視譯長久以來僅被當成課堂學習的輔助工具。然而，近年視譯於實務中的使用機率已有所提升，社區口譯等子領域甚至更將視譯列為必備技能，加上多項研究已證明，視譯確有不同於其它口譯模式的難處，因此視譯實值得深入研究。由於眼動儀可觀測閱讀情形，因此以此儀器研究視譯，可直接了解視譯的認知歷程，有助口譯研究的學科繼續發展。
本研究分析17位資深口譯員、18位口譯學生、18位未受訓的雙語使用者，期能了解閱讀目的是否會影響閱讀行為，找出訓練與口譯實務經驗造成的影響，並細部觀察視譯過程中的「前導閱讀」（reading ahead）與停頓行為。結果發現，閱讀目的不同，的確會改變閱讀行為；然而，不同作業之間的閱讀行為仍有部分相似。閱讀第一遍（first pass）時，為了理解而閱讀（默讀）與為了翻譯而閱讀（視譯）的行為非常相似，到了第二遍（second pass）之後才開始出現差異。朗讀在閱讀第一遍時耗費的時間遠多於其它兩者，但進入第二遍之後，與默讀的相似度便大幅提升。整體而言，默讀與朗讀的認知負荷較接近，後者略高，視譯則最為費力。
訓練與口譯經驗究竟有何影響？本研究發現，口譯專家的視譯品質最高，再者為口譯學生，最低者為未受訓的雙語者。整體數據（global data）顯示，經過訓練者，視譯總時間與總凝視數量皆顯著少於一般雙語者。不過，譯文總字數、細部閱讀指標（local reading indices）的平均凝視時間，以及閱讀廣度（reading span）皆無組間差異。由此推知，差異應主要來自各組的視譯過程。經過訓練者，畫面一出現，短暫默讀後便會開始視譯，未受訓者絕大多數則會完整將內容讀過，因此一開始的停頓顯著較長。此外，經過訓練，每次開口前的凝視次數也顯著較少，口譯專家更是極端，就算遇到中英語言明顯不同的分枝結構（principal branching direction units），也幾乎不會受阻而出現較長停頓。口譯學生的做法與專家類似，只是轉換技巧較不熟練，偶爾停頓較長、凝視次數較多；相對而言，未受訓的雙語者出現長時間停頓與多次凝視的頻率較高。整體而言，經過訓練，可察覺的停頓數量便會減少，流暢度較高，產出速度也較快。至此，訓練的影響已相當明顯，品質與速度皆會顯著提升。另一方面，經驗影響的似乎主要是正確度，以及開始視譯後的前導閱讀與停頓行為。
累積了足夠的經驗之後，專家的遲疑停頓（hesitation pause）與結構停頓（juncture pause）的比例已無顯著差異，其他兩組的遲疑停頓則顯著較多，但三組停頓時，凝視分枝結構的機率都在一半以上。最後，受過訓練者，包括資深口譯員與口譯學生，不管是哪種任務，處理中英分枝結構相異處所耗費的時間與非相異結構並無顯著差異，至於一般雙語者，於默讀任務時已可觀察到，在第一遍閱讀中比較晚期的指標與非首遍閱讀的訊息統整階段，分枝結構相異處顯著較費心力，進入視譯，除了前述兩者之外，分枝結構相異處的單字平均凝視總時間也顯著較長，顯示未受訓者於處理語言分枝結構單位方面較為吃力。

Sight translation has long been regarded as nothing more than a pedagogical tool. However, the role of sight translation has become more important in practice, and even necessary for certain fields such as community interpreting. What’s more, with a growing number of studies proving this task to be no easier than other modes of interpreting, we are now granted an opportunity to further develop the discipline of interpreting studies by looking into the cognitive process of sight translation, which can be directly observed with an eye tracker.
This study analyzed data of 17 experienced interpreters, 18 interpreting students, and 18 untrained bilinguals, hoping to 1) find out if reading purpose affects reading behavior in different ways, 2) understand the impacts of training and experience, and 3) look more closely at the behavior of reading ahead and pausing during sight translation. The results showed that, different reading purposes did change reading behavior, but there were still similarities between tasks. Reading for comprehension was similar to reading for sight translation in the first pass of reading, while the two started to diverge in the second pass. On the other hand, reading aloud, a task requiring more efforts in the first pass, began to resemble silent reading more than sight translation in the second pass. Generally speaking, the cognitive load imposed on silent reading was similar to (and a little less than) reading aloud, and sight translation was significantly more strenuous.
