Syntactic processing in sight translation by professional and trainee interpreters: Professionals are more time-efficient while trainees view the source text less
Agnieszka Chmiel and Agnieszka Lijewska
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.
When performing sight translation interpreters have to obtain input by reading a text in the visual modality in order to express its meaning orally. Unlike simultaneous interpreting, which is speaker-paced, sight translation is interpreter-paced (Agrifoglio 2004). However, the goal is the same – the target text should reach the target audience with no delay. Just as in simultaneous interpreting, when faced with a written text interpreters have to complete the necessary syntactic reformulation in order to provide a natural-sounding target text. However, unlike in simultaneous interpreting, in sight translation the source text is always available in front of the interpreter’s eyes. The presence of the source text is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it reduces the memory load because all the information is available; however, on the other hand, it might lead to interference because of the constant visual access to the verbal form of the source text. It may also entail another disadvantage, namely divided attention. The transient nature of the source text in simultaneous interpreting naturally forces attention away from the source text. In sight translation, attention is divided between the ever-present source text and the emerging target text. It seems that experience should make interpreters more immune to interference and should lead to more restructuring, resulting in a more natural target text. Thanks to the widespread use of modern process research methods such as eye-tracking, we can now tap into the reading and processing of text in sight translation by tracking the eye movements of the interpreters. In the present study, we asked professional and trainee interpreters to perform sight translation. The participants’ eye movements and sight translation performance were recorded to examine how the participants cope with syntactic processing while completing the task. We operationalised syntactic processing through sentences including subject-relative and object-relative clauses. We expected to find an effect of experience, that is, professional interpreters being more efficient and successful in syntactic processing than trainee interpreters, and an effect of syntactic complexity, with more complex syntactic structures entailing longer viewing times and longer translation durations than less complex structures. The novel contribution of this study is the application of a combination of common eye-tracking measures and translation durations to explain the participants’ reading patterns in sight translation. We also propose a new eye-tracking measure, percentage of dwell time, which could help to interpret data patterns recorded when eye-tracking the process of sight translation.
2004 “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting 6 (1): 43–67.
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.
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.
Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, and Harald Baayen
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.
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.
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.
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge G. Hansen
2009 “Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation.” Meta 54 (3): 588–604.
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.
Gernsbacher, Morton A., and Miriam Shlesinger
1997 “The Proposed Role of Suppression in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Interpreting 2 (1–2): 119–140.
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.
2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
2002Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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.
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.
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.
Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
2004 “Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting 6 (1): 19–42.
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
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.
1996 “Language-Specific Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, edited by Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Seeber, Kilian G.
2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories ‒ New Models.” Interpreting 13 (2): 176–204.
Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (2): 228–242.
Setton, Robin, and Manuela Motta
2007 “Syntacrobatics: Quality and Reformulation in Simultaneous-with-Text.” Interpreting 9 (2): 199–230.
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.
SR Research Experiment Builder 1.10.165 [Computer Software]
(2011) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
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.
1989 “Information Retention as a Parameter for the Comparison of Sight Translation and Simultaneous Interpretation: An Experimental Study.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 2: 65–69.
Warren, Tessa, and Edward Gibson
2002 “The Influence of Referential Processing on Sentence Complexity.” Cognition 85: 79–112.