able to discriminate objects and numbers, both in quantity and size. For instance, “I can say that a trillion is a “really big” number, or that “seven is smaller than fifteen”

(Everett, 2017, p.204). This type of estimation originates from our early childhood, thanks to holistic perception. This perception is intuitive and allows us to approximate quantities (Dehaene, 1997).

Although this fact might seem irrelevant, we will later discuss it to apply it to the field of simultaneous interpreting, since this ability can be beneficial in the event interpreters are not able to fathom an exact figure mentioned in a speech.

Everett (2017) identifies a common area of the brain which is triggered both when subjects are performing numerical reasoning and when they are commanded to discern sizes and/or locations. Accordingly, the author concludes the existence of an intertwinement between spatial and numerical data. This lapping also appears in the so-called “spatial numerical association of response codes, commonly referred to as the SNARC effect” (Everett, 2017, p.207), which accounts for a spatial lining of numbers when thinking of them. The SNARC effect is also reviewed by Dehaene (1997) and Wiese (2003), who confirm the hypothesis that we mentally represent numerals with a number form. Furthermore, Dehaene (1997) mentions the tendency to orientate

4 Kaufman, Lord, Reese & Volkmann, 1949, p.520.

numbers from left to right, and bases its justification on the pervasive Western culture and writing system.

Concerning the discernment between bigger and smaller quantities, another concept should be mentioned. Wiese (2003) refers to the concept of norm value, which denotes our natural expectations in terms of quantities’ sizes. As the author points out, the norm value is affected by its cultural background, and will lead us to settle whether a quantity is big or small. Dantzig (2005) mentions another phenomenon, called one-to-one correspondence. “It consists in assigning to every object of one collection an object of the other, the process being continued until one of the collections, or both, are exhausted” (Dantzig, 2005, p.7). This phenomenon was widely used by our ancestors, and as Dantzig (2005) argues, it has evolved towards a system of abstraction, by creating model collections and choosing among them.

Going back to the auditory and visual stimuli of numbers that humans sense, it is also interesting to review another phenomenon related to human’s capacity to process numbers mentioned by Wiese (2003), which occurs in oral speech and not when words are written. The reason for this is that “the sounds of a word are acoustically gone the instant we hear them, and have to be kept in memory” (Wiese, 2003, p.141). The phenomenon explained by the author is called the “recency effect”, which accounts for the fact that when confronted to a list of words that they have to hear and repeat, individuals perform better with the last words, both when storing and retrieving them. This might be the result of the role played by “a phonological buffer in short-term memory” (Wiese, 2003, p.141), and further supported by Baddeley (2007). However, as Wiese (2003) highlights, another explanation of this phenomenon points to the recurring practice of placing grammatically complex or key items in speech at the end of sentences.

On the other hand, when dealing with written numerals instead of those that have been orally uttered, we can mention the following observation: “Arabic numerals (…) have to be replaced by verbal counterparts in spoken language” (Wiese, 2003, p.233). The author points to the

similarity between rendering Arabic numerals aloud and translating counting words. When the spoken language is English, for instance, the difficulty would not be the same as with another language like modern Hebrew, where cardinal number words “can differ from nominalised number words for abstract cardinalities and from counting words” (Wiese, 2003, p.234).

McCloskey & Caramazza (1985) suggested two separate systems for number comprehension and production, which involve several and distinct mechanisms, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. In the words of the authors, “lexical processing involves comprehension or production of the individual elements in a number” and syntactic processing “involves the processing of relations among elements in order to comprehend or produce a number as a whole”

(McCloskey & Caramazza, 1985, p. 173). Thus, when processing Arabic numbers, our brains need to first find the individual meaning of each digit and then access syntactic mechanisms to ponder the order of magnitude. These authors also explain that different processes are involved in the case of spoken and written numbers. With the former we resort to phonology, and with the latter, to graphemes. Other studies have reported “the linguistic analysis of numerical notations” (Dehaene, 1992, p.5). Even if the limited scope of our work does not allow us to dwell on this matter, we consider it would represent an interesting and pertinent basis for further research in the field of cognition as well as studying the way it could affect the processing of numbers by interpreters.

Table 1: Note: Reprinted from Cognitive Mechanisms in Number Processing and Calculation: Evidence from Dyscalculalia (p.174), by M.McCloskey & A.Caramazza, 1985, . Copyright (2019) by RightsLink. Reprinted with permission.

Table 2: Note: Reprinted from Cognitive Mechanisms in Number Processing and Calculation: Evidence from Dyscalculalia (p.174), by M.McCloskey & A.Caramazza, 1985, . Copyright (2019) by RightsLink. Reprinted with permission.

5.1. Memorizing and visualizing

Visualization and memory are two key elements in the way humans process information.