Turning to the impacts of training and experience, it was found that the quality of sight translation was the highest for experts, followed by trainees and then untrained bilinguals. Global data showed less total time and fewer fixations for trained participants than bilinguals. Nevertheless, word counts, mean fixation duration in all local reading indices, and even reading span failed to show any difference. As it turned out, the difference lay in how each group proceeded with the task. Trained participants started sight-translating the text shortly after each trial began, with few fixations of reading ahead, when bilinguals mostly read through the text first, leaving a rather long silence at the outset. In addition, participants with training had significantly fewer fixations before uttering each Chinese character. Experts were extreme in that they rarely got bogged down, even when encountering contrastive linguistic structures. Trainees also manifested a similar tendency, though not as adept at the reformulation skills as experts. Bilinguals, on the opposite, showed much more fixations and longer pauses from time to time. Overall, observable pauses were fewer for those with training, and average verbal gaps were shorter as well, leading to higher fluency and a quicker pace. While the impacts of training were obviously on quality and speed, experience seemed to mainly affect accuracy and the behavior of reading ahead and pausing once sight translation began.
Experts, with ample experience, had a non-significant gap between the percentage of hesitation pause and that of juncture pause, whereas the other two groups had significantly more hesitation pauses. Notwithstanding, all groups tended to fixate on principal branching direction (PBD) units at least 50% of the time during pauses. Finally, trained participants (i.e., both experts and interpreting students) did not show any difference between the time spent on processing PBD and non-PBD units in all three tasks. On the other hand, untrained bilinguals already inclined to spend significantly longer time on PBD units during silent reading in a relatively later stage of first-pass processing and for meaning integration in non-first-pass reading. When performing sight translation, the results during silent reading were replicated; what was more, total viewing time on PBD units was also significantly longer, indicating that processing PBD units were more effortful for untrained bilinguals.

AIIC (2012). Who can join AIIC? Retrieved from http://aiic.net/p/4046
Agrifoglio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative
analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting, 6(1), 43-67.
Akinnaso, F. N. (1982). On the differences between spoken and written
language. Language and speech, 25(2), 97-125.
Alves, F., Pagano, A., & da Silva, I. (2011). Towards an investigation of
reading modalities in/for translation: An exploratory study using eye-
tracking data. In O’Brien, S. (Ed.), Cognitive Explorations of
Translation (pp. 175-196). Bloomsbury Academic.
Angelelli, C. (1999). The role of reading in sight translation. The ATA
Chronicle, 28(5), 27-30.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Beauvillain, C., & Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical
homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access.
Journal of memory and language, 26(6), 658-672.
Berg, T. (2009). Structure in language: A dynamic perspective.
Routledge.
Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Biela-Woloñciej, A. (2007). A-Vista: New challenges for tailor-made
translation types on the example of the recorded sight translation.
Kalbotyra, 57, 30-39.
Biq, Y. O. (1995). Chinese causal sequencing and yinwei in
conversation and press reportage. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society (Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 47-60).
Brady, S. A. (1991). The role of working memory in reading disability.
Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman,
129-151.
Chafe, W. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written
language. Retrieved from
http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/142/TR05.pdf?x-
r=pcfile_d
Chang, H. F. (2008). A study on GITI students’ ST difficulty &
performance. SPECTRUM: Studies in Language, Literature,
Translation, and Interpretation, 2, 61-83.
Chen, D. I. (2013). Differences in comprehension process between
experienced and novice interpreters – an eye movement study
(Unpublished M.A. thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chen, J. G. (2006a). Contrastive research & crosslinguistic influence:
Some implications for teaching Chinese and English as a second
language. Taipei: Crane.
Chen, J. G. (2006b). Interplay between forward and backward transfer
in L2 and L1 writing: The case of Chinese ESL learners in the US.
Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 32(1), 147-196.
Chen, J. G. (2007). The L2 Acquisition of Information Sequencing in
Chinese: The case of English CSL learners in Taiwan. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 170–191.
Chen, J. G. (2011). Contrastive analysis and its applications in language
pedagogy. Taipei: Crane.
