Distributed Cognition in the Conference Venue: A Fresh Perspective on the Simultaneous Interpreting Process

Abstract

Distributed cognition is a cognitive approach that can be summarised as the distribution/extension of cognition onto the biological/nonbiological artefacts in the environment by leaking from the individual and isolated mind rather than cognitive tasks being executed in a mind limited to the skull of a single biological agent. Distributed cognition emerged as a reaction against the computational theory of mind. It has been employed as a framework to re-evaluate fundamental cognitive faculties such as memory and language and has introduced various concepts such as cognitive offloading, transactive memory and techno-social system. This research programme has been applied to translation, computer-assisted translation, technical communication and translation pedagogy within translation studies. It is assumed that distributed cognition has the potential for better comprehending and investigating interpreting, in particular, professional simultaneous interpreting in the conference venue. Distributed cognition has existed within the fields of philosophy of mind, cognitive science and cognitive psychology since the 1990s along with the extended mind and grounded-embodied cognition theses, which are under the same conceptual umbrella with distributed cognition. That said, simultaneous interpreting has yet to be systematically investigated through the lens of distributed cognition. Rather, the process of simultaneous interpreting has been modelled on the basis of the computational theory of mind and information-processing approach using flowcharts since the 1960s. The present study aims to fulfil the gap in the literature by re-evaluating simultaneous interpreting in the framework of distributed cognition and developing an apt approach. It is critical that future studies provide experimental data to test this approach and to compare it with previous models.