Memory is a “complex cognitive activity, whose functions are the encoding (comprehension), storage and retrieval of input information” (Mazza, 2001, p.87). Gile (1995) explains that the analysis of a speech is not automatic, but rather the combination of storing information on the short term and comparing it with elements stored in our long-term memory so as to decide how to interpret it.

Our memories act differently depending on the time period we need to store the information. A traditional approach divides memory storage systems into short-term and long term memory, although other researchers like Atkinson, Atkinson, Smith, Bem & Nolen-Hoeksema (2000) divide it into working memory and long-term memory, pointing to the existence of another short-term memory system that withholds an elaborate sensory image of stimuli for some hundred milliseconds. Pöchhacker (2016) refers to studies in psychology that have focused on the hypothesis of a temporary mechanism to store information, as opposed to a longer lasting one.

The hippocampus is the brain area traditionally considered as critical for long-term memory, whereas the frontal cortex is the one involved with working memory. More recent studies show that, in the instances when the individual holds information for short-term use, the prefrontal lobe neurons are those activated (Atkison et al., 2000).

Visualizing and mental representations are key in the processing and storing of information.

Pöchhacker (2016) points to the necessity of signals of information to be represented mentally.

“When information is encoded into memory, it is entered in a certain code or representation”

(Atkinson et al, 2000, p.270). These codes can be visual, phonological, or semantic. (Atkison et al., 2000).

In the process of comprehending discourse, Setton (1999) reviewed the research carried out by Seleskovitch and Lederer, who postulate two operations that are identified with two types of memory. The first one refers to immediate memory, which stows words that solely bear linguistic meaning, whereas the second refers to a longer-term storage unit where connections with previous concepts take place. These two authors also explain that interpreters “listen only for low-probability items to be transcoded, such as unknown proper names, or numerals, as opposed to predictable items such as ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’” (Lederer, 1981 and Seleskovitch and Lederer,1989 as cited in Setton, 1999). Seleskovitch (1978) points indeed to two modalities of memory: substantive and verbatim. Upon analysis and assimilation of data, it would be stored by substantive memory, which can be associated with comprehension. That is why a lack of comprehension will result in oblivion.

Verbatim memory, on the other hand, requires “about twenty times as long and much repetition”

(Seleskovitch, 1978, p.35).

Nevertheless, science has progressed, and many other studies review different hypotheses, and a new concept is mentioned: working memory. As put forward by studies in the field of cognition, “working memory is the underlying mechanism involved in memory storage, attentional control, and manipulation of information in the service of complex cognition” (Granena, Jackson & Yilmaz 2016, p.69). The role of working memory is paramount in the “retrieval, maintenance and integration of information” (Granena et al., 2016, p.73). Atkinson et al. (2000) suggest that working memory also plays a vital role in language processes, like talking or reading.

This has been confirmed by other authors like Baddeley, renowned researcher in the field of psychology, who conducted a vast amount of studies around working memory. The author defines WM as “a temporary storage system under attentional control that underpins our capacity for complex thought” (Baddeley, 2007, p.1).

The author’s research throughout the years led him to replace the consideration of a STS (short term store), put forward by Atkinson and Shiffrin to a multimodal mechanism, i.e., working memory (Baddeley, 2007). This new system would be founded in three elements, all limited: “an

attentional control system -the central executive- together with two subsidiary storage systems, the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad” (Baddeley, 2007, p.7)

According to this new multimodal system, the phonological loop would be that responsible for storing speech and acoustic cues temporarily. This limited storage period would be contingent on the rehearsal frequency, and the absence of rehearsing would cause the information to vanish.

This goes in line with the aforementioned importance of repetition for information storage, as put forward by Seleskovitch (1978). Subjects with longer memory span are assumed to be faster are rehearsing, and shorter words would also allow for a faster recovery of the information, thus increasing the aforementioned memory span. In research, the following phenomenon is mentioned:

“the time needed to pronounce numerals in any language influences the ability (…) correctly to recall the figures which have been pronounced” (Braun & Clarici, 1996, p.96).

In terms of memorizing, it is also interesting to note what Dehaene (1997) suggests:

When we try to remember a list of digits, we generally store it using a verbal memory loop (this is why it is difficult to memorize numbers whose names sound similar, such as "five"

and "nine" or "seven" and "eleven"). This memory can hold data only for about two seconds, forcing us to rehearse the words in order to refresh them. Our memory span is thus determined by how many number words we can repeat in less than two seconds.