Chen, W. (2015). Sight translation. In Mikkelson, H. & Jourdenais, R.
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 144-153).
London: Routledge.
Chernov, G. V. (1994). Message redundancy and message anticipation
in simultaneous interpretation. In Lambert, S. & Moser-Mercer, B.
(Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous
interpretation (pp. 139-153). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Chiang, H. K., Kuo, F. L. & Chen, W. C. (2009). Exploring pausing
patterns in two-way sight translation. SPECTRUM: Studies in
Language, Literature, Translation, and Interpretation, 5, 155-167.
Chmiel, A. & Mazur, I. (2013). Eye tracking sight translation performed
by trainee interpreters. In Way, C., Vandepitte, S., Meylaerts, R.,
Bartłomiejczyk, M. (Eds.), Tracks and Treks in Translation Studies
(pp. 189-205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Christoffels, I. K. (2004). Cognitive studies in simultaneous interpreting
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam: The
Netherlands.
Christoffels, I. K. & de Groot, A. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A
cognitive perspective. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook
of Bilingualism (pp. 454-479). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and
language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and
language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 324-
345.
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A., & Waldorp, L. J. (2003). Basic skills in a
complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval
to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
6(3), 201-211.
Chu, C. H. (1998). A discourse grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New
York: Peter Lang.
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An
introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Coltheart, M. (2000). Dual routes from print to speech and dual routes
from print to meaning: Some theoretical issues. In Kennedy, A.,
Radach, R., Heller, D., & Pynte, J. (Eds.), Reading As a Perceptual
Process (pp. 475-490). Elsevier.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in
working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 19(4), 450-466.
Darò, V., & Fabbro, F. (1994). Verbal memory during simultaneous
interpretation: Effects of phonological interference. Applied
Linguistics, 15(4), 365-381.
De Groot, A. (2013). Reading. In Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (Eds.), The
Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism (pp. 73-99). Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
De Groot, A., & Christoffels, I. K. (2006). Language control in bilinguals:
Monolingual tasks and simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 9(2), 189-201.
De Groot, A., & Christoffels, I. K. (2007). Processes and mechanisms of
bilingual control: Insights from monolingual task performance
extended to simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Translation
Studies, 10, 17-41.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics. (No. 105). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Diez, D. M., Barr, C. D. & Çetinkaya-Rundel, M. (2015). OpenIntro
statistics (3rd ed.). OpenIntro, Inc.
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. (1999). Recognition of
cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of
phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496-518.
Dijkstra, T., van Jaarsveld, H., & ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual
homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language
intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 51-66.
Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In Lambert, S. & Moser-Mercer, B. (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 155-189). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dragsted, B. & Hansen, I. G. (2009). Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids: The case of sight translation. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 54(3), 588-604.
Dragsted, B., Mees, I. M. & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Speaking your translation: Students’ first encounter with speech recognition technology. Translation and Interpreting, 3(1), 10-43.
Duffy, S.A., Morris, R.K., and Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 529-557.
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101-116.
Duyck, W., van Assche, E., Drieghe, D., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Visual word recognition by bilinguals in a sentence context: Evidence for nonselective lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 663-679.
Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique (n.d.). Bilingualism — Types of bilingualism. Retrieved from http://developpement-langagier.fpfcb.bc.ca/en/bilingualism-types-bilingualism
Fernández, E. (2002). Relative clause attachment in bilinguals and monolinguals. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 187-215). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1997). Examining second language reading: An on-line look. In Proceedings of the GALA 1997 conference on language acquisition (pp. 474-478).
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. R. & Altarriba, J. (Eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 187-216). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 268-281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, A., Bonet, J., Festinger, N., Framer, I., & Macfarlane, A. G. (2006). Modes of interpreting: Simultaneous, consecutive and sight Translation. NAJIT position paper. Retrieved from http://courts.alaska.gov/language/modes-interpreting.pdf.
Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71-99.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–329.
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In Danks, J. H., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B., & McBeath, M. K. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 196-214). Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Gile, D. (1999). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting — A contribution. Hermes, 23, 153-172.
Gile, D. (2001). The history of research into conference interpreting: A
scientometric approach. Target, 12(2), 297-321.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127-140.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1122-1139.
