Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Word-order asymmetry between source language and target language has been recognized as a major obstacle in interpreting. Regarding whether the original word order is changed in target production, two strategies for asymmetrical structures are identified: chunking and reordering. This study primarily examined the cognitive mechanism involved in applying these two strategies during English to Chinese sight translation. The cognitive load associated with chunking and reordering was measured by eye movement and the resulting data were analysed. A group of interpreting trainees sight-translated asymmetrical sentences in two contexts: sentence and text. Their eye-movement measures, including total dwell time, fixation count and rereading rate, were recorded. The results demonstrate that chunking was the primary strategy used to render word-order asymmetry in both task conditions. A greater cognitive load was found in the reordered sentences. More contextual information did not contribute to an execution of the strategies that required less effort. This research is one of the first attempts to explore the cognitive process associated with interpreting strategies for word-order asymmetry. It provides a new perspective with which to deepen our understanding of the cognitive mechanism underlying the use of a strategy.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agrifoglio, M.
    (2004) Sight translation and interpretation: A comparative analysis of constraints and failure. Interpretation6 (1), 43–67. doi:  10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, I. K.
    (2005) Pedagogical considerations of perspective coherence problems in simultaneous interpreting as a result of linguistic structure, illustrated by German–Korean examples. Meta50 (2), 696–712. doi:  10.7202/011012ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011012ar [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrens, B.
    (2017) Interpretation and cognition. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 445–460. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartłomiejczyk, M.
    (2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting8 (2), 149–174. 10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D. , Martin, M. , Bolker, B. & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 . Journal of Statistical Software67 (1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chappell, H. & Shi, D. X.
    (2016) Major non-canonical clause types: Ba and bei. In C. R. Huang & D. X. Shu (Eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 451–467. 10.1017/CBO9781139028462.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028462.016 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, S. J.
    (2017) The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives25 (4), 640–657. 10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chmiel, A. & Lijewska, A.
    (2019) Syntactic processing in sight translation by professional and trainee interpreters: Professionals are more time-efficient while trainees view the source text less. Target31 (3), 378–397. 10.1075/target.18091.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18091.chm [Google Scholar]
  9. Christoffels, I. K. , De Groot, A. M. & Kroll, J. F.
    (2006) Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language54 (3), 324–345. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clifton, C. , Staub, A. & Rayner, K.
    (2007) Eye movements in reading words and sentences. Eye Movements341–371. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cobb, T.
    (2002) ‘Web vocabprofile (v. 3 classic)’. www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/ (accessed30 September 2019).
  12. Cowles, H.
    (2003) Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production. PhD dissertation, University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Davidson, P. M.
    (1992) Segmentation of Japanese source language discourse in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter (Special Issue 1), 2–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dawrant, A. C.
    (1996) Word order in Chinese–English simultaneous interpretation: An initial exploration. MA thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Donato, V.
    (2003) Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12, 101–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I.
    (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]
  17. Dussias, P. E.
    (2010) Uses of eye-tracking data in second language sentence processing research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics30, 149–166. 10.1017/S026719051000005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051000005X [Google Scholar]
  18. Ehrlich, S. F. & Rayner, K.
    (1981) Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20, 641–655. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90220‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischler, I. S. & P. A. Bloom
    (1985) Effects of constraint and validity of sentence contexts on lexical decisions. Memory & Cognition13 (2), 128–139. 10.3758/BF03197005
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garzone, G.
    (2002) Quality and norms in interpretation. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 107–119. 10.1075/btl.43.11gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.11gar [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerver, D.
    (1976) Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In Richard W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation. New York, NY: Gardner Press, 165–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gile, D.
    (1995) Regards sur la recherche en interprétation de conférence. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gile, D.
    (1999) Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – a contribution. Hermes23, 153–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gile, D.
    (2002) Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge, 162–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2005) Teaching conference interpreting: A contribution. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 127–152. 10.1075/btl.60.12gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.12gil [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011a) Basic concepts and models of interpreter & translator training. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011b) Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study. In C. Alvstad , A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–218. 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
  28. Guo, L.
    (2011) An analysis of the word order pattern in the SI target language and its underlying reasons in the language combination of English and Chinese. PhD dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hvelplund, K. T.
    (2014) Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación (Special issue), 201–223. 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.6
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.6 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) Eye-tracking in translation process research. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreir (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 248–264. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ilg, G.
    (1978) De l’allemand vers le français: L’apprentissage de l’interprétation simultanée. Parallèles1, 69–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ivir, V.
    (1997) Formal/contrastive correspondence and translation equivalence. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia42, 167–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones, R.
    (2014) Conference interpreting explained. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760322
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kader, S. & Seubert, S.
