Article published in:
Target
Vol. 31:3 (2019) ► pp. 378–397

Syntactic processing in sight translation by professional and trainee interpreters

Professionals are more time-efficient while trainees view the source text less

| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
The study examines how professional and trainee interpreters process syntax in sight translation. We asked 24 professionals and 15 trainees to sight translate sentences with subject-relative clauses and more difficult object-relative clauses while measuring translation accuracy, eye movements and translation durations. We found that trainees took longer to achieve similar translation accuracy as professionals and viewed the source text less than professionals to avoid interference, especially when reading more difficult object-relative sentences. Syntactic manipulation modulated translation and viewing times: participants took longer to translate object-relative sentences but viewed them less in order to avoid interference in target language reformulations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to show that reading measures in sight translation should be analysed together with translation times to explain complex reading patterns. It also proposes a new measure, percentage of dwell time, as an index of interference avoidance.
Keywords: sight translation, interpreter, interpreting trainee, eye-tracking, syntactic processing
Published online: 28 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18091.chm
References

References

Agrifoglio, Marjorie
2004 “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Glenda, Damian Birney, and Graeme S. Halford
2006 “Relational Processing and Working Memory Capacity in Comprehension of Relative Clause Sentences.” Memory & Cognition 34 (6): 1325–1340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily
2013 “Random Effects Structure for Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing: Keep It Maximal.” Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, and Harald Baayen
2015 “Parsimonious Mixed Models.” Arxiv Preprint. https://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/1506​.04967
Caplan, David, Sujith Vijayan, Gina Kuperberg, Caroline West, Gloria Waters, Doug Greve, and Anders M. Dale
2002 “Vascular Responses to Syntactic Processing: Event-Related fMRI Study of Relative Clauses.” Human Brain Mapping 15 (1): 26–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, David, and Gloria Waters
2013 “Memory Mechanisms Supporting Syntactic Comprehension.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20 (2): 243–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka
2018 “In Search of the Working Memory Advantage in Conference Interpreting – Training, Experience and Task Effects.” International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (3): 371–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, and Anna Cieślewicz
Forthcoming. “The Eye or the Ear? Source Language Interference in Sight Translation and Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting.
Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur
2013 “Eye Tracking Sight Translation Performed by Trainee Interpreters.” In Tracks and Treks in Translation Studies, edited by Catherine Way, Sonia Vandepitte, Reine Meylaerts, and Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk, 189–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Galaz, Stephanie, Presentacion Padilla, and María Teresa Bajo
2015 “The Role of Advance Preparation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Comparison of Professional Interpreters and Interpreting Students.” Interpreting 17 (1): 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge G. Hansen
2009 “Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation.” Meta 54 (3): 588–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Adolfo M., Augustin Ibanez, David Huepe, Alexander L. Houck, Maëva Michon, Carlos G. Lezama, Sumeer Chadha, and Alvaro Rivera-Rei
2014 “Word Reading and Translation in Bilinguals: The Impact of Formal and Informal Translation Expertise.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1302.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A., and Miriam Shlesinger
1997 “The Proposed Role of Suppression in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Interpreting 2 (1–2): 119–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward
2000 “The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity.” In Image, Language, Brain, edited by Yashusi Miyashita, Alec P. Marantz, and Wayne O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hejwowski, Krzysztof
2004 Kognitywno-Komunikacyjna Teoria Przekładu [Cognitive-communicative theory of translation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L., and Kristian Jensen
2008 “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” In Looking at Eyes – Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited by Susane Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jones, Roderick
2002 Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Jörg, Udo
1997 “Bridging the Gap: Verb Anticipation in German-English Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Translation as Intercultural Communication, edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová, and Klaus Kaindl, 217–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
King, Jonathan, and Marcel Adam Just
1991 “Individual Differences in Syntactic Processing: The Role of Working Memory.” Journal of Memory and Language 30 (5): 580–602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma
2012 “Introducing Lextale: A Quick and Valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (2): 325–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
2004 “Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liversedge, Simon P., Kevin B. Paterson, and Martin J. Pickering
1998 “Eye Movements and Measures of Reading Time.” In Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, edited by Geoffrey Underwood, 55–75. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macizo, Pedro, and Maria T. Bajo
2004 “When Translation Makes the Difference: Sentence Processing in Reading and Translation.” Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology 25 (1): 181–205.Google Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
2017 “Does Translation Involve Structural Priming?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (8): 1575–1589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R: A Language and Environment For Statistical Computing
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Reichle, Erik D., Simon P. Liversedge, Alexander Pollatsek, and Keith Rayner
2009 “Encoding Multiple Words Simultaneously in Reading Is Implausible.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (3): 115–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra
1996 “Language-Specific Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, edited by Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “Interpreting Strategies and Creativity.” In Translators’ Strategies and Creativity, edited by Ann Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová, and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 171–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, Carmen, Natalia Paredes, Pedro Macizo, and Maria Teresa Bajo
2008 “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica 128 (3): 490–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G.
2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories ‒ New Models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 228–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Manuela Motta
2007 “Syntacrobatics: Quality and Reformulation in Simultaneous-with-Text.” Interpreting 9 (2): 199–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
2010 “Cognitive Effort, Syntactic Disruption, and Visual Interference in a Sight Translation Task.” In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
SR Research Experiment Builder 1.10.165 [Computer Software]
(2011) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.Google Scholar
Sunnari, Marianna
1996 “Comparison of Expert and Novice Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Proceedings of the XIV World Congress of FIT, 993–1000. Melbourne.Google Scholar
Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Čeňková, and Reine Meylaerts
2015 “Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Capacity.” In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 101–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Viezzi, Maurizio
1989 “Information Retention as a Parameter for the Comparison of Sight Translation and Simultaneous Interpretation: An Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2: 65–69.Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa, and Edward Gibson
2002 “The Influence of Referential Processing on Sentence Complexity.” Cognition 85: 79–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Fang, Jing & Xiaomin Zhang
2021.  In Diverse Voices in Chinese Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 157 ff. Crossref logo
Ho, Chen-En
2021. What does professional experiencehave to offer?. Translation, Cognition & Behavior Crossref logo
Ma, Xingcheng & Dechao Li
2021. A cognitive investigation of ‘chunking’ and ‘reordering’ for coping with word-order asymmetry in English-to-Chinese sight translation. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting Crossref logo
Ma, Xingcheng, Dechao Li & Yu-Yin Hsu
2021. Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:1 ► pp. 103 ff. Crossref logo
Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller & Alexis Hervais-Adelman
2020. When the ear leads the eye – the use of text during simultaneous interpretation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35:10 ► pp. 1480 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wenchao
2020.  In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wenchao
2020.  In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 9 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wenchao
2020.  In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wenchao
2020.  In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 127 ff. Crossref logo
Su, Wenchao & Defeng Li
2021. Exploring the effect of interpreting training: Eye-tracking English-Chinese sight interpreting. Lingua ► pp. 103094 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.