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., & Mees, I. M. (Eds.). (2008). Looking at eyes: Eye-tracking studies of reading and translation processing. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: From pixels to pandemonium. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 381-387.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67-81.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, J. (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, (pp. 1-22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Her, E. (1997). Binary error analysis of sight interpretation from English into Chinese and its pedagogical implications. Studies of Interpretation and Translation, 2, 111-135.
Hernández, A., Fernández, E., & Aznar-Besé, N. (2009). Bilingual sentence processing. In Gaskell, M. G., Gerry, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 371-384). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ho, C. E. (2013). The review of interpretation research in Taiwan: 2004-2013. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 16, 111-144.
Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Psychology Press.
Hsieh, J. H. (2014). Comparing cognitive processes during pauses between experienced interpreters and novice interpreters: Eye movements in sight translation (Unpublished M.A. thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Huang, C. C. (2011). Tracking eye movements in sight translation — The comprehension process in interpreting (Unpublished M.A. thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Huang, L. S. (2009). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal, 64(2), 155-164.
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In Hyönä, J, Radach, R., & Deubel, H. (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313-334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., & Alaja, A. M. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpretation and other language tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(3), 598-612.
Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In Underwood, G. (Ed.). Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29-53). Oxford: Elsevier.
International Medical Interpreters Association (2009). IMIA guide on sight translation. Retrieved from http://www.imiaweb.org/uploads/pages/380_2.pdf.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (n.d.). ISO 13611:2014 (Interpreting — Guidelines for community interpreting). Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54082.
Isham, W. P. (2000). Phonological interference in interpreters of spoken-languages: An issue of storage or process? In Dimitrova, B. E. & Hyltenstam, K. (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives (Vol. 40), (pp. 133-149). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2004). Age of acquisition effects in translation judgment tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(2), 165-181.
Jiang, W. Y. (2009). Acquisition of word order in Chinese as a foreign language. Walter de Gruyter.
Jobard, G., Crivello, F., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: A metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage, 20(2), 693-712.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.
Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory and Cognition, 29(2), 363-372.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1993). Information sequencing in Modern Standard Chinese in a genre of extended spoken discourse. Text, 13(3), 423-453.
Klonowicz, T. (1994). Putting one’s heart into simultaneous interpretation. In Lambert, S. & Moser-Mercer, B. (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 213-224). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155-163.
Lee, J. (2012). What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training? Meta: Translators’ Journal, 57(3), 694-714.
Lee, T. (2006). A comparison of simultaneous interpretation and delayed
simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 51(2), 202-214.
Levitin, D. J. (2014). The organized mind: Thinking straight in the age of
information overload. New York: Dutton.
Levy-Schoen, A. (1981). Flexible and/or rigid control of oculomotor scanning behavior. In Fisher, D. F., Monty, R. A, & Senders, J. W. (Eds.), Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception (pp. 299-314). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liao, P. S. (2007). The review of current interpretation research publications in Taiwan. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 10, 191-219.
Libben, M. R., & Titone, D. A. (2009). Bilingual lexical access in context: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 381-390.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.
Liu, M. H. (2011). Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In Nicodemus, B. & Swabey, L. (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action (pp. 85-119). John Benjamins Publishing.
Liu, M. H., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19-42.
Lonsdale, D. (1997). Modeling cognition in SI: Methodological issues.
Interpreting, 2(1-2), 91-117.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2004). When translation makes the difference: Sentence processing in reading and translation. Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 181-205.
Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1-34.
McDonald, J. L., & Carpenter, P. A. (1981). Simultaneous translation: Idiom interpretation and parsing heuristics. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 231-247.
Mellinger, C. D., & Hanson, T. A. (2017). Quantitative research methods in translation and interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. In Carreiras, M., & Clifton, Jr. C. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (pp. 15-32). New York: Psychology Press.
Mizuno, A. (2005). Process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50(2), 739-752.
Moser-Mercer, B., & Setton, R. (2000). The Geneva (ETI) perspective on
interpretation research. Conference Interpretation and Translation, 2, 49-56.
National Council on Interpreting in Health Care. (2009). Sight translation and written translation: Guidelines for healthcare interpreters. Retrieved from http://www.ncihc.org/assets/documents/publications/Translation_Guidelines_for_ Interpreters_FINAL042709.pdf
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In Kidd, E. (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13-38). John Benjamins.
