Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 22:2 (2020) ► pp.187–210

The eye or the ear?

Source language interference in sight translation and simultaneous interpreting

| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
| University of Silesia in Katowice
| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

In the current study we set out to investigate source language interference in the visual modality (in sight translation – ST) and in the auditory modality (in simultaneous interpreting – SI). We probed interpretations of cognates, interlingual homographs and passive structures in single sentence contexts as performed from English to Polish by 47 advanced interpreting trainees. We also analysed temporal measures: ear-voice span (in SI) or eye-voice span (in ST) as well as total translation time. The results showed a higher level of interference in ST in the case of homographs and a mixed pattern of results for the remaining measures. We also obtained interesting task-independent results, namely an 80% rate of global passive retention testifying to a high level of syntactic priming in both modes of interpreting. We discuss these results in the context of different types of interference occurring in interpreting and conclude that there might be a similar global level of interference in the two tasks, however with differing underlying patterns. This is the first study to date to directly compare interference levels between ST and SI in such controlled conditions. Our results contribute to the understanding of complex linguistic processes occurring across modalities in interpreting tasks.

Keywords: interference, simultaneous interpreting, sight translation, cognates, interlingual homographs
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Cross-language interference
    • 1.1Lexical interference – cognates and homographs
    • 1.2Structural interference
  • 2.Resource demand interference
  • 3.Comparing simultaneous interpreting and sight translation
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 6 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00043.chm
References
Broersma, M., Carter, D. & Acheson, D. J.
(2016) Cognate costs in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching. Frontiers in Psychology 71, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chéreau, C., Gaskell, M. G. & Dumay, N.
(2007) Reading spoken words: Orthographic effects in auditory priming. Cognition 102 (3), 341–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. & Kroll, J. F.
(2006) Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language 54 (3), 324–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I., Timmer, K., Ganushchak, L. & Heij, W. L.
(2015) On the production of interlingual homophones: Delayed naming and increased N400. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31 (5), 1–11.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M.
(2004) Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language 50 (4), 491–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A. & Sebastian-Galles, N.
(2000) The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 (5), 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Dailidėnaitė, A. & Volynec, J.
(2013) Source language interference with target language in conference interpreting. Vertimo studijos. Research Journal for Translation Studies 61, 34–49.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. J. B.
(1999) Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language 41 (4), 496–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. D.
(2007) The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (1–2), 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filippi, R., Karaminis, T. & Thomas, M. S. C.
(2014) Language switching in bilingual production: Empirical data and computational modelling. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (02), 294–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Z., Pickering, M. J. & McLean, J. F.
(2012) Shared information structure: Evidence from cross-linguistic priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15 (3), 568–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, A. M., Ibáñez, A., Huepe, D., Houck, A. L., Michon, M., Lezama, C. G., Chadha, S. & Rivera-Rei, Á.
(2014) Word reading and translation in bilinguals: The impact of formal and informal translation expertise. Frontiers in Psychology 51, 1–14.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. & Shlesinger, M.
(1997) The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting 2 (1–2), 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W.
(1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1 (02), 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S.
(2011) Between normalization and shining-through: Specific properties of English–German translations and their influence on the target language. In S. Kranich, V. Becher, S. Höder, & J. House (Eds.), Multilingual discourse production: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J. & Veltkamp, E.
(2004) Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15 (6), 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hejwowski, K.
(2004) Translation: A cognitive-communicative approach. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej.Google Scholar
Hoshino, N. & Kroll, J. F.
(2008) Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition 106 (1), 501–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jereščenková, A.
(2014) Interferenzen beim Vom-Blatt-Dolmetschen und beim Simultandolmetschen. MA thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A. & Kroff, J. R. V.
(2012) Juggling two languages in one mind. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 56). Oxford: Academic Press, 229–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N. & Dufour, R.
(2002) The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research 18 (2), 137–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamberger-Felber, H. & Schneider, J.
(2009) Linguistic interference in simultaneous interpreting with text: A case study. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, S.
(2004) Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta 49 (2), 294–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M.
