B6092 - Applied Linguistics for Interpreters

Learning outcomes

Students know the main aspects (terminology, concepts and methods) of applied linguistics and are able to apply them to their comprehension and production of oral and written texts.

Course contents

This course explores the intersection of applied linguistics, interpreting and technology. We will examine the basic linguistic and cognitive processes involved in language use, focusing on spoken language production and comprehension, the psycholinguistics of dialogue, bilingualism, interpreting and processing multimodal input. 

Readings/Bibliography

Book for the course (required)

Paul Warren (2013) Introducing Psycholinguistics, Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-521-13056-1

Additional Readings

Altmann, G. T., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583-609.

Amos, R. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2020). A theory of prediction in simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(4), 706–715. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1366728919000671

Amos, R. M., Seeber, K. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2022). Prediction during simultaneous interpreting: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 220, 104987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104987

Barr, D. J. (2008b). Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition, 109(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.005

Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language Production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2339-2349.

Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234.

Chung-Fat-Yim A, Hayakawa S, Marian V. Multilingualism and Cognitive Control in the Brain. In: Cabrelli J, Chaouch-Orozco A, González Alonso J, Pereira Soares SM, Puig-Mayenco E, Rothman J, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Third Language Acquisition. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press; 2023:519-554.

Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120394.

Dong Y, Li P. Attentional control in interpreting: A model of language control and processing control. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2019:1–13.

Hartsuiker, R., & Pickering, M. (2007). Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 479–489.

Hartsuiker, R., Pickering, M., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages: Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychologica Science, 1, 5, 409–414.

Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, 118-135. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014

Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, doi:10.1017/S1366728917000050

Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7-8), 953-978.

Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/bul0000158

Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226.

Pickering, M. J., & Garrod S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007; 11(3):105–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002

Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329-392.

Romero-Rivas, C., Martin, C. D., & Costa, A. (2016). Foreign-accented speech modulates linguistic anticipatory processes. Neuropsychologia, 85, 245-255.

Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2011). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension—an fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 22(7), 1662-1670.

Seeber, K. G. (2017). Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting. In J. W. Schwieter, & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 461–475). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch25

 

Teaching methods

Frontal lectures, in class activities, discussion, collaborative learning groups 

Practical activities will focus mainly on summarizing, reformulating, describing data presented in graphs and charts. 

Assessment methods

Attenders:

In class written exam with four short essay questions (300-450 words) on the contents of the course. Students may consult all of their resources (book, papers, ppts and class notes).  

Oral presentation: a collaborative 30 min presentation of one or two articles from the course readings.  

Non attenders:

Oral exam on the course contents (book, readings). Students may consult resources during the oral exam.  

 

Assessment Scale

Distinction (30–30L – Excellent)
Demonstrates exceptional, comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Shows outstanding ability to critically engage with theoretical frameworks, apply them effectively, and articulate arguments with clarity, coherence, and academic precision. Exhibits excellent analytical and evaluative skills.

Merit (27–29 – Very Good to Excellent)
Displays thorough and wide-ranging knowledge of the course content. Demonstrates a strong capacity to apply theoretical models with accuracy and insight. Presents ideas clearly and logically with well-developed critical reasoning and synthesis.

Good Pass (24–26 – Generally Sound)
Shows a good understanding of the subject matter, with the ability to apply core concepts competently. Provides clear though occasionally limited analysis, and communicates ideas in an organised and coherent manner.

Pass (21–23 – Sufficient)
Displays a basic but adequate grasp of essential knowledge. Shows limited application of theoretical models and some weaknesses in critical engagement. Presentation of ideas is satisfactory but may lack depth and consistency.

Pass (18–20 – Minimum Acceptable Performance)
Demonstrates superficial understanding of the material, with frequent inaccuracies or incomplete application of theoretical concepts. Communication is simplistic and lacks critical depth. Meets minimum threshold for academic credit.

Fail (Below 18 – Insufficient)
Evidence of fragmented or minimal understanding. Inability to appropriately apply key concepts. Argumentation is weak or incoherent. Does not meet the standards required for a passing grade; reassessment is necessary.

Teaching tools

Powerpoint slides and additional learning material 

Office hours

See the website of Giulia Bencini