Exploring Translation and Interpreting Hybrids. The Case of Sight Translation

Abstract

This article reports on a comparative study of written translation and sight translation, drawing on experimental data combining keystroke logging, eye-tracking and quality ratings of spoken and written output produced by professional translators and interpreters. Major differences in output rate were observed when comparing oral and written modalities. Evaluation of the translation products showed that the lower output rate in the written condition was not justified by significantly higher quality in the written products. Observations from the combination of data sources point to fundamental behavioural differences between interpreters and translators. Overall, working in the oral modality seems to have a lot to offer in terms of saving time and effort without compromising the output quality, and there seems to be a case for increasing the role of oral translation in translator training, incorporating it as a deliberate practice activity.Le présent article fait état d’une étude comparative de la traduction écrite et de la traduction à vue. Elle est fondée sur des données expérimentales qui associent un enregistrement de la frappe, une étude oculométrique ainsi qu’une évaluation de la qualité de traductions orales et écrites produites par des traducteurs et des interprètes professionnels. La comparaison des modalités orale et écrite met en évidence des différences majeures. L’évaluation des traductions montre en effet que le débit faible observé pour la traduction écrite ne garantit nullement une qualité accrue. Par ailleurs, l’analyse comparative fait état de différences fondamentales de comportement entre interprètes et traducteurs. De façon générale, la traduction orale semble pouvoir contribuer de façon significative à l’économie de temps et d’effort sans compromettre la qualité, ce qui justifierait une accentuation de son rôle, et même une pleine intégration, dans la formation des traducteurs

Translating by post-editing: is it the way forward?

“…It might well be that some will achieve greater productivity by bringing back the preword processing practice of dictating, albeit now to a speech recognition device rather than a secretary. Speech recognition is another technology to which translators and researchers are now paying increased attention (Dragsted and Hansen 2009). In contrast, others may do what TAUS (2007) likes to call "advanced leveraging", making the most of features developed in some TM tools to facilitate reuse at the sub-segment level.…”

Just a matter of scope

“…This might in turn be extremely helpful to shed some light on the nature of controlled and automated processes. Current research on hybrids such as sight translation (e.g., Dragsted and Gorm Hansen 2009;Shreve, Lacruz, and Angelone 2011) are already paving the way. It's just a matter of scope.…”

Translating On the Go? Investigating the Potential of Multimodal Mobile Devices for Interactive Translation Dictation

“…Similar efforts have continued over the years, highlighting the various challenges of voice recognition/machine translation integration (Désilets, Stojanovic, Lapointe, Rose, & Reddy, 2008;Reddy & Rose, 2010;Rodriguez, Reddy, & Rose, 2012;Vidal, Casacuberta, Rodríguez, Civera, & Martínez Hinarejos, 2006), and the potential benefits of using voice input for human translation purposes (GarciaMartinez et al, 2014;Mesa-Lao, 2014). Likewise, translation trainers and researchers have made further efforts to evaluate the performance of students and professionals when using off-the-shelf voice recognition systems for straight dictation (Dragsted & Hansen, 2009;Dragsted, Mees, & Hansen, 2011;Mees, Dragsted, Hansen, & Jakobsen, 2013); to introduce them to this technology (Romero-Fresco, 2012); and to assess and analyze professional translators' needs and opinions vis-à-vis voice recognition technology (Ciobanu, 2014;Zapata, 2012Zapata, , 2016.…”