Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:21:09.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The Translation Process

from Part I - The Nature of Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2022

By
Fabio Alves  and
Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
Edited by
Kirsten Malmkjær
Kirsten Malmkjær
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Get access

Summary

Chapter 2 tackles aspects of cognitive processing that can be observed in the course of a translation task, from the moment a translator begins to read a text-to-be-translated until the translation has been finalized. It begins by recording the historical development of research into the translation process and how the task of translation has been modelled. It moves on to examining how advances in methodological approaches have contributed to the development of early models, providing empirical evidence from verbal reports, keylogging and eye tracking. Contemporary translation process research focuses on text reading, segmentation and production; and advances in computational linguistics have enhanced descriptions and identification of translation units, attention, production and alignment.

Keywords

Processingreadingsegmentationproductiontranslation unitsattentionalignment
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Translation , pp. 34 - 54
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alves, F. (1995). Zwischen Schweigen und Sprechen: Wie bildet sich eine transkulturelle Brücke? Eine psycholinguistisch orientierte Untersuchung von Übersetzungs-vorgängen zwischen portugiesischen und brasilianischen Übersetzern. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Alves, F., ed. (2003). Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alves, F. (2007). Cognitive effort and contextual effect in translation: A relevance theoretic approach. Journal of Translation Studies, 10(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Gonçalves, J. L. (2003). A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Gonçalves, J. L. (2015). Investigating the conceptual‐procedural distinction in the translation process: A relevance‐theoretic analysis of micro and macro translation units. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S. and O᾽Brien, S., eds., Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. (2010). Cognitive approaches. In Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L., eds., The Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. (2017). Evolution, challenges and perspectives for research on cognitive aspects of translation. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 537–54.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Vale, D. C. (2009). Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 251–73.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. (2010). The Think‐Aloud Controversy in Second‐Language Research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breedveld, H. (2002). Writing and revising processes in professional translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 3(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buswell, G. (1935). How People Look at Pictures: A Study of the Psychology of Perception in Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carl, M. (2009). Triangulating product and process data: Quantifying alignment units with keystroke data. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F. and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 225–47.Google Scholar
Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical translation process research. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Dragsted, B. (2012). Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition, 2(1), 127–45.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Schaeffer, M. (2017a). Sketch of a noisy channel model for the translation process. In Hansen-Schirra, S., Czulo, O. and Hofmann, S., eds., Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 71–116.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Schaeffer, M. (2017b). Models of the translation process. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2013). Models of what processes? Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 155–68. Reprinted in M. Ehrensberger-Dow, B. Englund Dimitrova, S. Hubscher-Davidson and U. Norberg, eds., Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
CRITT (n.d.) TPR database: https://sites.google.com/site/centretranslationinnovation/tpr-db.Google Scholar
Dechert, H.‐W., and Sandrock, U. (1986). Thinking‐aloud protocols: The decomposition of language processing. In Cook, V., ed., Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 111–26.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2004). Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target, 17(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E., eds., Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B., and Carl, M. (2013). Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye‐tracking and key‐logging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133–58.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K., and Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–51.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K., and Simon, H. (1993 [1984]). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. M. (2019). The Neurocognition of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1986). Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process: Talk-aloud protocols of translation. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 243–62.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1987). Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: Some uses of think-aloud protocol data. In Færch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. A. (1988). From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals and professional translators. Unpublished DEd thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Goldman‐Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15, 103–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutt, E.-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell. (2nd ed. published by Routledge, 2000.)Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197–241.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In de Sutter, G., Lefer, M.-A. and Delaere, I., eds., Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 9–46.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2019). ‘Default’ translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 187–210.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. S. (1972). The name and nature of translation studies. In Holmes, J., ed., Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 67–80. Reprinted in L. Venuti, ed. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 172–85.Google Scholar
Hönig, H. G. (1988). Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun? Lebende Sprachen, 33(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado Albir, A. (2001/2011). Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. (2011). Allocation of cognitive resources in translation: An eye-tracking and key-logging study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Immonen, S. (2006). Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target, 18(2), 313–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immonen, S., and Mäkisalo, J. (2010). Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 44, 45–61.Google Scholar
Ivir, V. (1981). Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. Poetics Today, 2(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1987). What Happens in a Translation Process: Think-Aloud Protocols of Translation. A pro gradu thesis. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1989). Translation assignment in professional vs. non-professional translation. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, York University, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (1990). Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. (2002). Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography. Target, 14(1), 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R., and Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1991). Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed., Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 89–109.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–95.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2006). Research methods in translation – Translog. In Sullivan, K. P. H. and Lindgren, E., eds., Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Jensen, K. T. H. (2008). Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. In Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L. and Mees, I. M., eds., Looking at Eyes: Eye‐Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation. In Hansen, G., ed., Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 151–86.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. (2000). The Effect of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Translation. PhD thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–54.Google Scholar
Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Königs, F. G. (1987). Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die neueren Sprachen, 86(2), 162–85.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (1987). The use of introspective data in translation. In Færch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 158–76.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. (2001). Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, I., and Mees, I. M. (1999). A study of the use of dictionaries in Danish‐English translation. In Hansen, G., ed., Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 135–49.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, I., and Mees, I. M. (2003). Patterns of dictionary use in non‐domain‐specific translation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–36.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, M. P. (1999). La seguridad del traductor profesional en la traducción a una lengua extranjera. In Hansen, G., ed. Probing the Process in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 121–35.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1986). Linguistic aspects of translation processes: Towards an analysis of translation performance. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 277–92.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muñoz Martín, R. (2010). Leave no stone unturned: On the development of cognitive translatology. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 5(2), 145–62.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. (2006). Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post‐editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Pavlović, N. (2007). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice: Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. Forum, 5(2), 77–99.Google Scholar
Pokorn, N. (2005). Challenging the Traditional Axioms: Translation into a Non‐mother Tongue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reiß, K., and Vermeer, H. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., and Carl, M. (2015). Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Englund Dimitrova, B., Hubscher-Davidson, S. and Norberg, U., eds., Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Séguinot, C. (1989). The translation process: An experimental study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. York University, School of Translation: H. G. Publications, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
Séguinot, C. (1991). A study of student translation strategies. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed., Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1968). L’interprète dans les conférences internationales. Problèmes de langage et de communication. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., and Lederer, M. (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition.Google Scholar
Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1987). Think-aloud protocols in the study of the translation process. In Nyyssönen, H., Kataja, R. and Komulainen, V., eds., CDEF 86. Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland. Publications of the Department of English 7. Oulu: University of Oulu, pp. 39–49.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Professional vs non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, York University, pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., ed. (1991). Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2), 405–14.Google Scholar
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×