University of Western Australia: PSYC1102 Language Capacity Lab Report

This lab report examines language capacity through a study conducted on psychology students at the University of Western Australia (UWA). The research involved 709 participants who underwent language ability assessments focusing on lexical, syntactic, supralinguistic, and pragmatic categories. The report details the methodology, including participant demographics, materials used, and the procedure followed. The results section presents descriptive and inferential statistics, revealing positive correlations between producer language ability, communication effectiveness, receiver language ability, and interpretation accuracy. The discussion interprets these findings in the context of language mediation, particularly within medical settings, highlighting the importance of skilled interpreters. The report concludes by emphasizing the complexities of interpretation and the need for specialized training in the field.

Running Head: LANGUAGE CAPACITY – LAB REPORT
Language Capacity – Lab Report
[Name]
[University’s Affiliation]
[Date]

Language Capacity – Lab Report 1
Abstract
Language is the key component of human being as it helps the individuals to communicate freely
among people following the characteristics such as arbitrary, productive, systematic, non-
instinctive, and conventional. For the considered lab report, the data has been collected from the
students of psychology department from UWA in form of language capability test in setting a
focus. Results were determined using descriptive statistics and variable statistics were followed
with strong positive correlation among undertaken variables.

Language Capacity – Lab Report 2
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
2. Methods....................................................................................................................................5
3.1. Participants..........................................................................................................................5
3.2. Material.................................................................................................................................5
3.3. Procedure..............................................................................................................................5
3. Results......................................................................................................................................6
4. Discussion................................................................................................................................7
5. References..............................................................................................................................11

Language Capacity – Lab Report 3
1. Introduction
Indeed, one of the main pitfalls facing foreign individuals when they go to a care service
is certainly that of language. How to communicate with the doctor if one does not understand the
language of the country or if one cannot say about the individual’s issues? The shift in cultural
and social environment often need a solution for people to communicate their issues with people
in their native or understandable language (Crilly, Hansen, & Zollo, 2016). The improvised
interpretation by the individual's entourage, the recourse to a particular member of the staff,
caregiver or not, known for their language skills, the use of multilingual conversation guides -
can certainly help to obtain and pass on information that can be used for early management in
emergency situations (Everaert, Huybregts, Chomsky, Berwick, & Bolhuis, 2015). Their
effectiveness, however, remains uncertain: it does not replace the competence and interpretation
performed by non-professionals does not always allow to establish a real dialogue with the
individual, essential aspect of an optimal therapeutic approach. Worse, it can be a source of
misunderstanding with serious consequences (Mordatch & Abbeel, 2018).
These and other shortcomings soon convinced policy makers, administrators, and
professionals of the merits of a less-contingent mediation service provided by individuals trained
through tailor-made programs. One may wonder, for example, whether to immediately link the
idea of an interpreter in a medical setting to that of immigration, exile, or refugee is not a vision.
too restrictive of reality (Hauch, Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015). Indeed, this postulate
seems reductive in view of the many situations of incommunicability affecting allophone non-
migrant individuals (think of tourists) where, without denying the importance of intercultural, it
does not matter whether the interpreter is native or non-native. Moreover, it seems to implicitly

Language Capacity – Lab Report 4
ratify an artificial distinction between mediator and interpreter, according to which the former
would have both linguistic and cultural skills, while the latter would simply translate speeches
regardless of cultural implications (Goodman & Frank, 2016).
One of the consequences of this bias is the lack of importance that these programs attach
to the teaching / learning of the "technique" of dialogue interpretation. However, it is clear with
evidential based studies devoted to this subject that the correct practice of this form of
interpretation can raise the level of care provided to allophone individuals. Let us add that this
gap does not favour the determination of precise quality standards or the professional recognition
of an activity that is still largely underestimated and underpaid (Wei, 2017). From the entrance of
the university reform, many faculties and higher education institutions in the Disciplinary field of
the Language Mediation Sciences are engaged in the organization of "linguistic mediation"
courses - a hypernym with fluctuating contours - by adopting diverse formative paths. By their
vocation and purpose, the main institutions for the training of interpreters and translators will
play a key role in this new didactic offer (Hauch, Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015).
Since consecutive and simultaneous interpreting is reserved for the specialization course,
it is at the undergraduate level that the three-year courses in linguistic mediation and liaison
interpretation are grouped together. Two years ago, it was within the framework of liaison
interpretation courses that the teaching of interpretation in the medical field, for the linguistic
combination among others, was justified by the place that French, mother tongue or vehicular,
occupies in this field (Grey, Cox, Serafini, & Sanz, 2015). The extension of the scope of the
liaison interpretation to sectors other than business and commerce - the medical field is defined
as a "priority" by the most recent international conferences devoted to social interpretation
requires to a consequent didactic update. In other words, it is necessary to provide new bases of