Those of us who recite faster have a better memory. (p. 102)

Atkinson et al. (2000) also refer to memory span, giving the following definition “the maximum number of items that the participant can recall in perfect order (p.273). These items that can be stored and manipulated have traditionally been set at 7 ± 2 items, because of the famous research carried out by Miller (1994), who conducted research on variance and the amount of information:

There is a clear and definite limit to the accuracy with which we can identify absolutely the magnitude of a unidimensional stimulus variable, (…) the span of absolute judgement. (…) For unidimensional judgements, this span is usually somewhere in the neighborhood of seven (Miller, 1994, p.348).

As Seleskovitch (19789) put forward, and Atkison et al. (2000) confirm; rehearsal can be particularly useful when the presented data consists of digits, letters or words. When trying to remember this information, individuals are prone to encoding the number as the sounds of the digit names and repeating this sounds internally. In this sense, it is worth mentioning the experiment carried out by Graham Hitch and Alan Baddeley, who asked subjects to simultaneously repeat strings of digits while carrying out a task connected to WM. By virtue of this experiment, they were able to find that the correlation between a higher digit load and a longer response time. However, they also stated that “that even the heaviest load increases response time by only 50 per cent”

(Baddeley, 2007,p.5). Information in our working memory is less likely to remain for a longer time when words are longer and whenever old items are replaced by new ones (Atkinson et al., 2000):

“Once seven items are active, the activation given to a new item will be taken away from items that were presented earlier; consequently, those items may fall below the critical level of activation needed for recall (Anderson, 1983, as cited in Atkinson et al., 2000, p.273). These seven items again coincide with Miller’s (1994) theory. When it comes to visual and spatial data, the responsibility of storing information falls on the visuospatial sketchpad. In these cases where elements are presented visually, they must undergo subvocalization, contrary to auditorily presented ones, which would directly be sent to the phonological store (Baddeley, 2007).

To join the three elements of this multimodal system, Baddeley (2007) suggests the existence of the episodic buffer, that offers an interface to long term-memory and works as a binding tool. The central executive would be able to conduct two tasks simultaneously (Baddeley et al., 1991 as cited in Baddeley, 2007).

However, working memory is not universal, and may not be used by all individuals in the same way. In this sense, Daneman & Carpenter stress the differences between subjects to exploit the full potential of working memory (WM), because of WM’s limited nature (as cited in Granena et al., 2016, p.72). Other researchers like Miller (1994) and Atkinson et al., (2000) have also confirmed the limited capacity of working memory

In our field of work, it is relevant to review what happens in the case of bilingual individuals.

“Bilingualism refers to the coexistence of two languages within an individual (implying the person speaks two languages” (De Groot, 2015, p.31). In interpreting, mother tongue is usually referred to as the “A” language and acquired languages would be “C” or sometimes “B” languages. It has been suggested that “exact arithmetic facts are stored in a language-specific format in bilinguals”

(Dehaene et al., 2003, p.495). Additionally, Von Aster (2000) reports that different studies involving adults processing numbers and bilingual subjects illustrate that the moment in which we add a particular skill might lead to a change in the cerebral location of this ability.

Wiese (2003)’s research suggests that, when confronted with arithmetical problems, individuals perform worse when these problems are expressed in individuals’ second language, instead of in their mother tongue. Moreover, individuals with a larger working memory will perform better at arithmetical tasks or geometric analogies (Atkinson et al., 2000). Nevertheless, it is premature to draw conclusions regarding bilingualism and interpreting, since there is still a lot of progress to be carried out in research. In addition, “as there are many factors influencing second- language (L2) acquisition, and different parameters of proficiency, bilinguals are not a homogenous group” (De Groot, 2015).

As set out above, we are now aware of how number processing works, and how memorizing and visualizing help us in this process. In the next Chapter, we will move on to the application of our study to a particular discipline: conference interpreting, to study how numbers, albeit being fundamental elements of speech, can also hinder interpreters’ performance.

6. CONFERENCE INTERPRETING

The origins of interpreting can be traced back as having appeared earlier than writing and written translation. It could even be stated that “interpreting has always existed” (Seleskovitch, 1978, p.2).

In the quest of a definition of interpreting, orality should not be highlighted as the only factor that defines interpreting, since this view would forget to take signed interpreting into account.

Rather, immediacy is the most distinct feature of interpreting that separates it from other kinds of translational tasks. This task is carried out “here and now” to help those who want to convey a message and must overcome the obstacles of belonging to different cultures or speaking different languages (Pöchhacker, 2016). In an attempt to classify interpreting within a broader category, we can identify it as being a translational task. Pöchhacker (2016) inspired himself on Otto Kade’s benchmarks regarding the components of the interpreting activity, and advanced the following definition:

Interpreting is a form of Translation in which a first and final rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source language (p.11)

Conference interpreting is one of the situations than can be defined according to the type interaction. In this case, the situation requires a multilateral exchange in conferences that gather representatives of several organizations (Pöchhacker, 2016). Interpreters are required to render an accurate translation of the speech and modifications are only acceptable if the audience needs a better comprehension (Jones, 1998).

