Published February 4, 2023 | Version v1
Journal article Open

A MODEL OF PREDICTION STRATEGY IN MONOLINGUAL COMPREHENSION

  • 1. Uzbekistan State World Languages University 2nd year Master's student of the Department of Interpretation

Description

It is well accepted that individuals utilise prediction to their advantage when trying to understand complicated and challenging language. Due to the requirement that interpreters pay attention to and generate statements in two distinct languages simultaneously, simultaneous interpreting is extremely challenging. Therefore, it is not unexpected that most explanations assume simultaneous interpreters employ prediction during understanding. There is, however, no widely recognised explanation of how interpreters forecast, despite efforts to ascertain when, what, and on what basis they make these predictions.

Files

210-213.pdf

Files (197.0 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9528ff8aa80ff173989ff3d12202a051
197.0 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

Is cited by
Journal article: 10.5281/zenodo.7605178 (DOI)

References

  • 1. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 2. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A Rose by Any Other Name: Long-Term Memory Structure and Sentence Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469- 495. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2660 3. Grisoni, L., McCormick Miller, T., & Pulvermüller, F. (2017). Neural correlates of semantic prediction and resolution in sentence processing. The Journal of Neuroscience. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2800-16.2017 4. Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002-1044. doi:10.1037/bul0000158 5. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1985). The influence of sentence constraint on the scope of facilitation for upcoming words. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(2), 232-252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90026-9