Language Capacity – Lab Report 5
reflection from which it would be possible to build appropriate methodologies to address issues
that transcend the pedagogy of conference interpreting and significantly shift that of liaison
interpretation. applied to other professional contexts (Goodman & Frank, 2016).
2. Methods
3.1. Participants
For the considered research, PSYC1102 students from UWA has been taken for research
and data collection. Students participated as a part of course requirement (n= 709), the age
(years) of participants: Mean = 20.90, Standard Deviation = 06.05 with a range of 37. The
gender classification within the data include Female = 488 and male = 215, others were 6.
3.2. Material
Data was collected following language ability assessment to support comprehensive
assessment of spoken language (2nd edition), in addition, 4 tests were taken into consideration
(collecting 128 items in total). The tests were Lexical/Sematic category: Synonyms subscale (35
items), Syntactic category: Grammatical Morphemes subscale (32 items), Supralinguistic
category: Nonliteral Language subscale (29 items), and Pragmatic category: Pragmatic Language
subscale (32 items). The response is followed with items on subscale to combine and create
overall language ability scoring within the range of 0- 128.
3.3. Procedure
Participants were given the same language assessment to randomly assign to receiver or
produce task as seen in the short demo below,

Language Capacity – Lab Report 6
3. Results
The results were carried out using descriptive statistics, variables were calculated to
determine the people arrived within statistical range, and inferential statistics were taken to look
at the relationship of people in the data collection and analysis. For descriptive statistics, the
measurement of central tendency, and measurement of scores fell has been taken as the Mean.
With the measurement of dispersion, the scores were close to mean based on standard deviation.
Descriptive Statistics
Statistics under descriptive statistics are as followed,
The means of the considered figures include 96.88 as the mean of producer language
ability, SD was calculated as 10.06, the receiver language ability’s means was determined as

Language Capacity – Lab Report 7
96.06, standard deviation as 10.35, the producer’s communication effective’s mean as 0.52 and
SD as 0.12. The last factor was followed as Receiver’s interpretation accuracy’s mean as 0.51,
and SD as 0.14.
Variable Calculation
The variables include Language ability scores as Accurate responses to items on each of
the CASL 2 subscales were added together to create an overall language ability score for each
participant, range 0-128. Considering the creator announcement efficacy is premeditated as the
proportion of accurate shape assortments Receivers made when they were presented with that
Producer’s shape accounts, out of 54 trials. The accuracy of receiver interpretation was measured
as the ratio of refined shape selections out of 54 trails.
4. Discussion
Hypothesis 1

Language Capacity – Lab Report 8
The scatter diagram clearly shows positive strong correlation between producer language
ability and communication effectiveness as extracted from the language assessment test carried
out from the students of UWA.
Hypothesis 2

Language Capacity – Lab Report 9
The scatter diagram clearly shows positive strong correlation between receiver language
ability and interpretation accuracy as extracted from the language assessment test carried out
from the students of UWA.
In order to determine the skills to be transmitted and how to transmit them, it is primarily
necessary to specify what hospital interpretation is in practice and what distinguishes it from the
liaison interpretation carried out in other contexts. Like the business liaison interpreter, the
medical interpreter translates back and forth for two or two small groups of people who do not
share the same language. It therefore represents the axis around which a dialogical face-to-face
communication develops (Everaert, Huybregts, Chomsky, Berwick, & Bolhuis, 2015). The
speeches he transposes are usually brief and he can interrupt the conversation not only to ask for
clarifications or explain a concept but also to reorient it in the event of misunderstandings. In
doing so, and respecting each person's role, he directly influences interaction as a coordinator of

Language Capacity – Lab Report 10
exchanges and a negotiator of meaning, which he helps to co-construct (Mordatch & Abbeel,
2018).
Beyond these common points, interpretation in a medical environment has distinctive
features that determine its complexity. Several factors strongly influence the interpreter's work in
this area. First of all, the degree of its responsibility here is major: the health and dignity of the
person are at stake. In addition, there is the specificity of the interaction environment, which is
perceived and experienced differently by the main actors. Stakeholders Concerned: Familiar to
the practitioner, the hospital environment is usually unusual and potentially anxious for the
patient, especially if it is a stranger (Crilly, Hansen, & Zollo, 2016). Above all, the diversity of
the status of the interlocutors, who do not participate in the interaction on an equal footing: on
the one hand, the expert, who holds the power, the knowledge and the know-how; on the other,
the layman, weakened on a psychological and physical level, diminished because of his difficulty
or inability to communicate directly with the doctor. This dissymmetry is accentuated by
differences in age, sex or the use of a lingua franca instead of the mother tongue (Hauch,
Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015).

Language Capacity – Lab Report 11
5. References
Crilly, D., Hansen, M., & Zollo, M. (2016). The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic
perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of
Management Journal,, 705-729.
Everaert, M., Huybregts, M., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R., & Bolhuis, J. (2015). Structures, not
strings: linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in cognitive sciences, 729-
743.
Goodman, N., & Frank, M. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 818-829.
Grey, S., Cox, J., Serafini, E., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study
abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short‐term
intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 137-140.
Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. (2015). Are computers effective lie
detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social
Psychology Review,, 307-342.
Mordatch, I., & Abbeel, P. (2018). Emergence of grounded compositional language in multi-
agent populations. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Wei, L. (2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied linguistics, 9-30.