image of Reading patterns, reformulation and eye-voice span (IVS) in sight translation
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The study examined how a required reformulation of a source text affects reading patterns in sight translation. We also tested how interpreters regulated their eye-voice span (IVS, understood as the delay between viewing the source language word and speaking it in the target language) in the task. Twenty-four professional conference interpreters sight translated (from Polish into English) a text with syntactically symmetrical sentences (that could be copied in the target language) or asymmetrical ones (that required reformulation). The participants’ output and eye movements were recorded. Mean IVS turned out to exceed 8s. Text viewing durations and IVS did not differ between symmetrical and asymmetrical sentences. In contrast, reformulated output structures generated larger IVS than the retained ones. Also, words appearing later in the text on the screen were associated with longer IVS. This shows that IVS is a complex construct and that reformulation affects reading patterns in sight translation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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. Baddeley, Alan
    2000 “The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences4 (11): 417–23. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barik, Henri C.
    1973 “Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data.” Language and Speech16 (3): 237–70. 10.1177/002383097301600307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097301600307 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    2010 “Effects of short intensive practice on interpreter trainees’ performance.” InWhy Translation Studies Matters, ed. byDaniel Gile, Gyde Hansen, and Nike K. Pokorn, 183–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.88.16bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.88.16bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, and Harald Baayen
    2015 “Parsimonious mixed models.” ArXiv:1506.04967 [Stat], June. arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    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]
  7. Bliese, Paul, Gilad Chen, Patrick Downes, Donald Schepker, and Jonas Lang
    2022 “Multilevel: Multilevel Functions.” Accessed 5 October 5 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multilevel
  8. Buswell, Guy T.
    1922Fundamental Reading Habits: A Study of Their Development. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, Jui-Ching
    2015 “Sight translation.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byHolly Mikkelson and Renee Jourdenais, 144–53. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chmiel, Agnieszka, Przemysław Janikowski, and Anna Cieślewicz
    2020 “The eye or the ear?: Source language interference in sight translation and simultaneous interpreting.” Interpreting22 (2): 187–210. 10.1075/intp.00043.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00043.chm [Google Scholar]
  11. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Agnieszka Lijewska
    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): 378–97. 10.1075/target.18091.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18091.chm [Google Scholar]
  12. Christoffels, Ingrid K., and Annette M. B. De Groot
    2004 “Components of simultaneous interpreting: Comparing interpreting with shadowing and paraphrasing.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition7 (3): 227–40. 10.1017/S1366728904001609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001609 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Judith F. Kroll
    2006 “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency.” Journal of Memory and Language54 (3): 324–45. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Luca, Maria, Maria Pontillo, Silvia Primativo, Donatella Spinelli, and Pierluigi Zoccolotti
    2013 “The eye-voice lead during oral reading in developmental dyslexia.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience7: 1–17. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00696
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00696 [Google Scholar]
  15. Defrancq, Bart
    2015 “Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS.” Interpreting17 (1): 26–45. 10.1075/intp.17.1.02def
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.02def [Google Scholar]
  16. Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen
    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. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, and Miriam Shlesinger
    1997 “The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation.” Interpreting2 (1–2): 119–40. 10.1075/intp.2.1‑2.05ger
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.05ger [Google Scholar]
  18. Halm, Katja, Irene Ablinger, Anne Ullmann, Matthew J. Solomon, Ralph Radach, and Walter Huber
    2011 “What is the eye doing during reading aloud? Eye-voice span in acquired dyslexia.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences23: 244–45. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.260
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.260 [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, Chih-Chieh
    2011 “Tracking eye movements in sight translation.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University. rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Inhoff, Albrecht Werner, and Weimin Liu
    1998 “The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24 (1): 20–34. 10.1037/0096‑1523.24.1.20
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.20 [Google Scholar]
  21. Inhoff, Albrecht Werner, Matthew Solomon, Ralph Radach, and Bradley A. Seymour
    2011 “Temporal dynamics of the eye–voice span and eye movement control during oral reading.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology23 (5): 543–58. 10.1080/20445911.2011.546782
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.546782 [Google Scholar]
  22. Järvilehto, Timo, Veli-Matti Nurkkala, and Kyösti Koskela
    2009 “The role of anticipation in reading.” Pragmatics & Cognition17 (3): 509–26. 10.1075/pc.17.3.02jar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.3.02jar [Google Scholar]
  23. Kade, Otto
    1967 “Zu Einigen Besonderheiten Des Simultandolmetschens.” Fremdsprachen11 (1): 8–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kalina, Sylvia
    2002 “Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites: A framework for a comprehensive view.” InInterpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and opportunities, ed. byGiuliana Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 121–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.12kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.12kal [Google Scholar]
  25. Kurz, Ingrid
    2002 “Conference interpreting: Quality in the ears of the user.” Meta46 (2): 394–409. 10.7202/003364ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003364ar [Google Scholar]
  26. Lamberger-Felber, Heike