Keywords

• Dilbilim

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Anderson, R. B. W. (1978). Interpreter Roles and Interpretation Situations: Cross-Cutting Typologies. D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Yay. haz.), Language Interpretation and Communication içinde (s. 217–230). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_20
2. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. K. W. Spence & J. T. B. T. Spence (Yay. haz.), The psychology of learning and motivation içinde (Cilt 2, s. 89–195). Oxford: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3
3. Babcock, L., Capizzi, M., Arbula, S., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Short-Term Memory Improvement After Simultaneous Interpretation Training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0011-x
4. Babcock, L., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Are simultaneous interpreters expert bilinguals, unique bilinguals, or both? Bilingualism, 20(2), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000735
5. Baber, C., Smith, P., Cross, J., Hunter, J., & McMaster, R. (2006). Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.3.02str
6. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. G.A. Bower (Yay. haz.), Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation içinde (Cilt 8, s. 47–90). New York, NY: Academic Press.
7. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–742; discussion 743-767. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97001611
8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609; discussion 610-660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99252144
9. Bergen, B. (2016). Embodiment, simulation and meaning. N. Riemer (Yay. haz.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics içinde (s. 142–156). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685533.ch8
10. Bontempo, K., & Napier, J. (2011). Evaluating emotional stability as a predictor of interpreter competence and aptitude for interpreting. Interpreting, 13(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.1.06bon
11. Busby, J. S. (2001). Practices in Design Concept Selection as Distributed Cognition. Cognition, Technology & Work, 3(3), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011529
12. Chernov, G. V. (1978). Semantic Aspects of Psycholinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation. Language and Speech, 22(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200308
13. Clark, A. (2004). Natural-born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Cokely, D. (1992). Introduction for Interpretation: A Sociolinguistic Model. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.
15. Cowan, N. (2000). Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting. Interpreting, 5(2), 117–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.05cow
16. Darò, V., & Fabbro, F. (1994). Verbal memory during simultaneous interpretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.4.365
17. Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Yay. haz.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation içinde (s. 155-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.14dil
18. Doğan, A. (2012). Andaş Çeviriye Anokhin’in İşlevsel Sistem Kuramı ve Chernov’un Etkinlik Kuramı Kapsamında Yaklaşım. Ankara Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(1), 113–132.
19. Dragsted, B. (2007). Computer-aided translation as a distributed cognitive task. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.17dra
20. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Fodor, J. A. (2000). The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Furniss, D., & Blandford, A. (2006). Understanding emergency medical dispatch in terms of distributed cognition: A case study. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1174–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612663
23. Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and a model. R. Brislin (Yay. haz.), Translation: Applications and Research içinde (s. 165-207). New York, NY: Gardner Press.
24. Gilbert, S. J. (2015). Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.006
25. Gile, D. (1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - A contribution. Journal of Linguistics, 23(23), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v12i23.25553
26. Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
27. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97000010
28. Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few Believe the World Is Flat: How Embodiment Is Changing the Scientific Understanding of Cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000056
29. González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Ávila, C. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. NeuroImage, 32(2), 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.037
30. Goss, B. (1982). Listening as information processing. Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 304–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378209369465
31. Halverson, C. A. (1996). Inside the cognitive workplace: New technology and air traffic control (Doktora tezi). University of California San Diego.
32. Harris, C. B., Barnier, A. J., Sutton, J., & Keil, P. G. (2014). Couples as socially distributed cognitive systems: Remembering in everyday social and material contexts. Memory Studies, 7(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698014530619
33. Heersmink, R. (2017). Distributed selves: personal identity and extended memory systems. Synthese, 194(8), 3135–3151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1102-4
34. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487
35. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Yay. haz.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition içinde (s. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012
36. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(95)90020-9
38. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1994). Distributed Cognition in an Airline Cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Yay. haz.), Cognition and Communication at Work içinde (s. 15–34). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174077.002
39. Ingram, R. M. (1985). Simultaneous interpretation of sign languages: Semiotic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 4(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1985.4.2.91
40. Jackson, M., & Moreland, R. L. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40(5), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409340703
41. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336
42. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1–2), 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-U
43. Kirsh, D. (2007). Distributed cognition: A methodological note. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.06kir
44. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1
45. Kumcu, A. (2011). Visual Focal Loci in Simultaneous Interpreting (Yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
46. Kumcu, A., & Thompson, R. L. (2016). Spatial Interference and Individual Differences in Looking at Nothing for Verbal Memory. In J. C. Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell (Yay. haz.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society içinde (s. 2387–2392). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
47. Kumcu, A., & Thompson, R. L. (2018). Less imageable words lead to more looks to blank locations during memory retrieval. Psychological Research, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1084-6
48. Lambert, S. (1984). Recall and recognition among conference interpreters (Doktora tezi). University of Stirling.
49. Larkin, J. H. (1989). Display-based problem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Yay. haz.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon içinde (s. 319–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
50. Larson, J. R., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00983.x
51. Lindblom, J., & Thorvald, P. (2017). Manufacturing in the wild–viewing human-based assembly through the lens of distributed cognition. Production and Manufacturing Research, 5(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2017.1322540
52. Linson, A., & Clarke, E. F. (2017). Distributed cognition, ecological theory and group improvisation. E. F. Clarke & M. Doffman (Yay. haz.), Distributed Creativity: Collaboration and Improvisation in Contemporary Music içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199355914.003.0004
53. Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2016). How Has the Internet Reshaped Human Cognition? Neuroscientist, 22(5), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858415595005
54. Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 838–844. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.838
55. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford: Wiley.
56. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587–625. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
57. Massaro, D. W. (1975). Understanding Language: An Information Processing Analysis of Speech Perception, Reading, and Psycholinguistics. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
58. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
59. Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Process models in simultaneous interpretation. C. Hauenschild & S. Heizmann (Yay. haz.), Machine Translation and Translation Theory içinde (Cilt 1, s. 3–18). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
60. Moser-Mercer, B. (1978). Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application. D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Yay. haz.), Language Interpretation and Communication içinde (s. 353–368). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_31
61. Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 135–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80015-2
62. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
63. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/360018.360022
64. Parsell, M. (2006). The cognitive cost of extending an evolutionary mind into the environment. Cognitive Processing, 7(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-005-0015-9
65. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429
66. Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2013). Computational grounded cognition: A new alliance between grounded cognition and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(Ocak), 612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00612
67. Pöchhacker, F. (Yay. haz.). (2015). Routledge Encyclopedia Of Interpreting Studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
68. Pöchhacker, F., & Shlesinger, M. (Yay. haz.). (2002). The Interpreting Studies Reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
69. Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004
70. Putnam, H. (1960). Minds and Machines. S. Hook (Yay. haz.), Dimensions of Mind: A Symposium içinde (s. 148–179). New York, NY: New York University Press.
71. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1986). Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
73. Risko, E. F., Medimorec, S., Chisholm, J., & Kingstone, A. (2014). Rotating With Rotated Text: A Natural Behavior Approach to Investigating Cognitive Offloading. Cognitive Science, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12087
74. Risku, H. (2010). A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference? Target, 22(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.06ris
75. Risku, H. (2015). Translation process research as interaction research: from mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 331–353. https://doi.org/10.6035/monti.2014.ne1.11
76. Risku, H., & Windhager, F. (2013). Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research Agenda. Target, 25(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.04ris
77. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Yay. haz.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge içinde (s. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Santilli, M., Vilas, M. G., Mikulan, E., Martorell Caro, M., Muñoz, E., Sedeño, L., … García, A. M. (2018). Bilingual memory, to the extreme: Lexical processing in simultaneous interpreters. Bilingualism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000378
79. Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous Interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
80. Shapiro, K. (Yay. haz.). (2001). The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198505150.001.0001
81. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behaviour. Oxford: Macmillan.
82. Smart, P., Heersmink, R., & Clowes, R. W. (2017). The Cognitive Ecology of the Internet. S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Yay. haz.), Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice içinde (2. baskı., s. 251–282). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8_13
83. Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196157
84. Stenzl, C. (1983). Simultaneous Interpretation - Groundwork Towards a Comprehensive Model (Doktora tezi). University of London.
85. Tollefsen, D. P. (2006). From extended mind to collective mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(2–3), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2006.01.001
86. Van de Putte, E., De Baene, W., García-Pentón, L., Woumans, E., Dijkgraaf, A., & Duyck, W. (2018). Anatomical and functional changes in the brain after simultaneous interpreting training: A longitudinal study. Cortex, 99, 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.11.024
87. Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: a symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(05)80008-4
88. Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the Internet Is Changing Our Memories and Our Minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.850148
89. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Yay. haz.), Theories of Group Behavior içinde (s. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9
90. Wegner, D. M., Raymond, P., & Erber, R. (1991). Transactive Memory in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923
91. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90021-3
92. Zhu, L. (2018). An embodied cognition perspective on translation education: philosophy and pedagogy. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 26(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1328449
93. Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(4), 1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0864-x

