1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interpreting
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 may cause decoding difficulties and cognitive overload in the cognitive , which in turn lead to inaccuracy and dysfluency in ST . 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
2019-11-11
2023-11-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agrifoglio, M.
    (2004) Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting6 (1), 43–67. 10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 Trainer9 (1), 104–120. 10.1080/1750399X.2015.1016279
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1016279 [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell, S.
    (1999) A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation. Target11 (1), 33–63. 10.1075/target.11.1.03cam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.03cam [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, C.
    (2015) Sight translation. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, 144–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper, T. C.
    (1976) Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research69, 176–183. 10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crossley, S. A. , Greenfield, J. & McNamara, D. S.
    (2008) Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly42 (3), 475–493. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00142.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x [Google Scholar]
  7. 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 Reading10, 257–275. 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_4 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. (2009) Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids: The case of sight translation. Meta54 (3), 588–604. 10.7202/038317ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/038317ar [Google Scholar]
  10. Engber, C. A.
    (1995) The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing4 (2), 139–155. 10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90004‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ersozlu, E.
    (2005) Training of interpreters: Some suggestions on sight translation teaching. Translation Journal9 (4). www.translationjournal.net/journal/34sighttrans.htm (accessed17 May 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Flesch, R.
    (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology32, 221–233. 10.1037/h0057532
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gillies, A.
    (2013) Conference interpreting: A student’s practice book. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203114926
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203114926 [Google Scholar]
  16. González, R. D. , Vásquez, V. F. & Mikkelson, H.
    (2012) Fundamentals of court interpretation. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 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 Computers36, 193–202. 10.3758/BF03195564
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hunt, K. W.
    (1970) Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first?TESOL Quarterly4, 195–202. 10.2307/3585720
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3585720 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jeon, E. H. & Yamashita, J.
    (2014) L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A Meta–analysis. Language Learning64 (1), 160–212. 10.1111/lang.12034
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jiménez Ivars, A.
    (2008) Sight translation and written translation. A comparative analysis of causes of problems, strategies and translation errors within the PACTE translation competence model. Forum6 (2), 79–103. 10.1075/forum.6.2.05iva
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.05iva [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambert, S.
    (2004) Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Meta49 (2), 294–306. 10.7202/009352ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/009352ar [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, J.
    (2012) What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training?Meta57 (3), 694–714. 10.7202/1017087ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1017087ar [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, G. , Rayson, P. & Wilson, A.
    (2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Liu, M. , & Chiu, Y. H.
    (2009) Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting11 (2), 244–266. 10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 processes35 (3), 199–239. 10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lu, X.
    (2011) A corpus–based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college–level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly45 (1), 36–62. 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal96 (2), 190–208. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232_1.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x [Google Scholar]
  29. McNamara, D. S. , Louwerse, M. M. , McCarthy, P. M. & Graesser, A. C.
    (2010) Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes47 (4), 292–330. 10.1080/01638530902959943
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. 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. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664 [Google Scholar]
  32. Meehl, P. E.
    (1990) Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports66 (Monograph Suppl. 1–V66), 195–244. 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
     https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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. 10.1075/btl.3.07mos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.07mos [Google Scholar]
  34. Nicodemus, B. & Emmorey, K.
    (2013) Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition16 (3), 624–636. 10.1017/S1366728912000521
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000521 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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 Methods40 (4), 1001–1015. 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1001
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A.
    (1994) The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Révész, A. & Brunfaut, T.
    (2013) Text characteristics of task input and difficulty in second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35 (1), 31–65. 10.1017/S0272263112000678
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000678 [Google Scholar]
  39. Richards, J. C. , Platt, J. & Platt, H.
    (1992) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics22, 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  41. (Ed.) (2011) Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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 writing25 (2), 465–482. 10.1007/s11145‑010‑9279‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9279-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. 10.1075/ata.xv.05shr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.05shr [Google Scholar]
  45. (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. 10.1075/btl.94.09shr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.09shr [Google Scholar]
  46. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. M.
    (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sun, S. & Shreve, G. M.
    (2014) Measuring translation difficulty: An empirical study. Target26 (1), 98–127. 10.1075/target.26.1.04sun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.1.04sun [Google Scholar]
  48. Viaggio, S.
    (1995) The praise of sight translation (and squeezing the last drop there out of). The Interpreters’ Newsletter6, 33–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Viezzi, M.
    (1989) Information retention as a parameter for the comparison of sight translation and simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter2, 65–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (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]
  51. 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]
  52. Wu, Z.
    (2016) Towards understanding interpreter trainees’ (de)motivation: An exploratory study. Translation & Interpreting8 (2), 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 Translation34 (4), 57–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Yu, G.
    (2009) The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing14 (2), 116–137. 10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
Loading
Text characteristics, perceived difficulty and task performance in sight translation
Interpreting 21, 196 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00027.wu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): perceived difficulty; sight translation; task performance; text characteristics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error