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.
2018 “In Search of the Working Memory Advantage in Conference Interpreting – Training, Experience and Task Effects.” International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (3): 371–384.
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.
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.
2004Kognitywno-Komunikacyjna Teoria Przekładu [Cognitive-communicative theory of translation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
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.
Jones, Roderick
2002Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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.
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.
Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
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.
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.
SR Research Experiment Builder 1.10.165 [Computer Software]
(2011) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
Sunnari, Marianna
1996 “Comparison of Expert and Novice Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Proceedings of the XIV World Congress of FIT, 993–1000. Melbourne.
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.
Viezzi, Maurizio
1989 “Information Retention as a Parameter for the Comparison of Sight Translation and Simultaneous Interpretation: An Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21: 65–69.
Warren, Tessa, and Edward Gibson
2002 “The Influence of Referential Processing on Sentence Complexity.” Cognition 851: 79–112.
Cited by
Cited by 13 other publications
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020. Translation/Interpreting Process Research. In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 85 ff.
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.
Fang, Jing, Xiaomin Zhang & Haidee Kotze
2022. The effects of training on reading behaviour and performance in sight translation: a longitudinal study using eye-tracking. Perspectives► pp. 1 ff.
2021. Coping with syntactic complexity in English–Chinese sight translation by translation and interpreting students.. Across Languages and Cultures 22:2 ► pp. 192 ff.
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.
Su, Wenchao
2020. Translation Style in Sight Translation. In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 19 ff.
Su, Wenchao
2020. Gaze Behaviors, Interpreting Styles, and Language Specificity. In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 127 ff.
Su, Wenchao
2020. Issues and Approaches to CTIS. In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 9 ff.
Su, Wenchao
2020. Introduction. In Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
Su, Wenchao & Defeng Li
2021. Exploring the effect of interpreting training: Eye-tracking English-Chinese sight interpreting. Lingua 256 ► pp. 103094 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 february 2022. 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.