Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 21:2 (2019) ► pp.196–219

Text characteristics, perceived difficulty and task performance in sight translation

An exploratory study of university-level students

| Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This paper reports on an exploratory study examining the relationship between text characteristics, perceived difficulty and task performance in sight translation (ST). Twenty-nine undergraduate interpreters were asked to sight-translate six texts with different properties. Correlation analysis shows that Sophisticated Word Type and Mean Length of a T-unit are, respectively, the lexical and the syntactic variables having the highest correlations with all the three dependent variables (i.e. perceived difficulty, accuracy and fluency in ST performance). Surprisingly, the discoursal variables are weakly or modestly correlated with the dependent variables. Thematic analysis of the students’ reflective essays points to two hypothesized causal links among the three Ps in ST: task properties may cause decoding difficulties and cognitive overload in the cognitive process, which in turn lead to inaccuracy and dysfluency in ST performance. The research findings lend empirical support to the “shallow-scan hypothesis” in previous research. Finally, this study proposes a three-tier conceptual framework to inform and guide future research to operationalize variables in ST empirical studies. The pedagogical implications of ST are also discussed.
Keywords: text characteristics, perceived difficulty, task performance, sight translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Text characteristics, readability and task complexity
    • 2.1Text characteristics and readability
    • 2.2Text characteristics and task complexity in language tasks
    • 2.3Text characteristics and ST task complexity
  • 3.Research design
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Directionality
    • 3.4Source texts
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Variables and analytical procedure
      • Lexical variables
      • Syntactic variables
      • Discoursal variables
      • Benchmark variable
      • Perceived difficulty
      • Task performance
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative analysis
    • 4.2Qualitative analysis
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Relationship between text properties, cognitive process and ST performance
    • 5.2Discoursal variables
    • 5.3Flesch score
    • 5.4Pedagogical implications
      • 5.4.1Difficulty manipulation
      • 5.4.2Limitations of ST in interpreter training
    • 5.5Research implications
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 11 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
References (54)
References
Cai, R., Dong, Y., Zhao, N. & Lin, J. (2015). Factors contributing to individual differences in the development of consecutive interpreting competence for beginner student interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (1), 104–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, S. (1999). A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation. Target 11 (1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. (2015). Sight translation. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 144–153.Google Scholar
Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research 691, 176–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J. & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly 42 (3), 475–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deane, P., Sheehan, K. M., Sabatini, J., Futagi, Y. & Kostin, I. (2006). Differences in text structure and its implications for assessment of struggling readers. Scientific Studies of Reading 101, 257–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. (2007). Speaking your translation: Exploiting synergies between translation and interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker, A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 251–274.Google Scholar
(2009). Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids: The case of sight translation. Meta 54 (3), 588–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (2), 139–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ersozlu, E. (2005). Training of interpreters: Some suggestions on sight translation teaching. Translation Journal 9 (4). [URL] (accessed 17 May 2019).
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 321, 221–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. Danks, G. Shreve, S. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 196–214.Google Scholar
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillies, A. (2013). Conference interpreting: A student’s practice book. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, R. D., Vásquez, V. F. & Mikkelson, H. (2012). Fundamentals of court interpretation. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M. & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 361, 193–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first? TESOL Quarterly 41, 195–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E. H. & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A Meta–analysis. Language Learning 64 (1), 160–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S. (2004). Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta 49 (2), 294–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2012). What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training? Meta 57 (3), 694–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Liu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of Taiwan’s interpretation certification examination. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 163–178.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse processes 35 (3), 199–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus–based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college–level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45 (1), 36–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal 96 (2), 190–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M. & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes 47 (4), 292–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C. & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we access reading ability. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 89–116.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M. & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports 661 (Monograph Suppl. 1–V66), 195–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B. (1994). Aptitude testing for conference interpreting: Why, when and how. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 57–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicodemus, B. & Emmorey, K. (2013). Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (3), 624–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O’Reilly, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Where’s the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods 40 (4), 1001–1015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (1994). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Révész, A. & Brunfaut, T. (2013). Text characteristics of task input and difficulty in second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35 (1), 31–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 221, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydland, V., Aukrust, V. G. & Fulland, H. (2012). How word decoding, vocabulary and prior topic knowledge predict reading comprehension. A study of language-minority students in Norwegian fifth grade classrooms. Reading and writing 25 (2), 465–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, G., Lacruz, I. & Angelone, E. (2010). Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interface in a sight translation task. In E. Angelone & G. Shreve. (Eds.),. Translation and cognition: Recent developments. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 63–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation processes. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius. (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sun, S. & Shreve, G. M. (2014). Measuring translation difficulty: An empirical study. Target 26 (1), 98–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viaggio, S. (1995). The praise of sight translation (and squeezing the last drop there out of). The Interpreters’ Newsletter 61, 33–42.Google Scholar
Viezzi, M. (1989). Information retention as a parameter for the comparison of sight translation and simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21, 65–69.Google Scholar
(1990). Sight translation, simultaneous interpretation and information retention. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto, 54–60.Google Scholar
Wallace, M. (2013). Rethinking bifurcated testing models in the court interpreter certification process. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 67–83.Google Scholar
Wu, Z. (2016). Towards understanding interpreter trainees’ (de)motivation: An exploratory study. Translation & Interpreting 8 (2), 13–25.Google Scholar
Yeh, S. & Liu, M. (2006). A more objective approach to interpretation evaluation: Exploring the use of scoring rubrics. Journal of the National Institute for Compilation and Translation 34 (4), 57–78.Google Scholar
Yu, G. (2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing 14 (2), 116–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Araghi, Sahar & Alfons Palangkaraya
2024. The link between translation difficulty and the quality of machine translation: a literature review and empirical investigation. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei, Yue Jiang & Xiaopeng Zhang
2024. Assessing effects of source text complexity on L2 learners’ interpreting performance: a dependency-based approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Han, Chao
2022. Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Language Testing 39:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Xiangyan, Xiangling Wang & Xiaodong Liu
2022. The impact of task complexity and translating self-efficacy belief on students’ translation performance: Evidence from process and product data. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Fang, Jing & Xiaomin Zhang
2021. Pause in Sight Translation: A Longitudinal Study Focusing on Training Effect. In Diverse Voices in Chinese Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine
2021. Does it help to see the speaker’s lip movements?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei & Yue Jiang
2020. Effect of dependency distance of source text on disfluencies in interpreting. Lingua 243 ► pp. 102873 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.