SIGHT TRANSLATION IN THE TRANSLATION TAXONOMY
Abstract
This research has a twofold objective: finding some evidence of specific translation competence skills in translation tasks and comparing these data in sight translation and written translation in order to prove the sight translation. Two main assumptions are put forward: (1) the Sight Translation (henceforth, ST) is a complex process representing a three-act operation: (1) perception of the written text; (2) transformation; (3) oral reproduction. Step (2) has a restriction “retaining the content”. (2) The translator’s activity reveals another function in the specific setting, that of a “mediator” between either two parties of experts, for instance, at the negotiation, or in the court room – amid the trial party and the defendant, or betwixt the doctor and the patient in the hospital, or the architect and the construction worker, the designer and the executor at the enterprise, etc. Accordingly, ST differs from interpreting (see Dragsted, 2007:251) (consecutive and simultenous (Ivanova, 2019:27; cf: Song, 2010:120) in Step (1). It differs from the consecutive interpreting in timing the reproduction – simultaneity : sequence (Step 3). It differs from the simultаnеous interpreting in its type of the target recipient (Step 3) – it needs specification: expert or layman. We shall start considering the ST definition with the background notion of translation proposed by Lawrence Venuti as “a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language (Venuti, 2004:15). The term ST can refer to different types of activity, depending on the conditions under which the ST is performed. Firstly, one may distinguish between ST with and without preparation of the text, called “unstressful ST” and “stressful ST”, respectively. Secondly, the literature on ST also distinguishes between ST and SI (sight interpreting) (Lambert, 2004:298). The overview of the ST research and a critical analysis of current publications are by no means exhaustive, but they reveal the major trends of the ST development.
References
2. Dragsted B., Hansen I.G. Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids: The сase of sight translation. Meta. 2009. Vol. 54. No. 3. Р. 588–604.
3. Frash S.S., Maksyutina O.V. Sight Translation as an Independent Branch of Translation. Вестник ТГПУ. 2010. Vol. 4. 76–81.
4. Gardner Howard. Multiple intelligences. 2010. http://www. howardgardner.com/MI/mi.html (Last accessed: 05/01/19).
5. Gile Daniel. Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. / Ed. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, Michael K. McBeath. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press, 1997. Pp. 196–214.
6. Goldberg Joseph H., Wichansky Anna M. Eye tracking in usability evaluation: A practitioner’s guide. / Ed. Jukka Hyönä, Ralph Radach, Heiner Deubel. The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2003. Pp. 493–516.
7. Hale S. Community interpreting / Ed. F. Pöchhacker. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies. Abingdon : Routledge, 2015. Pp. 65–69.
8. Hale S., Gonzalez Garcia E. Teaching legal interpreting at university level: A research-based approach. / Ed. L. Cirillo, N. Niemants. Teaching dialogue interpreting research-based proposals for higher education. Amsterdam /Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 2017. Pp. 199–216.
9. Hale S.B. Public service interpreting / The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. 2012. URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0024 (Last accessed: 05/01/19).
10. Hong S. Paraphrasing as an anti-interference technique in sight translation. Interpreting and Translation Studies. 2010. Vol. 13. No. 2. Pp. 141–170.
11. Jakobsen Arnt L. Orientation, segmentation, and revision in translation / Ed. Glyde Hansen. Empirical translation studies: Process and product. Copenhagen studies in language. 27. Copenhagen : Samfundslitteratur, 2002. Pp. 191–204.
12. Jensen Kristian. Distribution of attention between source text and target text during translation / Ed. Sharon O’Brien. Cognitive explorations of Translation. London : Continuum, 2011. Pp. 215–236.
13. Kohn Kurt, Kalina Silvia. The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta. 1996. Vol. 41(1). Pp. 118–38.
14. Mikkelson Holly. The interpreter’s companion. Spreckels, CA: Acebo,1993. (CD-ROM edition).
15. Mikkelson Holly. The Interpreter’s Edge. Spreckels, CA: Acebo,1995. 325 p.
16. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. On paradigms and cognitive translatology / Ed. Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone. Translation and cognition. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2010. P. 169-187.
17. Mykhaylenko V.V. Glossary of Linguistics and Translation Studies: English-Ukrainian. Chernivtsi : Tehnodruk, 2015. 555 p.
18. Mykhaylenko V.V. Sight translation: Training algorithm /. Науковий журнал Львівського державного університету безпеки життєдіяльності «Львівський філологічний часопис»: зб. наук. праць. № 1. Львів, 2017. С. 49–54.
19. Mykhaylenko V.V. Sight translation in cross-cultural communication. Держава та регіони. Серія: Гуманітарні науки. № 2. (53) Запоріжжя : Класичний приватний університет, 2018. С. 63–68.
20. Mykhaylenko V.V. Meronymy in professional discourse translation / Ed. C.М. Єнікєєва. Нова філологія. Зб. наук. пр. Запоріжжя : ЗНУ, 2018. № 73. С. 82–88. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.26661 (Last accessed: 05/01/19).
21. Mykhaylenko Valery. Internationalisms in cross-cultural communication. Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія»: серія «Філологія». Острог : Вид-во НаУОА, 2018. Вип. 1 (69), ч. 2. С. 25–28. DOI: 10.25264/2519- 2558-2018-1(69)/2-25-28 (Last accessed: 05/01/19).
22. Ondelli Stefano. Medium shift in interpretation: Do interpreters produce oral texts? The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 1998. Vol. 8. Pp. 181–193.
23. Pym Anthony. Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defence of a minimalist approach. Meta. 2003. Vol. 48(4). Pp. 481–97.
24. Risku Hanna. A Cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference? Target. 2010. Vol. 22(1). Pp. 94–111.
25. Šarčević S. New approach to legal translation. The Hague; Boston : Kluwer Law International, 2016. xiii, 308 pp.
26. Seeber Kilian G. Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting. Existing theories – New Models. Interpreting. 2011. Vol. 13(2). Pp. 176–204.
27. Shreve Gregory M., Lacruz Isabel, Angelone Erik. Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption and visual interference in a sight translation task. / Ed. G.M. Shreve, E. Angelone. Translation and Cognition. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XV. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 2010. Pp. 63–84.
28. Song S.Z. Skill transfer from sight translation to simultaneous interpreting. International Journal of Interpreter Education. 2010. Vol. 2. Pp. 120–134.
29. Viaggioт S. The praise of sight translation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 1995. Vol. 9. Рp. 33–42.
30. Viezzi Maurizio. Information retention as a parameter for the comparison of sight translation and simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 1989. No. 2. Pp. 65–69.
31. Valencia Virginia. Note-taking manual: A Study guide for interpreters and everyone who takes notes. Columbia, MD : Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2014. 123 p.
32. Weber W.K. Training translators and conference interpreters. Orlando : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Interna-tional, 1984. 74 р.