    2001 “Text-oriented research into interpreting – Examples from a case-study.” HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business14 (26): 39–63. 10.7146/hjlcb.v14i26.25638
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v14i26.25638 [Google Scholar]
  27. Laubrock, Jochen, and Reinhold Kliegl
    2015 “The eye-voice span during reading aloud.” Frontiers in Psychology6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01432
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01432 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, Tae-Hyung
    2002 “Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs47 (4): 596. 10.7202/008039ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008039ar [Google Scholar]
  29. Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma
    2012 “Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods44 (2): 325–43. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liang, Junying, Yuanyuan Fang, Qianxi Lv, and Haitao Liu
    2017 “Dependency distance differences across interpreting types: Implications for cognitive demand.” Frontiers in Psychology8: 2132. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02132
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02132 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lindell, Michael K., and Christina J. Brandt
    1999 “Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of CVI, T, RWG(J)}, and R*WG(J)} indexes.” Journal of Applied Psychology84 (4): 640–47. 10.1037/0021‑9010.84.4.640
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.640 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ma, Xingcheng, Dechao Li, and Yu-Yin Hsu
    2021 “Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation: Evidence from eye-movement data.” Target33 (1): 103–31. 10.1075/target.19052.ma
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19052.ma [Google Scholar]
  33. Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2017 “Does translation involve structural priming?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology70 (8): 1575–89. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439 [Google Scholar]
  34. Markiewicz, Karolina
    2019 “Assessing quality in sight translation as compared to written translation.” M.A. thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Matuschek, Hannes, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, Harald Baayen, and Douglas Bates
    2017 “Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models.” Journal of Memory and Language94: 305–15. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Paneth, Eva
    1957 “An investigation into conference interpreting.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 30–40. Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pollatsek, Alexander, Shmuel Bolozky, Arnold D. Well, and Keith Rayner
    1981 “Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers.” Brain and Language14 (1): 174–80. 10.1016/0093‑934X(81)90073‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(81)90073-0 [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2020A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Riccardi, Alessandra
    1996 “Language: Specific strategies in simultaneous interpreting.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons, ed. byCay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel, 213–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.16.30ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.16.30ric [Google Scholar]
  41. Rojo, Ana, and Javier Valenzuela
    2013 “Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation, ed. byAna Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 283–310. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.283
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.283 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sakia, Remi. M.
    1992 “The Box-Cox Transformation Technique: A review.” The Statistician41 (2): 169–178. 10.2307/2348250
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2348250 [Google Scholar]
  43. Seeber, Kilian G., Laura Keller, and Alexis Hervais-Adelman
    2020 “When the ear leads the eye – The use of text during simultaneous interpretation.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35 (10): 1480–94. 10.1080/23273798.2020.1799045
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1799045 [Google Scholar]
  44. Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
    2012 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data.” International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2): 228–42. 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
    2010 “Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task.” InTranslation and Cognition, ed. 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]
  47. Su, Wenchao
    2020Eye-Tracking Processes and Styles in Sight Translation. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 10.1007/978‑981‑15‑5675‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5675-3 [Google Scholar]
  48. Su, Wenchao, and Defeng Li
    2019 “Identifying translation problems in English-Chinese Sight Translation: An eye-tracking experiment.” Translation and Interpreting Studies14 (1): 110–34. 10.1075/tis.00033.su
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00033.su [Google Scholar]
  49. 2020 “Exploring processing patterns of Chinese-English sight translation: An eye-tracking study.” Babel66 (6): 999–1024. 10.1075/babel.00192.su
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00192.su [Google Scholar]
  50. Timarová, Šárka, Ivana Čeňková, Reine Meylaerts, Erik Hertog, Arnaud Szmalec, and Wouter Duyck
    2014 “Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control.” Interpreting16 (2): 139–68. 10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.01tim [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015 “Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity.” InPsycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. byAline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 101–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.115.05tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.05tim [Google Scholar]
  52. Timarová, Šárka, Barbara Dragsted, and Inge Gorm Hansen
    2011 “Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies, ed. byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius: 121–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.10tim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.10tim [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. Wickham, Hadley
    2016Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. New York: Springer Science. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zheng, Binghan, and Hao Zhou
    2018 “Revisiting processing time for metaphorical expressions: An eye-tracking study on eye-voice span during sight translation.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research50 (5): 738–53.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: ear-voice span ; reading patterns ; eye-tracking ; sight translation ; syntactic reformulation
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