Scribd
Upload
30 views2 pages

Havnens Comment On Sight Translation As Process and Product

The document discusses sight translation as a complex process that includes reading a written text, analyzing it, remembering it, restructuring it, and rendering it as spoken language. It argues that existing effort models of sight translation oversimplify the cognitive demands by not accounting for the modal shift between written and spoken language. A better model would include translation efforts as well as a separate effort for mediating between written and spoken modes, which introduces challenges like interference from the visible text. The cognitive demands of sight translation are influenced by the text, the interpreter, and the context. The product or performance is constrained by how the interpreting should sound, whether as a spoken version of the written text or read aloud in the target language.

Uploaded by

'Natcha Seljestokken
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views2 pages

Havnens Comment On Sight Translation As Process and Product

The document discusses sight translation as a complex process that includes reading a written text, analyzing it, remembering it, restructuring it, and rendering it as spoken language. It argues that existing effort models of sight translation oversimplify the cognitive demands by not accounting for the modal shift between written and spoken language. A better model would include translation efforts as well as a separate effort for mediating between written and spoken modes, which introduces challenges like interference from the visible text. The cognitive demands of sight translation are influenced by the text, the interpreter, and the context. The product or performance is constrained by how the interpreting should sound, whether as a spoken version of the written text or read aloud in the target language.

Uploaded by

'Natcha Seljestokken
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Havnen´s comment on sight translation as a process and a product

The most used model in research on sight translation is the effort model, which links to the
tightrope hypothesis; it explains that if too many resources are spent on one effort, this will
affect other efforts (Gile, 1995; Gile, 2009). The efforts in sight translation are described as

‘. . . reading + memory + speech production and coordination’. (Gile, 2009, p. 179)

The efforts described in consecutive interpreting are

‘. . . listening + analyses + note taking + short time memory operations + remembering


+ note reading + speech production and coordination’. (Gile, 2009, pp. 175–176)

The efforts in consecutive interpreting are described in far more detail than the model for sight
translation, in which analytical efforts and other cognitively demanding processes are included
in reading and coordination. Gile (2009) writes that reading corresponds to listening and
analysis efforts in consecutive interpreting. The only reason I can find to explain this is a
simplified idea of reading. The effort model of sight translation started out as too basic; in the
first model (Gile, 1995), not even memory was included. This reflects the idea at the time about
sight translation being a less-demanding process because of continuous access to the text and
the self-paced speed. Research was scarce, as the dominant translation and interpreting practices
were given more attention. Agrifoglio (2004) compares interpreting methods (sight translation,
simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting), concluding that sight translation is by
no means less demanding than other methods. In sight translation, an additional effort is related
to the transfer from written to spoken language, which influences the production effort. In Gile’s
model, the modal aspect (from speech to writing) seems to be part of the production and/or
coordination effort, and analysis is included in the reading effort (Gile, 1995; Gile, 2009). This
model conceals the complexity of sight translation.

As I argue in the article Multimodal and interactional aspects of sight translation – A critical
review (Havnen, 2019), effort related to the modal shift should be added as an independent
effort in sight translation; there is translation, and there is mediation. This effort makes up a
substantial challenge in sight translation, explained as a constant fight against interference
(Shreve, Angelone, & Lacruz, 2010) caused by the text being visually present (Agrifoglio,
2004) and/or because of time pressure (Jimenez Ivars, 2008) or poor reading skills (Nilsen &
Monsrud, 2015). Regardless of the reason, the explanations point to the modal differences:
processing written text and transposing it into a spoken text. The conditions under which sight
translation is conducted place various demands on the efforts, which, again, will influence the
product or performance.

An effort model focusing on processes does not tell us how a sight translation should sound,
but interpreting entails a rendition that is both understandable and listenable. In the literature,
however, some ideals concerning the target text do emerge, articulated through two frequent
references to Martin (1993) and Mikkelson and Willis (1993). They represent different views
on how the interpreting should sound. According to the former, it should be a spoken version
of the written text, and according to the latter, it should sound as if the text is being read aloud
in the target language. The solutions will place different pressures on the production effort and
constraints on the choice of acceptable strategies. I propose this brief summary: the sight
translation process includes reading a written text, analysing it, remembering the text,
restructuring it and rendering it as a spoken text. The cognitive demand is influenced by the
text, the interpreter and the situation in which the interpreting takes place.

Agrifoglio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures.
Interpreting, 6(1), 43–67
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translation training. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Havnen, R. (2019). Multimodal and interactional aspects of sight translation – A critical review. FITISPos
International Journal – Public Service Interpreting and Translation, 6(1), 91–106.
Jimenez Ivars, A. (2008). Sight translation and written translation. A comparative analysis of causes of
problems, strategies and translation errors within the PACTE translation competence model. FORUM,
6(2), 79–104.
Martin, A. (1993). Teaching sight translation to future interpreters. Proceedings from Translation: The Vital
Link. 13th World Congress of FIT, Brighton. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting.
Mikkelson, H., & Willis, J. (1993). Sight translation: Introduction. In The interpreter’s edge, Generic edition.
Retrieved from https://acebo.myshopify.com/pages/introduction-to-the-sight-translation-chapter-from-
the-interpreters-edge-generic-edition
Nilsen, A. B., & Monsrud, M.-B. (2015). Reading skills for sight translation in public-sector services.
Translation & Interpreting, 7(3), 10–20
Shreve, G. M., Angelone, E., & Lacruz, I. (2010). Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption and visual interference in
an ST task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.

You might also like