Análisis de resultados de Au/Al 2 O 3 < 5 nm

It follows from the discussions of the CCI process models and note-taking that simultaneity

and attention-sharing (2.2.2.1.2 Attention) between various mental tasks are not characteristic of SI only but are also present in CCI as the CCIr is simultaneously involved in listening to the SL discourse, analysing its segments, deciding what to note down and in what form and what to memorise (Seleskovitch 1975a: 120f, quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 124; Kohn and Kalina 1996: 128). Besides, divided attention does exist during production because the CCIr has to simultaneously deliver his/her rendition and monitor his/her output. However, splitting attention in the production phase is less demanding in CCI than SI since in the former there is no input from the speaker (Kohn and Kalina 1996: 129).

The above argument is supported by the results of an experimental study involving 14 professionals and 14 students by Andres (2002, quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 124f) who has found evidence of processing overload resulting from insufficient attentional resources particularly in the receptive phase even at a low SL input rate. Her time-coded video recordings have shown that note-taking especially by students has not been sufficiently automatic and has made extensive demands on attentional resources. Students have tended to lag behind in their note-taking by more than six seconds and have tried to catch up by leaving gaps in their notes, and these gaps have also been reflected in their TL renditions.

According to Darò (1997: 627), even though there might not be any direct phonological overlapping clearly felt in CCI between two distinct linguistic codes as in SI, simultaneous listening, analysis, decisions on what to note and store in memory and actual note-taking might interfere in the working of memory and thus reduce the CCIr’s recall abilities.

She also argues (ibid) that some form of phonological interference can be assumed to exist when writing under dictation (during note-taking) based on the assumption of the presence of an inner phonological rehearsal of the sounds heard before transcribing them into a written format. To support her view, Darò uses Baddeley’s (1990) working memory model. Baddeley has found a significant decrease in recall abilities in subjects who have been asked to read and memorise English words during articulatory suppression, that is, concurrent overt utterance of irrelevant syllables like ‘the, the, the’.

Darò (1997: 627), therefore, suggests that noting words as symbols might reduce phonological interference between oral and written material because symbolic representations of verbal utterances may not require an inner rehearsal or articulation of the phonological form of symbols while noting them and may thus allow the working memory to function with fewer constraints thereby facilitating LTM storage of verbal utterances.

However, it might be argued that note-taking in CCI is clearly not the same as writing a dictation since, as mentioned in 3.2.2 The strategy of note-taking, the CCIr does not transcribe the speech he/she hears, and his/her notes are or should be short and serve only as memory aids (see also Seleskovitch 1989: 76; 1999: 64; Seleskovitch and Lederer 1995: 28). Moreover, Darò’s suggestion of using symbols instead of words is a tentative one that is not based on any scientific evidence; therefore, further cognitive research in this area is needed to assess the validity of this suggestion.

Furthermore, Lambert (1989; 2.2.2.1.4.1 Working memory and interpreting) who has conducted an experimental study comparing recall abilities after listening, shadowing, SI and CCI, has arrived at completely contradictory conclusions to Darò’s suggestion of phonological interference when writing under dictation or note-taking. Listening has yielded the highest recognition scores, followed by CCI, SI and shadowing, respectively. The results of the experiment have provided a strong argument in favour of a significant role played by note-taking in enhancing memory and learning since note-taking itself provides the interpreter with a form of overt rehearsal of the speech and longer exposure to information provided by the visual reinforcement of notes. Thus, it has been argued that listening and note-taking in CCI do not interfere with one another and may even reinforce one another and that simultaneous listening and writing in CCI may not be as ‘disruptive’ as listening and speaking in SI and shadowing (ibid: 90; Ilg and Lambert 1996: 85). Taylor (cf. 1989c) has conducted different experiments but has arrived at a similar conclusion.

Besides, the interaction between LTM and note-taking in CCI is positively described as one of the ‘most salient aspects of the interpreting process’ (Pöchhacker 2004: 124) for, according to Kirchhoff (1976a: 118), unlike SI, in CCI data are basically stored in LTM. In a sense, the CCIr performs ‘semantic chunking’ (Pöchhacker 2004: 124) of the message and stores the larger amount of data in his/her LTM and a smaller amount in the form of

notes. The assumption of the positive interaction between LTM and note-taking in CCI is thus based on the belief that notes are taken first and foremost to aid the CCIr’s memory by serving as both ‘external storage devices’ for elements that are difficult to retrieve from memory such as names or numbers and ‘retrieval cues’ for stored/memorised conceptual structures of sense (Pöchhacker ibid, emphasis in original; see also Jones 1998: 44).

Pöchhacker argues that this mechanism of eliciting information from LTM has been studied by several researchers but the most up-to-date explanation for this cognitive mechanism has come from Ericsson and Kintsch (1995, quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 124) who have proposed a form of ‘long-term working memory’ or ‘retrieval structures’ that make available a LTM subset that is linked to a cue in the STM. For more information on the role of memory and recall in interpreting, see also 2.2.2.1.4 Memory.