Padilla, F., Bajo, M. T., & Macizo, P. (2005). Articulatory suppression in language interpretation: Working memory capacity, dual tasking and word knowledge. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(03), 207-219.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Psychology Press.
Pöchhacker, F. (2008). The turns of interpreting studies. In Hansen, G., Chesterman, A., Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 25-46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2015). Evolution of interpreting research. In Mikkelson, H. & Jourdenais, R. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 62-76). London: Routledge.
Prideaux, G. D. (1989). Text data as evidence for language processing principles: The grammar of ordered events. Language Sciences, 11(1), 27-42.
Prideaux, G. D., & Hogan, J. T. (1993). Markedness as a discourse management device: The role of alternative adverbial clause orders. Word, 44(3), 397-411.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In Dollerup, C. & Loddegaard, A. (Eds.), The teaching of translation (pp.279-288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2009). On omission in simultaneous interpreting: Risk analysis of a hidden effort. In Hansen, G., Chesterman, A., & Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp. 83-105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (2004). Theoretical perspective on eye movement in reading: Past controversies, current Issues, and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1/2), 3-26.
Ramsay, V. (1987). The functional distribution of preposed and postposed “if” and “when” clauses in written narrative. In Tomlin, R S. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 383-408). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
Rayner, K., Cook, A. E., Juhasz, B. J., & Frazier, L. (2006). Immediate
disambiguation of lexically ambiguous words during reading: Evidence from eye movements. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 467-482.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31-74.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 70-77.
Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J. & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements during reading. In Snowling, M. J. and Hulme, C. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 79-97). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In Henderson J. M. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 59-104). New York: Psychology Press.
Rayner, K. & Liversedge, S. P. (2011). Linguistic and cognitive influences on eye movements during reading. In Liversedge, S. P., Gilchrist, I. D., & Everling, S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 751-766). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton Jr., C. (2012). Psychology of reading. Psychology Press.
Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effects of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1290-1301.
Sampaio, G. R. L. (2007). Mastering sight translation skills. Tradução and Comunicação, (16), 63-69.
Savage, R., Lavers, N., & Pillay, V. (2007). Working memory and reading
difficulties: What we know and what we don’t know about the relationship. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 185-221.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2), 205-214.
Schwartz, A. I., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 197-212.
Setton, R. (2001). Deconstructing SI: a contribution to the debate on component processes. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 1-26.
Shreve, G. M., Lacruz, I., & Angelone, E. (2010). Cognitive effort, syntactic disruption, and visual interference in a sight translation task. In Shreve, G. M. & Angelone, E. (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 63-84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shreve, G. M., Schäffner, C., Danks, J. H., & Griffin, J. (1993). Is there a special kind of “reading” for translation: An empirical investigation of reading in the translation process. Target, 5(1), 21-41.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Su, Y. W. (2013). Cognitive process during pauses in interpreting output: From eye movements in sight translation. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei. 
Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Tzeng, O. J. L., Hung, D. L., & Yen, N. S. (2004). Use of phonological codes for Chinese characters: Evidence from processing of parafoveal preview when reading sentences. Brain and Language, 91, 235–244.
Tsai, J. L., Yen, M. H., & Wang, C. A. (2005). Eye movement recording and the application in research of reading Chinese. Research in Applied Psychology, 28, 91-104.
Van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 431-451.
Van Leerdam, M., Bosman, A. M., & de Groot, A. (2009). When MOOD rhymes with ROAD dynamics of phonological coding in bilingual visual word perception. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 303-335.
Van Riemsdijk, H. C., & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of
grammar. The MIT Press.
Viaggio, S. (1995). The praise of sight translation (and squeezing the last drop thereout of). The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 6, 33–42.
Vonk, W., & Cozijn, R. (2003). On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time. In Hyönä, J., Radach, R., & Deubel, H., (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 291-312). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Wang, Y. F. (2006). The information structure of adverbial clauses in Chinese discourse. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 49-88.
Weber, W. K. (1990). The importance of sight translation in an interpreter training program. In Bowen, D. & Bowen, M. (Eds.), Interpreting — Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (pp. 44-52). Binghamton: State University of New York.
Wu, M. L. (2012). SPSS operation and application — The practice of quantitative analysis of questionnaire data. Taipei: Wu-Nan.
Yang, C. L., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85-100.
Young, W. L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In Gumperz J. (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 72-84). New York: Cambridge University Press.