(2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods 44 (2), 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lijewska, A. & Chmiel, A.
(2015) Cognate facilitation in sentence context – translation production by interpreting trainees and non-interpreting trilinguals. International Journal of Multilingualism 12 (3), 358–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J. & Hartsuiker, R. J.
(2017) Does translation involve structural priming? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (8), 1575–1589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, B.
(2009) When idioti (idiotic) becomes “fluffy”: Translation students and the avoidance of target-language cognates. Meta 54 (2), 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., Wodniecka, Z. & Brysbaert, M.
(2015) SUBTLEX-PL: subtitle-based word frequency estimates for Polish. Behavioral Research Methods 47 (2), 471–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meuter, R. F. I. & Allport, A.
(1999) Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language 40 (1), 25–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otwinowska, A.
(2016) Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, awareness, activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(1994) Simultaneous interpretation: ‘Cultural transfer’ or ‘voice-over text’? In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies ‒ an interdiscipline. Selected papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 1992. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 169–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Runnqvist, E., Strijkers, K., Alario, F.-X. & Costa, A.
(2012) Cumulative semantic interference is blind to language: Implications for models of bilingual speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 66 (4), 850–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A.
(2013) A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In D. E. Alvermann, N. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Sixth ed.). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association, 886–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A.
(2002) E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
Seeber, K. G.
(2011) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – new models. Interpreting 13 (2), 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 461–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Interpreting at the European Institutions: Faster, higher, stronger. CLINA: Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción, Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 3 (2), 73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. & Lederer, M.
(1989) Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Setton, R.
(2003) Words and sense: Revisiting lexical processes in interpreting. Forum 1 (1), 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
(2016) Conference interpreting – a trainer’s guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M.
(2008) Towards a definition of Interpretese: An intermodal, corpus-based study. In A. Chesterman, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast & G. Hansen (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237–253.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. & Malkiel, B.
(2005) Comparing modalities: Cognates as a case in point. Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2), 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, G. M., Lacruz, I. & Angelone, E.
(2010) Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 63–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spalek, K., Hoshino, N., Wu, Y. J., Damian, M. & Thierry, G.
(2014) Speaking two languages at once: Unconscious native word form access in second language production. Cognition 133 (1), 226–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobach, T. & Schubert, T.
(2017) Mechanisms of practice-related reductions of dual-task interference with simple tasks: Data and theory. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 13 (1), 28–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, E.
(2003) Cross-Linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindle, R. & Longstaf, M. G.
(2015) Writing, reading, and listening differentially overload working memory performance across the serial position curve. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 11 (4), 147–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D., Libben, M., Mercier, J., Whitford, V. & Pivneva, I.
(2011) Bilingual lexical access during L1 sentence reading: The effects of L2 knowledge, semantic constraint, and L1–L2 intermixing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 37 (6), 1412–1431.Google Scholar
Tymczyńska, M.
(2012) Trilingual lexical processing in online translation recognition. The influence of conference interpreting experience. In D. Gabryś-Barker (Ed.), Cross-linguistic influences in multilingual language acquisition. Berlin: Springer, 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Assche, E., Duyck, W. & Hartsuiker, R. J.
(2012) Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology 31, 1–8.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M.
(2014) SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67 (6), 1176–1190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, K., Roelofs, A. & Chwilla, D. J.
(2009) Role of inhibition in language switching: Evidence from event-related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition 110 (1), 84–99. DOI logoGoogle 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
Wang, B. & Zou, B.
(2018) Exploring language specificity as a variable in Chinese-English interpreting. A corpus-based investigation. In M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1953/1979) Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D.
(2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 3 (2), 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ho, Chen-En
2021. What does professional experiencehave to offer?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior DOI logo
Su, Wenchao & Defeng Li
2020. Exploring processing patterns of Chinese-English sight translation. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:6 ► pp. 999 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.