The Gravitational Model of Language Availability and Interpreting: A Critical Review

Subject Areas : Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation

Hossein Rahmanpanah ^{1 *}

1 - Department of Foreign Languages, South Tehran Branch,Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2023-04-13 Accepted : 2023-12-25 Published : 2023-12-25

Keywords: Gravitational Model, Interpreting, language availability ,

Abstract :

Due to the use of extensive technical terminology and words in conferences, interpreters often struggle with lexical selection, both in comprehending and retrieving lexical items from long-term memory for speech production (Gile,1990a; Pochhacker, 2008). Hence, the Gravitational Model of lexical availability was developed by Gile (2009) to represent certain rules available to interpreters for active use of lexical items at a given point in time. By placing great emphasis on time pressure during the interpreting process, Gile’s Gravitational Model posits that lexical items used occasionally by the interpreters require a significant amount of processing to be highly available for active use. In this regard, under the tenets of the Gravitational Model, the researcher, in this study, reviews certain guidelines and strategies that enhance lexical availability among interpreter trainees. The major implication drawn from this study is that the rules of written language contrast with those of spoken language. That is to say, lexical items are not stimulated equally in the oral and written systems, relying on their frequency in written and spoken language systems. Moreover, this study also highlights the fact that different lexical items have different levels of availability for interpreters, ranging from those words that can be retrieved instantly and effortlessly from long-term memory to those lexical items that are unavailable at a given moment. Collectively, based on the paradigms of the Gravitational Model, the researcher suggests certain specific guidelines and principles for lexical preparation.

References:

Biderman, M.T.C. & Ravazzi, N. (1984). Vocabulary learning in the mother tongue. In den Hase, Jan & Jos Nivette (Eds.), Proceedings of AILA Brussels (pp.518–521).
Clark, H., & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, Publishers.
Costermans, J. (1980). Psychologie du langage. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
De Groot, A. (2015). Bilingualism. In Pöchhacker, F. (ed). Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 31-35
de Groot, A. M. B., & Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Language control in bilinguals: Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2). 189–201.
Eyseneck, M.W. & Keane, M. (1990). Cognitive Psychology: A Students Handbook. Hove and London, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feng, J. (2002). A Practical Course in Interpretation. Nanjing: Yilin.
Gerver, D. (1974). Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,26, 337–342.
Gile, D. (1988). An Overview of Conference Interpretation Research and Theory. In Deanna Hammond (ed.), Language at Crossroads, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, October 12-16 (Seattle), Medford, NJ, Learned Information, pp. 363-372.
Gile, D. (1990a). Scientific Research vs. Personal Theories in the Investigation of Interpretation. Paper given at the Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori, Universita degli Studi di Trieste, March 19.
Gile, D. (1990b). Interpretation Research Projects for Interpreters. Paper given at the Scuola Superiore di Lingue Modern per Interpreti e Traduttori, Universita degli di Trieste, March 19.
Gile, D. (1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: an experiment. Target 7, (1), 151–164.
Gile, D. (1999b). Variability in the perception of fidelity in simultaneous interpretation. Hermes 22. 51–79.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate? Interpretation Studies 1(1), 8–20.
Gile, D. (2004). Integrated problem and decision reporting as a translator training tool. The Journal of Specialised Translation 2, 2–20.
Gile, D. (2008). Local cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting and its implications for empirical research. Forum 6, 2, 59–77.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). Speech analysis and mental processes. Language and speech in the United Kingdom: Robert Draper.
Keller, T. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (2001). The neural bases of sentence comprehension: a fMRI examination of syntactic and lexical processing. Cerebral cortex, 11(3), 223-237.
Keiser, W. (1978). Selection and training of conference interpreters.” In Gerver, David & H. Wallace Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 11–24). Nato Conference Series.
Leeson, R. (1975). Fluency and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Lederer, M. (2007). Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and Trainees? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(1), 15–35.
Lin, K. (2004). Field Interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
MacDonald, M.C. (1997). Language and Cognitive Processes, Special Issue on Lexical Representations and Sentence Processing, 12, 121–399.
Matthei, E., & Roeper, T. (1985). Understanding and producing speech. New York: Universe Books.
Mahmoudian, M. (1982). La linguistique. Paris: Seghers.
Meier, H. (1964). Deutsche Sprachstatistik. Hildesheim: G. Olms.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Michael, E. B., Keller, T. A., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. 2001.
fMRI investigation of sentence comprehension by eye and by ear:
Modality fingerprints on cognitive processes. Hum. Brain Mapping
13: 239 –252.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and Cognitive Control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pochhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Pochhacker, F. (2008). Interpreting as mediation. Benjamins Translation Library 76, 9-13.
Prat, C. S., Keller, T., & Adam, M. (2007). Individual Differences in Sentence Comprehension: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic and lexical processing demands. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, 12, 1950–1963.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and Second Languages. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 382-408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tulving, E., Shacter, D. L., & Stark, H. A. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 8(4), 336–342.
Thievy, C. (1975). Le bilinguisme chez les interpretes de conference professionnels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universite Paris.
Thorndike, E., & Lorge, I. (1994). The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications.
Zhong, W. (2007). A foundation coursebook of interpreting between English and Chinese. Beijing: Higher education Press.