6.1.1.

Taking into account the different modalities of conference interpreting, we will herein explain the two broader ones (consecutive and simultaneous), which are most commonly taught at interpreting schools and tested in interpreting exams. Later on we will focus on simultaneous interpreting, because of the limited scope of our work.

Pöchhacker (2016) affirms that the distinction between these two categories acquired importance after the 1920s, due to the advancement in the equipment that paved the way for simultaneous interpreting. As Seeber (2015) explains, the advent of the first telephonic device for interpreting took place indeed in the 1920s and is attributable to Edward Filene and A. Gordon- Finlay.

Consecutive interpreting would happen “after the source-language utterance” and simultaneous interpreting “as the source-language text is being presented” (Pöchhacker, 2016, p.18). Indeed, in consecutive interpreting, the interpreter listens to the whole speech and then conveys the message, hence he or she has the advantage of getting acquainted with the underlying idea of the speech before he or she interprets. This is not the case in simultaneous interpreting, where the task has to be carried out almost instantly (with some lag) and the message is unraveled to the interpreter as it is being uttered. The interpreter’s simultaneous interpretation will approximately be the same length as the original speech (Jones, 1998). This lag is vital to comprehend “a meaningful chunk in the source language, process it, and shift language to produce it” (Mazza, 2001, p.89)

Additionally, consecutive interpreting allows to somehow free the interpreter’s memory, which enhances the analytical tasks being carried out. Indeed, the fact of keeping pieces of information like names or numbers can be of great help to the interpreter (Seleskovitch, 1978).

However, in both modalities, the objective of the interpreter is to allow communication and he or

she will be carrying out similar intellectual tasks: “both mean listening, understanding, analysing and re-expressing” (Jones, 1998, p. 66).

6.1.2.

In the effort to define simultaneous interpreting, we can refer to the definition offered by AIIC, the International Association of Conference Interpreters. In their own words “the interpreter sits in a booth, listens to the speaker in one language through headphones, and immediately speaks their interpretation into a microphone in another language” (AIIC, 2011). Jones (1998) refers to the widespread use of adequate interpreting paraphernalia and provides a detailed explanation of how the system works:

Delegates speak into microphones, which relay the sound directly to interpreters seated in sound-proofed booths listening to the proceedings through earphones; the interpreters in turn speak into a microphone which relays their interpretation via a dedicated channel to headphones worn by the delegations who wish to listen to the interpreting (Jones, 1998, p.5)

Nevertheless, as Seeber (2015) highlights, we can identify additional kinds of simultaneous interpreting, such as whispered interpreting, remote interpreting or interpreting with text. The latter

“refers to a scenario in which interpreters receive a manuscript of an address to be delivered, allowing them to read along (or ahead) in the text while listening to the speech” (Seeber, 2015, p.80). Simultaneous interpreting never ceases to amaze both those alien to this discipline and cognitive researchers, who deem it to rank among the hardest linguistic skills (Grosjean, 2011, as cited in Seeber, 2015).

6.1.3.

As an initiated interpreter knows and as Seleskovitch (1978) explains, the interpreting process does not only refer to mere transcoding of words, but rather; to analyze and convey the semantics from the original into the target speech, an exegesis effort.

Authors have often tried to explain to break down the operations taking place in the interpreting activity. According to Herbert, the different processes involved in interpretation are:

“understanding, transference, speaking” (Herbert, 1952, p.10). These mainly match those suggested by Seleskovitch (1978): perception, comprehension, mental representation and speaking. Seeber (2015) reviews the evolution of research and how researchers have adopted different approaches to the interpreting process, some diving it in two broad categories of comprehension and production; and others differentiating sub-tasks. The author also refers to the representation model proposed by different researchers, which supports the conception of an interface between the two aforementioned broad categories. This interface would integrate incoming information to become the starting point of the production activity (Zwaan, 1999, Garrod et al.1990, Levelt 1989 as cited in Seeber, 2015). Undeniably, before starting to interpret, sound has to arrive to the interpreter’s hearing. This happens physically, “whenever there is a disturbance in the position of air molecules” (Fromkin et al., 2014, p.446).

Comprehending language is done automatically and normally, humans can cope with about twenty phonemes a second. Many tasks are carried out simultaneously in order to understand an utterance properly. This “parallel processing” comprises:

Segmenting the continuous speech signal into phonemes, morphemes, words and phrases;

looking up the words and morphemes in the mental lexicon; finding the appropriate meanings of ambiguous words; placing them in a constituent structure; choosing among different possible structures when syntactic ambiguities arise; interpreting the phrases and