On the Use of Compensatory Strategies in Simultaneous Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weller (1990) believes that Krashen's concept of "comprehensible input" can play a key role in the simultaneous interpretation process even though this concept is most frequently cited in relation to second and foreign language learning. The "comprehensible input" concept is referred to here as the spoken or written pieces of information that are understood and interpreted by the hearer. Such information comes in the form of words, sentences, utterances, or even paragraphs.Based on Weller's recommendation, Krashen's concept is used as a framework for this study to analyze compensatory strategies employed by a small group of Jordanian interpreters who worked for an American television network during the Gulf War.This paper first examines the type of input that causes problems for interpreters.Second, it examines the strategies these interpreters use to compensate for difficult or incomprehensible input. The findings of the study detected five types of compensatory strategies that were employed by four interpreters. These strategies were grouped into two general types: achievement and reduction. These are discussed with recommendations at the end in the hope of providing more insight into how human beings process language under conditions of stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".