Characteristics and difficulties of sight translation

ST is commonly believed to be easier and less demanding than translation, which it shares the same visual input, and interpretation, which it shares the same oral output (Sampaio, 2007). However, scholars of interpretation have argued that ST is not easier but simply different from CI and SI, requiring different interpreting strategies and cognitive efforts. The complexity and techniques of ST should not be deemed less demanding than other modes of interpretation (Agrifoglio, 2004; Shreve, Lacruz, & Angelone, 2010).

The most distinct feature of ST is the visual input. As interpreter translates from a piece of written text, the source text is always available to the interpreter throughout the whole task. This luxury is not present in SI and CI, in which the oral input is transient and only appears once, thereby unable to be referred to or reviewed during the production phase. SI interpreter must rely on his memory and CI interpreter on his note to produce the interpretation in the target language, but interpreter performing ST can move forward and backward in the source text as he wishes for information he

9

needs for production.

ST production is also not paced by the speaker, as there is no speaker at all. On the other hand, interpreter performing SI cannot set the pace of his interpretation, since the interpreted output must match the pacing of the speaker to keep the audiences on track, and avoid storing too much information in the interpreter’s working memory that increases the difficulty of the task. Even CI interpreter, who can pace his production freely, is under the speaker’s constrain. The interpreter is usually required to begin interpreting as soon as the speaker stops, so the time available for comprehension and reformulation is paced by the speaker, not the interpreter (Agrifoglio, 2004; Shreve et al., 2010).

However, ST interpreter also faces certain difficulties that are unique to the nature of ST. First, the different linguistic and syntactic structure between written text and oral speech means that ST interpreter needs to comprehend an input text that is more formal and contains complex and complicated structures such as compound clauses. Thus, comprehending the source text in ST would cost the interpreter more effort than CI and SI (Agrifoglio, 2004;

Shreve et al., 2010). Moreover, interpreter of ST is expected to render the written text into smooth output that sounds like genuine oral speech (Weber, 1990). Therefore, the interpreter must endeavor to use simpler words and transform the written text into sentences more fitting for oral speech, which all add pressure to the interpreting process (楊承淑, 2000).

In fact, the constant existence of the source text in ST may hinder the production of natural, fluent interpretation. When listening, the speech is transient and cannot be reviewed again, so listeners tend to grasp the gist and general meaning of the content; when reading, the words are forever written

10

in black on white paper, therefore readers would instead focus on remembering the actual words used in the text. Recalling every single word instead of the meaning of the text may be detrimental to ST interpreter, as he would need to allocate extra effort to achieve independence from the source text. Thus the constant presence of the source text may actually become a significant interference in the interpreting process, affecting the grammatical and syntactic structure of the target production (Agrifoglio, 2004; Shreve et al., 2010). In her experiment, Agrifoglio (2004) found that when comparing the output of ST, SI and CI, ST has significantly less meaning errors, but much more expression problems than the other modes of interpretation.

Sight translation, just like all forms of interpretation, is a complicated task that is highly cognitive-demanding. In Gile’s effort model (1995), he divided the act of interpretation into several different “efforts” that are needed to produce adequate interpretation. As the total amount of effort available for use is fixed, the interpreter must constantly allocate his effort to different tasks at hand in order to maintain a fluent and correct interpretation.

Gile described the efforts of ST as:

ST = R (reading and analysis) + P (production)

The “reading effort” replaced the “listening effort” listed under SI and CI.

The “memory effort” was excluded, as Gile believed the constant presence of the source text requires little use of memory in performing ST. The

“coordination effort” present in SI and CI was also left out.

Agrifoglio (2004) argued that both the memory and coordination effort may still be present in ST. In order to ensure smooth delivery, interpreter of

11

ST must start reformulating and producing while reading. Therefore, even though the source text in ST can always be reviewed during production, the interpreter still needs to store some of the information already read in memory until it can be produced in the target output. Since the “reading and analysis” and “production” efforts overlap with each other, a coordination effort is also required to smoothly manage the efforts. Agrifoglio proposed a modification to Gile’s ST effort model:

ST = R + P + m (slight use of memory) + C (coordination)

As ST is usually not performed alone in the professional interpreting market, ST nowadays serves a more pedagogical purpose, being taught at the early stage of interpretation training to facilitate the interpreter’s performance of CI and SI (Weber, 1990). Training in ST can equip interpreter with faster reading of written text, rapid conversion of information from the source language into the target language, the skill to avoid word-to-word translation and public speaking techniques. Mastering these skills can greatly improve the interpreter’s performance in all modes of interpretation, as he will be able to quickly familiarize himself with the conference materials, and his processing of the source text can also be quickened.

In short, sight translation is a challenging task that demands no less cognitive effort than other interpretation modes. A close examination of ST’s process can reveal important clues about the complex process of interpretation. And thanks to the use of visual text as input, eye tracker can be employed in ST studies to collect eye movement data. These data can be analyzed alongside ST oral production for triangulation, and bring researchers

12

one step closer to uncovering what goes on inside the interpreter’s brain when they translate.