1 / 24

Sight translation as an assessment tool

Sight translation as an assessment tool. Yvonne Fowler Centre for Forensic Linguistics Aston University. Programme. Describe Gile’s (1995) interpreting and sight translation models Differences between interpreting and sight translation Using sight translation as an assessment tool

otis
Download Presentation

Sight translation as an assessment tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sight translation as an assessment tool Yvonne Fowler Centre for Forensic Linguistics Aston University

  2. Programme • Describe Gile’s (1995) interpreting and sight translation models • Differences between interpreting and sight translation • Using sight translation as an assessment tool • Sight translator behaviour • Examples and discussion Gile, D. (1995) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training

  3. The concept of “Effort” in interpreting • Interpreters have a limited supply of processing capacity • Interpreters have to learn to manage that supply so that they do not run out of capacity

  4. Gile’s Effort Model for (consecutive) interpreting: Phase 1: L + N + M + C (the Listening and Note-taking phase) • The Listening and Analysis or Comprehension Effort (L) • The Note-taking Effort (N) • Short term memory operations (M) • The Co-ordination Effort (C)

  5. Phase 2: Rem + read + P (the speech production phase) • Remembering (Rem) • Note-reading (Read) • Production(P)

  6. The Effort Model Phase 1: L + N + M + C Phase 2: Rem + read + P

  7. The Listening and Analysis Effort • Understanding the underlying logic of each sentence (but 100% comprehension is not mandatory) • Goes beyond mere word recognition • Based on anticipation and probability in speech

  8. The Note taking Effort • It is paced by the speaker, but notes can be in any form to help the interpreter • Notes can occasionally be dispensed with • This releases capacity for production

  9. The Memory Effort • Associated with the moment that information is heard and the moment it is written down, or between the moment it is heard and the interpreter decides not to write it down

  10. The Co-ordination Effort • The Effort required to manage Listening and Analysis, Note-taking and Memory Efforts simultaneously • The Effort required to move from the Memory Effort to phase 2, the REM + READ + P.

  11. Phase 2: the speech production phase The Remembering Effort • The Effort devoted to recalling successive parts of the original speech

  12. The Reading Effort • Reading the interpreter’s notes, which, if effective, can reduce Remembering processing requirements

  13. The Production Effort • The output part of interpreting • Consists of the whole process from mental representation of the message to speech planning and the performance of the speech plan • Focus on meaning not words

  14. Listening/Analysis Effort Production Effort Memory Effort Reading Effort Production Effort No Memory Effort Differences between ST and interpreting

  15. Other differences • Not paced by source language speaker • No help from vocal indications • Listening/Analysis Effort is limited by need to read and segment into translation units simultaneously • Output must be smooth • Difficulty with long embedded clauses

  16. More differences • Written texts have greater density than unrehearsed speech • Higher probability of interference because source text is visible to speaker • No resort to glossaries or dictionaries • Some features of written text must be rendered orally (punctuation/layout)

  17. Qualities of a good sight translator • Ability to retrieve information stored in long term memory • Familiarity with terminology • Ability to focus on meaning not words • Ability to analyse text quickly • Excellent reading and comprehension skills • Ability to make inferences

  18. And also……. • Intuition • Imagination • Agility of mind • Flexibility • Resourcefulness • Self control • Ability to keep calm

  19. Flustered ? Hesitant ? Unwilling to try ? Gives up easily ? Doesn’t finish sentences ? Looks very worried ? Keeps calm Reasonably smooth delivery Willing to have a go Finishes sentences Looks relaxed Makes mistakes but makes sense 1. Attitude to task

  20. No strategies to fall back on Cannot deal with unfamiliar words or terms: falls silent Does not use own knowledge to fill gaps Makes mistakes but makes use of a range of coping strategies Deduces meaning from context clues Has good general knowledge and uses it effectively 2. Resourcefulness

  21. No awareness of a listener No attempt to render text coherently in the target language Cannot monitor own output Renders text with reader in mind Output has mistakes but can easily be understood Shows ability to self correct 3. Self-monitoring

  22. Is not aware of differences in languages Follows grammatical order of source language Cannot think in target language Can see beyond the sentence being translated; is aware of next sentence Is creative and does not follow grammatical order of source text Tries to render meaning of ST and not words 4. Grammar and language interference

  23. Extracts • Extract 1 • Extract 2 • Extract 3

  24. Yvonne FowlerCentre for Forensic LinguisticsAston University fowlerya@aston.ac.uk

More Related