Processes of Translation and Interpreting from a Native into a Foreign Language: Psycholinguistic Aspects

Abstract

The aim of the paper deals with the preliminary verification of D. Gile’s (2009) hypothesis (Effort Model) concerning the dependence of the translation quality not only on the command of the two languages involved, but also on the degree of the translator’s or interpreter’s processing mechanism saturation. The methods of the research included a comparative analysis of two target texts (English) translated by the same subjects from the same non-fiction source text (Ukrainian) related to the domain of law. The said source text was first rendered into English orally (sight translation) and then translated in the written form within a predetermined time limit. The subjects, first-year MA students majoring in Translation, whose command of English ranged between B2 and C1 levels within the CEF classification, were properly motivated to achieve the maximum possible result. The analysis of both English target texts (oral and written) was based on a number of parameters, which included the preservation of the source text information in the target texts, their grammar and lexical accuracy, as well as their coherence. The sight translation analysis additionally assessed fluency, while the written translation – orthographic control. Results. It was established that the preservation of the source text information in the target texts is equally high in both types of translation. The same is generally true concerning their grammar and lexical accuracy as well. A slight growth of the number of mistakes in the article use and an insignificant amount of more elementary errors, non-compatible with the subjects’ level of English, may be accounted for by the restricted monitoring capacity in sight translation due to the processing mechanism saturation. By coherence criterion, the sight translation target text does not meet the requirements of the B2+ level the written translation target text belongs to. In some fragments, it slides down to level B1 or even A2, especially in relation to fluency, whose quality is often deteriorated by unmotivated pauses, false starts, repetitions, self-corrections and reformulations. Conclusions. The authors suggest an assumption that the said deterioration in sight translation is accounted for by a higher degree of simultaneous efforts concentration in it as compared with the written translation. The paper outlines the prospects of further research.