    (2014) Anticipation, segmentation … stalling? How to teach interpreting strategies. In D. Andres & M. Behr (Eds.), To know how to suggest: Approaches to teaching conference interpreting. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 125–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuznetsova, A. , Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82 (13), 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, J.
    (2012) What skills do students interpreters need to learn in sight translation?Meta57 (3), 695–714. 10.7202/1017087ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1017087ar [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, X. D.
    (2015) Putting interpreting strategies in their place: Justifications for teaching strategies in interpreter training. Babel61 (2), 170–192. 10.1075/babel.61.2.02li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.2.02li [Google Scholar]
  38. Ma, X. C.
    (2019) Effect of word order asymmetry on cognitive process of English–Chinese sight translation: Evidence from eye-tracking. PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Meuleman, C. & Van Besien, F.
    (2009) Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting11 (1), 20‒34. 10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu [Google Scholar]
  40. Miller, G. A.
    (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review63 (2), 81–97. 10.1037/h0043158
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 [Google Scholar]
  41. Moser, B.
    (1976) Simultaneous translation: Linguistic, psycholinguistic and human information processing aspects. PhD dissertation, University of Innsbruck.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. O’Brien, S.
    (2009) Eye-tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. In I. M. Mees , S. Göpferich & F. Alves (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 251–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2016) Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin124 (3), 372–422. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2009) Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology62 (8), 1457–1506. doi:  10.1080/17470210902816461
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rayner, K. , Sereno, S. , Morris, R. , Schmauder, R. & Clifton, C. J.
    (1989) Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes4, 21–50. 10.1080/01690968908406362
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406362 [Google Scholar]
  48. Riccardi, A.
    (1998) Interpreting strategies and creativity. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff , J. Kralová & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ strategies and creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–179. 10.1075/btl.27.24ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27.24ric [Google Scholar]
  49. Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
    (2013) Research methodologies in translation studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schaeffer, M. J. & Carl, M.
    (2013) Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies8 (2), 169–190. 10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  51. Schustack, M. W. , Ehrlich, S. F. & Rayner, K.
    (1987) Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language26 (3), 322–340. 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90117‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90117-3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sedivya, J. C. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , Chambers, C. G. & Carlson, G. N.
    (1999) Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition71, 109–147. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00025‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6 [Google Scholar]
  53. Seeber, K. G.
    (2001) Intonation and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. Cahiers de Linguistique Française23, 61–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) Cognitive lad in simultaneous interpreting. Existing theories – new models. Interpreting13 (2), 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  55. Seeber, K. G.
    (2013) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods. Target25 (1), 18‒32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  56. Seeber, K. G. & Kerzel, D.
    (2011) Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism16(2), 228–242. doi:  10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  57. Setton, R.
    (1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  58. Shlesinger, M.
    (2003) Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12, 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Shreve, G. M. , Lacruz, I. & Angelone, E.
    (2011) Sight translation and speech disfluency. 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]
  60. Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    (2005) The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta50 (2), 405–414. 10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  61. Titone, D. , Whitford, V. , Lijewska, A. & Itzhak, I.
    (2016) Bilingualism, executive control, and eye movement measures of reading: A selective review and reanalysis of bilingual vs. multilingual reading data. In J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Cognitive control and consequences of multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–46. 10.1075/bpa.2.02tit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.2.02tit [Google Scholar]
  62. Wan, H. Y.
    (2005) A cognitive study of sight translation with implications for undergraduate interpreting training. PhD dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, B. & Gu, Y. K.
    (2016) An evidence-based exploration into the effect of language-pair specificity in English to Chinese simultaneous interpreting. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies3 (2), 146–160. doi:  10.1080/23306343.2016.1182238
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2016.1182238 [Google Scholar]
  64. 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, 65–82. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  65. White, S. J.
    (2008) Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance34 (1), 205–223. doi:  10.1037/0096‑1523.34.1.205
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.205 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wliss, W.
    (1978) Syntactic anticipation in German–English simultaneous interpretation. In D. Gerver (Ed.), Language interpretation and communication: Proceedings of the NATO Symposium on Language Interpretation and Communication. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 335–343. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_30
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_30 [Google Scholar]
  67. Xiao, R. , McEnery, T. & Qian, Y. F.
    (2006) Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast6 (1), 109–149. doi:  10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia [Google Scholar]
  68. Yan, G. , Xiong, J. , Zang, C. , Yu, L. , Cui, L. & Bai, X.
    (2013) 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述 [A review of major eye measures in reading research]. Advances in Psychological Science21 (4), 589–605. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589
    https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhong, S. K.
    (1984) A practical handbook of interpretation. Beijing: China Foreign Language Translation Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): chunking; eye-tracking; reordering; sight translation; word-order asymmetry
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