1887
image of Syntactic processing in sight translation by professional and trainee interpreters
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.18091.chm
2019-05-28
2019-08-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agrifoglio, Marjorie
    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. Andrews, Glenda, Damian Birney, and Graeme S. Halford
    2006 “Relational Processing and Working Memory Capacity in Comprehension of Relative Clause Sentences.” Memory & Cognition34 (6): 1325–1340. 10.3758/BF03193275
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193275 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Language68 (3): 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, and Harald Baayen
    2015 “Parsimonious Mixed Models.” Arxiv Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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 Mapping15 (1): 26–38. 10.1002/hbm.1059
    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.1059 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caplan, David, and Gloria Waters
    2013 “Memory Mechanisms Supporting Syntactic Comprehension.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review20 (2): 243–268. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0369‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chmiel, Agnieszka
    2018 “In Search of the Working Memory Advantage in Conference Interpreting – Training, Experience and Task Effects.” International Journal of Bilingualism22 (3): 371–384. 10.1177/1367006916681082
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916681082 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur
    2013 “Eye Tracking Sight Translation Performed by Trainee Interpreters.” InTracks and Treks in Translation Studies, edited byCatherine Way, Sonia Vandepitte, Reine Meylaerts, and Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk, 189–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.108.10chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.10chm [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.” Interpreting17 (1): 1–25. 10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.01dia [Google Scholar]
  11. Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge G. Hansen
    2009 “Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation.” Meta54 (3): 588–604.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Psychology5: 1302.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gernsbacher, Morton A., and Miriam Shlesinger
    1997 “The Proposed Role of Suppression in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Interpreting2 (1–2): 119–140. 10.1075/intp.2.1‑2.05ger
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.05ger [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibson, Edward
    2000 “The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity.” InImage, Language, Brain, edited byYashusi Miyashita, Alec P. Marantz, and Wayne O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gile, Daniel
    2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hejwowski, Krzysztof
    2004Kognitywno-Komunikacyjna Teoria Przekładu [Cognitive-communicative theory of translation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jakobsen, Arnt L., and Kristian Jensen
    2008 “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” InLooking at Eyes – Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited bySusane Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jones, Roderick
    2002Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jörg, Udo
    1997 “Bridging the Gap: Verb Anticipation in German-English Simultaneous Interpreting.” InTranslation as Intercultural Communication, edited byMary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová, and Klaus Kaindl, 217–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.20.22jor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.20.22jor [Google Scholar]
  20. King, Jonathan, and Marcel Adam Just
    1991 “Individual Differences in Syntactic Processing: The Role of Working Memory.” Journal of Memory and Language30 (5): 580–602. 10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90027‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90027-H [Google Scholar]
  21. Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma
    2012 “Introducing Lextale: A Quick and Valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods44 (2): 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, Minhua, Diane L. Schallert, and Patrick J. Carroll
    2004 “Working Memory and Expertise in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Interpreting6 (1): 19–42. 10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  23. Liversedge, Simon P., Kevin B. Paterson, and Martin J. Pickering
    1998 “Eye Movements and Measures of Reading Time.” InEye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception, edited byGeoffrey Underwood, 55–75. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008043361‑5/50004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50004-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 Psychology25 (1): 181–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2017 “Does Translation Involve Structural Priming?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology70 (8): 1575–1589. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  27. R: A Language and Environment For Statistical Computing
    R: A Language and Environment For Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  28. Reichle, Erik D., Simon P. Liversedge, Alexander Pollatsek, and Keith Rayner
    2009 “Encoding Multiple Words Simultaneously in Reading Is Implausible.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences13 (3): 115–119. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Riccardi, Alessandra
    1996 “Language-Specific Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting 3, edited byCay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.16.30ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.16.30ric [Google Scholar]
  30. 1998 “Interpreting Strategies and Creativity.” InTranslators’ Strategies and Creativity, edited byAnn Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová, and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 171–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.27.24ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.27.24ric [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz, Carmen, Natalia Paredes, Pedro Macizo, and Maria Teresa Bajo
    2008 “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica128 (3): 490–500. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 “Cognitive Load 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]
  33. Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
    2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2): 228–242. 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  34. Setton, Robin, and Manuela Motta
    2007 “Syntacrobatics: Quality and Reformulation in Simultaneous-with-Text.” Interpreting9 (2): 199–230. 10.1075/intp.9.2.04set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.04set [Google Scholar]
  35. Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
    2010 “Cognitive Effort, Syntactic Disruption, and Visual Interference in a Sight Translation Task.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited byGregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.05shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.05shr [Google Scholar]
  36. SR Research Experiment Builder 1.10.165 [Computer Software]
    SR Research Experiment Builder 1.10.165 [Computer Software] (2011) Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sunnari, Marianna
    1996 “Comparison of Expert and Novice Performance in Simultaneous Interpreting.” InProceedings of the XIV World Congress of FIT, 993–1000. Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Čeňková, and Reine Meylaerts
    2015 “Simultaneous Interpreting and Working Memory Capacity.” InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, edited byAline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 101–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Viezzi, Maurizio
    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]
  40. Warren, Tessa, and Edward Gibson
    2002 “The Influence of Referential Processing on Sentence Complexity.” Cognition85: 79–112. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00087‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00087-2 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.18091.chm
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.18091.chm
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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