Lambert.pdf

294 Meta, XLIX, 2, 2004

Shared Attention during Sight Translation,

Sight Interpretation and

Simultaneous Interpretation

SYLVIE LAMBERT

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

lambert@uottawa.ca

RÉSUMÉ

Le but de cette étude est d’établir le genre de traitement de l’information utilisé pour la

traduction à vue comparé à l’interprétation à vue et à l’interprétation simultanée, et, plus

précisément, de déterminer si la performance est rehaussée ou entravée par la présence

visuelle de l’information à interpréter. Les résultats indiquent que la traduction à vue et

l’interprétation à vue ont une meilleure performance que l’interprétation simultanée, et

laissent entendre que le facteur supplémentaire de l’exposition visuelle du message à

traduire ou à interpréter rehausse la capacité déjà surchargée du sujet à parler et à écou-

ter simultanément. Il est donc recommandé que l’interprétation à vue fasse partie de la

formation des interprètes de conférence.

ABSTRACT

This study set out to determine the types of processing involved when subjects perform

sight translation compared to both sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation,

but more specifically whether performance is enhanced or hindered by the visual presen-

tation of the material to be interpreted. Results indicated that both sight translation and

sight interpretation yielded significantly higher performance scores than simultaneous

interpretation, indicating that the added feature of visual exposure to the message to be

interpreted does not necessarily interfere with a subject’s already overloaded capacity to

listen and speak simultaneously, but that in fact, it may even help the student’s perfor-

mance. Pedagogically speaking, it is recommended that sight interpretation be included

in any cognitive approach to a simultaneous-interpreter training program.

MOTS-CLÉS/KEYWORDS

sight translation, sight interpretation, simultaneous interpretation, shared attention,

divided attention

Shared attention and skilled performance

One of the most interesting questions in human information processing is whether a

number of sensory inputs can be processed at the same time, or whether the only

way to cope with more than one input is to switch rapidly from one input to the

other (Broadbent, 1958). In normal conversation, unlike simultaneous interpretation,

the vocalization of one speaker usually precludes that of another and, as a consequence,

people rarely talk at the same time. Miller (1963) suggests that this turn-taking phe-

nomenon may be a universal of language behaviour, but that the reciprocity between

talking and listening

“is not a necessary consequence of an auditory or physiological inability to speak and

hear simultaneously; […] perhaps there is some limit imposed by agility and attention,

Meta, XLIX, 2, 2004

sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation 295

perhaps some critical component of the speech apparatus must be actively involved in

the process of understanding speech.” (Miller 1963, pp. 417-418)

In early studies on attention, it appeared that consciousness, or attention, could only

be directed to a single activity at a time. Conscious attention to two simultaneously

performed tasks was possible only if they were coordinated into a single higher-order

activity (James, 1890); or attended to in rapid alternation (Paulhan, 1887; Jaffe,

Feldstein and Cassota, 1967); or that at least one of the two tasks was being carried

out automatically, without conscious control (Solomons and Stein 1897; Hirst,

Spelke, Reaves, Caharack and Neisser, 1980).

In most experiments on selective listening, subjects are usually asked to attend to

one of two verbal messages by shadowing it, and to ignore the other.

Several studies have required subjects to perform two simultaneous tasks

(Allport, Antonis and Reynolds, 1972; Shaffer, 1975; and Welford, 1968). Allport et

al. (1972) reported experiments in which subjects performed two tasks concurrently

without any reduction in performance in either task: their subjects were asked to

attend to and repeat back continuous speech at the same time as taking in complex,

unrelated visual scenes, or even while sight reading piano music. Allport et al. suggest

that when the messages or tasks to be performed are highly dissimilar , both tasks

could be performed simultaneously. The main difference between Allport et al. ’s

study and other experimental paradigms (Moray 1969) is that shadowing was one of

the concurrent tasks, in other words, one verbal input was externally generated.

To explain this effect, Allport et al. (1972) suggest

“that the difficulty derives not from exceeding the limited capacity of a single general-

purpose central processor, but more simply from the difficulty of keeping separate ( i.e. ,

of not confusing or confounding) two closely similar but unrelated messages.” (Allport

et al . 1972, p. 226)

Shaffer (1975) found that a very skilled copy-typist could successfully type high

speed from a visual text while doing another verbal task, such as shadow prose or

recite, without any impairment of performance. However, since she had great diffi-

culty combining auditory typing with shadowing, Shaffer suggested that interference

was greater when response units rather than stimulus units were similar.