Cite this publication

@article{kumcu2018distributed,
  author = {Kumcu, Alper},
  title = {{Distributed Cognition in the Conference Venue: A Fresh Perspective on the Simultaneous Interpreting Process}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {37},
  number = {1},
  pages = {170--185},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2018},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  doi = {10.32600/huefd.621553},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/konferans-salonunda-dagitik-bilis-andas-ceviri-surecine-yeni-bir-bakis},
  language = {tr},
  keywords = {Dilbilim},
  abstract = {Distributed cognition is a cognitive approach that can be summarised as the distribution/extension of cognition onto the biological/nonbiological artefacts in the environment by leaking from the individual and isolated mind rather than cognitive tasks being executed in a mind limited to the skull of a single biological agent. Distributed cognition emerged as a reaction against the computational theory of mind. It has been employed as a framework to re-evaluate fundamental cognitive faculties such as memory and language and has introduced various concepts such as cognitive offloading, transactive memory and techno-social system. This research programme has been applied to translation, computer-assisted translation, technical communication and translation pedagogy within translation studies. It is assumed that distributed cognition has the potential for better comprehending and investigating interpreting, in particular, professional simultaneous interpreting in the conference venue. Distributed cognition has existed within the fields of philosophy of mind, cognitive science and cognitive psychology since the 1990s along with the extended mind and grounded-embodied cognition theses, which are under the same conceptual umbrella with distributed cognition. That said, simultaneous interpreting has yet to be systematically investigated through the lens of distributed cognition. Rather, the process of simultaneous interpreting has been modelled on the basis of the computational theory of mind and information-processing approach using flowcharts since the 1960s. The present study aims to fulfil the gap in the literature by re-evaluating simultaneous interpreting in the framework of distributed cognition and developing an apt approach. It is critical that future studies provide experimental data to test this approach and to compare it with previous models.},
  affiliation = {HACETTEPE {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Kumcu, Alper
TI  - Distributed Cognition in the Conference Venue: A Fresh Perspective on the Simultaneous Interpreting Process
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 37
IS  - 1
PY  - 2018
SP  - 170
EP  - 185
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
DO  - 10.32600/huefd.621553
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/konferans-salonunda-dagitik-bilis-andas-ceviri-surecine-yeni-bir-bakis
AB  - Distributed cognition is a cognitive approach that can be summarised as the distribution/extension of cognition onto the biological/nonbiological artefacts in the environment by leaking from the individual and isolated mind rather than cognitive tasks being executed in a mind limited to the skull of a single biological agent. Distributed cognition emerged as a reaction against the computational theory of mind. It has been employed as a framework to re-evaluate fundamental cognitive faculties such as memory and language and has introduced various concepts such as cognitive offloading, transactive memory and techno-social system. This research programme has been applied to translation, computer-assisted translation, technical communication and translation pedagogy within translation studies. It is assumed that distributed cognition has the potential for better comprehending and investigating interpreting, in particular, professional simultaneous interpreting in the conference venue. Distributed cognition has existed within the fields of philosophy of mind, cognitive science and cognitive psychology since the 1990s along with the extended mind and grounded-embodied cognition theses, which are under the same conceptual umbrella with distributed cognition. That said, simultaneous interpreting has yet to be systematically investigated through the lens of distributed cognition. Rather, the process of simultaneous interpreting has been modelled on the basis of the computational theory of mind and information-processing approach using flowcharts since the 1960s. The present study aims to fulfil the gap in the literature by re-evaluating simultaneous interpreting in the framework of distributed cognition and developing an apt approach. It is critical that future studies provide experimental data to test this approach and to compare it with previous models.
KW  - Dilbilim
LA  - tr
AD  - HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -