周妍

Abstract： This paper is going to study the psycholinguistic issues involved in sight translation （ST）， a hybrid of translation and interpreting， which takes a visual and verbal mode. It is generally believed that ST is a frequently applied mode of rendition in simultaneous interpreting （SI） as well as an integrated phase in SI training. Usually SI training begins with how to distribute attention and then move to ST which helps the trainees to acquire necessary techniques in consecutive interpreting （CI） and SI without text and learn to react quickly and improve their oral skills. Jean Herbert （1952） ever characterized ST as a type of simultaneous interpreting， which seemed to be accepted ever since at least from a theoretical standpoint.

Keywords： psycholinguistic; sight translation; consecutive interpreting;simultaneous interpreting

DOI：

10.16657/j.cnki.issn1673-9132.2016.04.008

I. Psycholinguistic mechanisms in sight translation

ST shares the same output with CI and SI， i.e. oral re-expression of the source information in the target language. On the other hand， ST differs from CI and SI in their respective input. Unlike the interpreter， in both the consecutive and simultaneous modes， who has to listen to a speaker very carefully and then interpret the source message which cannot be accessed for a second time after they are uttered， the sight translator reads written texts which can be accessed again if needed and then interpret simultaneously. Therefore， ST is also regarded as simultaneous interpreting with text.

To sight-translate successfully， the first thing for the sight translator to do is to read and understand the source text. But due to the time limitation， more often the sight translator doesnt have much time to do intensive reading， instead， he/she has to render the message in the source text orally while reading the source text and listening to the speaker at the same time so as to keep pace with the speaker.

Thus， despite the fact that the sight translator is visually accessible to the source text， it still requires good working memory （工作記憶） of the translator not only because the sight translator has to rely on working memory to retrieve information from the beginning of sentences but also because syntactic differences between languages may force him/her to store information in memory so that it can be appropriately inserted in the target-language speech. Baddeley ever defined working memory as “the temporary storage of information that is being processed in any range of cognitive tasks” （Baddeley， 1986， p. 34）. According to Baddeley-Hitchs model of working memory， there are three components namely the central executive， the visuospatial sketchpad and the phonological loop， of which the visuospatial sketchpad temporarily maintains and manipulates visuospatial information when the sight translator reads and the articulatory rehearsal system of the phonological loop enables the sight translator to covertly or overtly rehearse information acquired， thereby prolonging their stay in the phonological store. Additionally， the Baddeley-Hitch model assumes that there are phonological representations of both auditory and visual materials.

So when the sight translator has to do the three tasks of reading the source text， comprehending and producing the target language at the same time， the first two will occupy the articulatory loop， thus resulting in articulatory suppression which in turn leads to reduced memory overall. Nevertheless， based on Padilla et als standard digit span test and a reading span test （1995） which is thought to tap into both the processing and storage aspects of working memory， experienced interpreters possess the highest average performance compared with student interpreters and non-interpreters， which means the translators working memory performance can be improved through practice and specialized training.

Meanwhile， for the sight translator， long-term memory， which consists of episodic memory and semantic memory， is also an important aspect as when he/she processes language， he/she needs to have knowledge of language that is stored in his/her semantic knowledge which is retrieved during pattern recognition. While this kind of process is going on， he/she is also building up an episodic memory representation of the ongoing discourse.

II. Language processing in sight translation

Since the main input for the sight translator is reading the source text supplemented with listening to the speaker so as to make the interpreting concurrent with the speech， the sight translator will have to read the written text as quickly as he/she can to process the information contained in the source text by activating both languages simultaneously. Therefore， compared with SI and CI， ST had some added difficulties when processing information without the help of the prosodic features of oral language （tone， hesitations， pauses etc.）， such as processing long complex sentences with clauses， interference of the source language， etc. Furthermore， the sight translator may come across various sentence patterns and structures， thus determining various approaches to processing information， for instance， serial processing when processing one meaning of an ambiguous word at a time， top- down processing when deciding the meaning of an ambiguous word based on the immediate context， not the entire sentence， controlled processes because the comprehender must make decisions during the course of comprehension， modular processing when comprehension is relied on specialized capacity that is related to language rather than common sense etc.

III. Language comprehension in sight translation

In order to sight-translate correctly and smoothly， the sight translator has to prime his/her internal lexicon as soon as seeing the source text in order to comprehend the source text quickly and correctly， but because of limited time， more often than not the sight translator is likely to follow the order of the original sentences to interpret and identify the words as he/she sees， which is called the immediacy principle. However， such comprehending methodology will involve some troubles for the sight translator when meeting garden path sentences （花園路徑句）.

Besides， there are also a lot of sentences containing ambiguous words which require more resources in the translators limited memory that is also handling many other tasks in the meantime. For instance， in the sentence：

I have been to Edinburgh just for two days， and my brothers have followed in the train of my trip.

the word train is the key word or trouble word to cope with. If the translator interprets it in this way：

我到達(dá)愛丁堡剛剛兩天，我的兄弟們就乘坐我旅行的火車接踵而來.

definitely the meaning of train is chosen wrongly but the correct version should be：

我到達(dá)愛丁堡剛剛兩天，我的兄弟們就尋著我的蹤跡而來.

In addition， there are quite many linguistic differences between oral and written texts， for instance， the latter favors more parataxis， richer vocabulary， more elegant constructions and subordinate clauses than the oral texts in which there are more popular expressions， idioms and neologisms. However， Halliday （1987） points out， oral and written language are both complex; each has its own particular mechanisms and specificities. Hence， there is an argument that the most difficult part in ST is to coordinate reading， memorizing and producing smoothly and to resist the source-language interference at the same time rather than the written text itself. In this sense， ST is also requiring outstanding skills especially in comprehending the exact message in the source text by using lexical， syntactic， grammatical， pragmatic， discourse， as well as nonlinguistic and contextual information.

IV. Language production in sight translation

Similar to SI and CI， the output of ST is to give fluent oral re-expression of the message in the source-language text. While doing sight translation， the control of languages is also an important aspect. The sight translator needs to activate both languages while reading， yet， in production， he/she has to produce “pure” target language， that is language that doesnt contain any language switches， by inhibiting the source language. However， due to the nature of hypotaxis and parataxis of English and Chinese including some other distinctive linguistic features of the two languages， the sight translator is more likely to suffer from translating those source sentences that are quite different from the target language in terms of syntax， word order， voice， sentence patterns and structures and so on as he/she usually tends to follow the same pattern， order， voice etc. to process the message and render them into Chinese， but often resulting in speech errors or odd and foreignized translation. To avoid such errors and odd Chinese translation， the sight translator needs to use up extra processing memory as well as receive specific divided-attention training so as to convert the odd Chinese translation into a proper one.

V. Conclusion

Through psycholinguistic study and research， I come to know more mechanisms and amazing abilities of our human brain that control our language capabilities and performances， which is quite helpful to my language skills improvement and professional development. Based on the above analysis， it is apparent that ST has much to do with psycholinguistic issues and processes and we can take advantage of those psycholinguistic discoveries to assist us in the professional field through various specific exercises， say， specialized training of working memory， comprehension performance and reading span， which can help individuals become aware of particular constraints， better identify the pragmatic cue and integrate it with the syntactic information to guide parsing and avoid the garden path effect， become more skilled comprehenders and provide more fluent verbal language production.

References：

[1]Carrol D. The Psychology of Language， 5th edition[M]. Australia： Thomson/Wadsworth， 2008.

[2]Peter Newmark. A Textbook of Translation[M]. Prentice Hall International （UK） Ltd.， 1988.

[3]Marjorie Agrifoglio. Sight Translation and Interpreting： A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.

[4]Halliday ?M. Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels （Eds.）， Comprehending oral and written language. London： Academic Press， 1987.

[5]Zhang Dian-en. Exploring “Garden-path sentences” in English[J]. Journal of Fuling Teachers College.

（責(zé)編 張亞欣）