Spelke, Hirst and Neisser (1976) had two subjects read short stories while writing

lists of words in dictation. After several weeks of practice, they were able to write words,

discover relations among dictated words, and categorize words for meaning while

reading for comprehension at normal speed. At the beginning of the experiment,

when the subjects failed to notice sentences and categories in the dictated lines, it

appeared that they were copying the words without processing them to any extent. In

this sense, writing might be called ‘automatic.’ But as the demands of the experiment

changed, and after the subjects had been given additional practice, they gradually

learned to analyze the dictated words semantically as well as detect simple sentential

relationships between them. Finally, both subjects succeeded in categorizing dictated

words with no loss of reading speed or comprehension, and, according to the authors’

definition, writing was no longer ‘automatic.’ In a limited sense, they had achieved a

true division of attention in that they were able to extract meaning simultaneously

from what they read and from what they heard.

296 Meta, XLIX, 2, 2004

A more plausible multi-channel processor could deal with two or more tasks at

once provided that there is no competition between the tasks ( i.e. , that the tasks are

dissimilar) for the use of one channel, and that subordinate channels have been estab-

lished through sufficient practice. When, in his experiments involving skilled typists,

subjects were unable to combine auditory typing with shadowing, reading aloud or

reciting, Shaffer (1975) suggested three hypotheses to account for this inability, namely

the pacing factor in auditory typing, the similarity of codes in the auditory tasks, and

finally the possibility that the vocal output in the competing task was masking the

auditory typing text.

Other researchers offered the following hypotheses: Brooks (1968) found that

concurrent vocal activity may be the source of conflict. Crowder (1970) claimed that

although there may be some special advantage in receiving auditory input over a

channel as familiar as one’s own voice, this active vocalization may in fact make

special demands on the subject, demands which are not present during passive or

covert vocalization. Finally, Jaffe et al. (1967) pointed out the difficulty of speaking

and listening simultaneously in that, although subjects may be able to attend to two

voices simultaneously, they will encounter greater difficulty when one of the two voices

is their own.

In any discussion pertaining to simultaneous listening and speaking, the auto-

maticity factor cannot be overlooked. A general rule appears to be that once a skill is

highly learned, it gradually requires less conscious attention or little allocation of

mental effort. Furthermore, highly skilled tasks seem to become automated and

thereby not susceptible to disruption because attention is withdrawn (Norman

1976). With sufficient practice, responses can become ‘pre-attentive’ or are referred to

as ‘automatisms’ (Neisser 1967).

Although experience and practice may indeed enable a subject to perform two

tasks simultaneously, the feat is still considered unnatural. The simultaneity of listen-

ing and speaking imposes a severe strain on human channel capacity, which may

explain in part why professional interpreters normally ask to work for 20-minute

periods only. To avoid the strain of continuous processing in this fashion, it has been

suggested that simultaneous interpreters, even with years of experience, make good

use of the brief silences in the source language’s input.

“The intermittent silence between chunks of speech in the speaker’s utterance is a very

valuable commodity for the simultaneous interpreter, for the more of his own output

he can crowd into his source’s pause, the more time he has to listen without interfer-

ence from his own output” (Goldman-Eisler, 1968, p. 128).

Poulton (1955) compared simultaneous with alternate listening and speaking and

found that a significantly greater percentage of words was omitted or incorrectly

repeated in the simultaneous condition than in the alternate condition. Barik (1973)

investigated the notion put forward by Goldman-Eisler in 1968 and analyzed the

temporal characteristics of recordings of source language speakers’ and interpreters’

speech. He concluded that simultaneous interpreters do, in fact, make greater use of

source language pauses than would be expected on the assumption that the

interpreter’s delivery is independent of intervals of speaking and pausing in the

source language speaker’s delivery. However, Barik also noted that source language

pauses occur in between units of meaning, and since interpreters are concerned with

sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation 297

translating units of meaning as opposed to words, they might be more likely to begin

interpreting during such a pause in the source language input. Since interpreters

make greater use of source language pauses, they also reduce the extent to which they

have to both speak and listen at the same time, which undoubtedly represents very

complex processing behaviour (Barik 1973). In the author’s own words,

“It is apparent that in order to achieve any kind of performance level, the T (translator)

has to consider units of meaning rather than perform on the basis of a more mechani-

cal word-by-word process. It is thus more appropriate for the T to listen while the

meaning unit is being formulated by S (speaker), and undertake to translate it once it is

completed” (Barik 1973, p. 263).

