Sight translation

Sight translation (ST) is a task that requires the interpreter to read a text and

simultaneously interpret it into another language. This task may be employed

in judicial situations, such as courtrooms, or scientific and technical academic

conferences, where the speaker may opt to directly read from their papers

(Weber, 1990). In many translation and interpreting training institutes, sight

translation is considered as a preparatory stage for simultaneous interpreting

(Agrifoglio, 2004), and also used as a tool to train interpreting students to

read ahead of their notes and deliver a smoother output. Prior to assignments,

interpreters may also sight translate related text and articles as background

knowledge preparation, and to familiarize themselves with the jargon and

technical terms of the area (Weber, 1990).

During ST, the source text is always visually present, and the interpreter can

process the input according to their own speed; as opposed to SI, during

which the input is audio, and flow and speed is dictated by the speaker.

However, ST should not be considered as easier to accomplish than SI on the

basis that it has no time limitations. Many researches have pointed out that ST

is as difficult as SI, as interpreters mentally process language during both

tasks similarly (Mikkelson, 1995; Agrifoglio, 2004).To further illustrate the

complexity of cognitive loading during various interpreting tasks, Gile (1995)

broke down the components and established effort models to describe how

cognitive efforts are distributed during different interpreting modes.

According to the model, a SI task is composed of Listening and Analysis Effort

(L), Memory Effort (M), Production Effort(P), and Coordination Effort (C),

resulting in a model as follows:

SI = L + M + P + C

Spontaneously listening, comprehending and speaking is one of the main

characteristics of SI, which also implies the importance of coordination during

the task. Furthermore, since the interpreter is required to deliver the

interpretation as the speaker is speaking, the interpreter must not only go

through all efforts at the same time, but also adjust their own processing pace

according to the speaker’s speed. Students or novices of interpreting often find

this task daunting, as the pace and speed of the input is not controlled by the

interpreter themselves. In fact, studies have shown even experienced

professionals may make mistakes during SI (Gile, 1997). Agrifolio (2004) also

concluded that during SI and CI, memory saturation and note-taking

problems could interfere with the final interpretation output, causing failures.

For sight translation, Gile (1995) claimed that during this task, Listening and

Analysis Effort is transformed into a Reading Effort (R), and Production

Effort (P) is still present. But Memory Effort is not required during this task,

as the source text is always present on paper and interpreters do not have to

rely on short-term memory to memorize the beginning of sentences, or

previous information input in order to produce a complete and coherent

sentence. The model is displayed as follows:

ST = R + P

The absence of Memory Effort in Gile’s (1995) is debatable. Gile assumed that

since the source text was always available, there would be no need for extra

short-term memory. He did acknowledge that syntax differences between

languages, and longer sentences with embedded clauses require more time

and effort; however, the interpreter deals with these challenges by rereading

more Translation Units, not by employing any memory-related strategies.

Actually, researchers disagree on whether the always-present visual source

text is more of an interference which could compromise the fluency of delivery,

instead of a visual aid. Lambert (2004) argued that students perform better

during sight translation and simultaneous interpreting with text than during

free simultaneous interpreting, mainly because of having the text which serves

as visual assistance present during the processes (Lambert, 2004). Also, since

the text is a visual input, when combined with audio inputs, it does not cause

much interference to the interpreter (Shaffer, 1975; Viezzi, 1989; Lambert,

2004). On the other hand, some argue that visual interference could be

stronger than that from audio, as mentioned by Agrifolio (2004) and Shreve,

Lacruz and Angelone (2010). Since the source text remains available

throughout the ST process, the attention and gaze of the interpreter may

involuntarily be drawn back to the source text, causing diversions and

increasing the cognitive load (Agrifoglio, 2004). Furthermore, Mikkelson

(1995) also noted that with the text always present, interpreters find it more

difficult to focus on the meaning of the message, instead of the words;

therefore the constant presence of the written text may prove to be a drawback

instead of assistance.

It should also be noted that Gile did not address the Coordination Effort when

describing the model of sight translation; yet it can be assumed that the effort

is still present so that the interpreter can smoothly employ both Reading and

Production efforts. Agrifoglio (2004) also pointed out that one of the main

difficulties of sight translation is the interpreter requires significant

coordination to ensure a fluent, coherent delivery, especially when the two

languages have different grammatical structures. The act of doing many things

simultaneously is not a natural activity for humans, normally people can only

concentrate on one single task (Lambert, 2004). Two tasks may be

manageable if they are related to the same higher-order activity, as the

attention switches rapidly between the different tasks, or at least one of the

tasks can be carried out automatically (Lambert, 2004). However, Lambert

(2004) had also noted that with proper training and practise, it is possible to

learn how to divert attention, or “multi-task”. The participating novices and

experienced interpreters in Huang’s (2011) study and this research were all

trained in sight translation skills, therefore it is assumed that they should be

able to multi-task and coordinate all efforts in order to complete the task.

Effort distribution during sight translation can also be affected by different

methods of input. For example, the different nature of written and oral source

texts may cause more difficulty in sight translation since written texts are

often more complex than oral source texts in terms of syntax, rhetorical

structure, and more complicated grammar usages. Written texts may also

contain features that otherwise would be omitted in oral source texts.

Therefore, some argue that the demands of comprehension during sight

translation are much higher than that of other modes of interpreting (Shreve,

Lacruz, & Angelone, 2010). In fact, interpreters performing sight translation

have to exercise more effort on reading and processing the visual input to a

point where the fluency of the interpretation may be compromised (Agrifoglio,

2004). Dillinger also pointed out that if more effort was spent on syntactic

analysis and proposition generation when reading, the accuracy of the

performance is likely to suffer/decrease (Dillinger, 1990).

The aforementioned studies present sight translation as a task similar to SI

but the pacing is controlled by the interpreter, not the speaker. The task still

requires more than one effort, as seen in Gile’s (1995) model. And the ability

to optimize effort distribution is crucial during this task since the fluency and

accuracy of interpretations could be compromised due to extra effort spent on

reading and comprehending the input, as suggested by both Agrifoglio (2004)

and Dillinger (1990).