In a similar vein, earlier research carried out by the present author, on ‘depth-of-

processing’ and interpretation-related tasks such as listening, shadowing, interpreting

simultaneously and interpreting consecutively, indicated that recall results were higher

after listening and consecutive interpretation – conditions where subjects were not

vocalizing and where it was assumed they were focusing their undivided attention on

processing the incoming message – than were recall scores following shadowing and

simultaneous interpretation. One possible interpretation was that simultaneous

vocalization on the part of the subjects interfered in some way with their ability to

process material to any great depth, making it a possible source of conflict (Lambert

1988).

Divided attention and simultaneous interpretation

Simultaneous interpretation is a classical case of divided attention in that it involves

several different cognitive tasks carried out more or less concurrently. Attention is

divided when an interpreter monitors two or more tasks – listening to a verbal mes-

sage in the source language, and translating it into a target language – while simulta-

neously monitoring one’s own output and on occasions reading portions of a written

version of the original message for clues as to the best match of specific words in the

working languages.

Padilla, Bajo, Cañas & Padilla (1995) provide a substantive description of all the

ongoing activities:

In other words, the interpreter must be able to hold the new meaning unit in his/her

working memory, to access the meaning of the words involved, to connect this new

information to information already stored in the long-term memory, at the same time

as s/he is vocalizing the translation of the previous meaning unit. This highly demand-

ing task must be performed during a relatively long period of time […] during which

time the interpreter must be able to load and unload his/her working memory at a very

high speed. (Padilla et al . 1995, p. 62)

Studies in experimental psychology have indicated that after a minimum of six months

of intensive training in tasks involving divided attention, some human beings can

indeed acquire particular procedural skills enabling them to carry out several over-

lapping and/or concurrent, independent tasks (Spelke et al. 1976; Hirst et al . 1980).

Paradoxically, if professional interpreters are asked to consciously focus their attention

either to the input or to the output, and thus revert back to behaviour expected of

beginners, their performance deteriorates significantly (Lambert et al . 1995).

298 Meta, XLIX, 2, 2004

The ability to have one’s attention divided between different synchronous tasks

has been explained by three hypotheses:

– the extra-effort hypothesis: the increased resources needed to carry out concurrent

tasks require an increased effort on the part of the subject;

– the alternation-of-attention hypothesis: subjects do not carry out the different tasks in

a rigorously concurrent way; instead, they learn how to rapidly shift back and forth

from the processing of one task to the processing of another;

– the automatic-mental-activities hypothesis : after acquiring the ability to carry out a

task involving divided attention, there is no longer the need to monitor every single

mental activity through a central processing system, since some of these activities can

be carried out automatically.

Gran and Fabbro (1995) found that for verbal tasks requiring divided attention, and

in particular during simultaneous interpretation, untrained subjects tended to alter-

nate their attention by focussing it mainly either on the incoming message or on

their own output, at the same time as they increased their voice level, both detrimen-

tal to an interpreter’s performance. Hence one reason for the present experiment was

to measure beginning interpreters’ ability to interpret simultaneously both with and

without visual support. In other words, would the inclusion of a written version of

the speech help or hinder future interpretation candidates?

The tasks under study

The present study set out to determine the types of processing involved when sub-

jects perform a) sight translation compared to b) sight interpretation or to c) simul-

taneous interpretation .

a) Sight translation involves the transposition of a message written in one language

into a message delivered orally in another language. Since both oral and visual forms

of information processing are involved, sight translation can be defined as a specific

type of written translation as well as a variant of oral interpretation.

From a human processing perspective, sight translation appears to have more in

common with simultaneous interpretation (Moser, personal communication), given

the number of variables involved – time stress, anticipation, reading for idea closure,

not to mention the oral nature of the task – factors that are either absent in written

translation, or present only to a limited degree.

It is important to define what type of sight translation is involved and to distin-

guish sight translation from sight interpretation (described below). For example,

sight translation can be rendered more or less challenging: an unstressful form of

sight translation is where the candidate is allowed approximately ten minutes to read

a 300-word passage and prepare the vocabulary. A more stressful variation of sight

translation would be where preparation time is eliminated altogether and the candi-

date is asked to begin translating immediately, without even having the chance to

read the document. [As challenging as this may sound, candidates should be trained

to perform unrehearsed sight translation in preparation for work as a court inter-

preter, for example, where documents may need to be translated on the spot before a

judge].

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: