Cover not available
Article published In:
Babel
Vol. 61:2 (2015) ► pp.147–169

La tolerancia a la ambigüedad y los procesos cognitivos del traductor

Tolerance for ambiguity (TA) is a cognitive factor that influences the perception of uncertainty and that, when not sufficiently present, may adversely affect problem solving and decision making, both key processes in translation. This being so, it has even been stated that TA is a personality trait which must be taken into account as far as translator training and recruitment are concerned (Tirkkonen-Condit 2000). After reviewing the main research conducted so far on TA from the disciplines of psychology and translation, the results of an exploratory field study based on descriptive methodology and self-report measures are shown. The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (Arquero and McLain 2010) or MSTAT-II is the main psychometric instrument applied to all participants (n=107). On the one hand, a positive correlation was found between tolerance of ambiguity and individuals’ own assessment of their self-efficacy when searching the Internet for documentation. On the other hand, those subjects who thought that they did not meet the requirements for becoming professional translators in the future obtained low scores in TA, and a significant difference in TA was found between them and those who believed to meet such requirements. The results of this preliminary work suggest that TA is relevant to the study of the cognitive processes of translators and that psychometric instruments of proven reliability and validity can be useful for process-oriented translation research.

Keywords: individual differences, process-oriented translation research, cognitive processes, research methodology, ambiguity tolerance
Published online: 29 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.2.01bol
References
Amernic, Joel, y Thomas Beechy
1984 “Accounting Students’ Performance and Cognitive Complexity: Some Empirical Evidence”. The Accounting Review 591: 300–313.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio
(ed.) 2003 Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task”. En Translation and Cognition, editado por Gregory M. Shreve y Erik Angelone, 17–40. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik, y Gregory M. Shreve
2011 “Uncertainty Management, Metacognitive Bundling in Problem Solving and Translation Quality”. En Cognitive Explorations of Translation, editado por Sharon O’Brien, 108–130. Londres: Continuum Studies in Translation.Google Scholar
Arquero, José L., y Concepción Tejero
2009 “Ambiguity Tolerance Levels in Spanish Accounting Students: A Comparative Study”. Revista de contabilidad 12 (1): 95–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arquero, José L., y David McLain
2010 “Preliminary Validation of the Spanish Version of the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-II)”. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 13 (1): 476–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baessler, Judith, y Ralf Schwarcer
1996 “Evaluación de la autoeficacia: Adaptación española de la escala de Autoeficacia General”. Ansiedad y Estrés 21: 1–8.Google Scholar
Bammer, Gabriele, y Michael Smithson
(eds) 2008 Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Londres: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Beer, John
1989 “Learning Effects while Passively Viewing the Necker”. Perceptual and Motor Skills 691: 1391–1394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhushan, L
1970 “Leadership Preference as a Function of Authoritarianism and Intolerance of Ambiguity”. Psychologia 131: 217–222.Google Scholar
Block, Jack, y Jeanne Block
1950 “Intolerance of Ambiguity and Ethnocentrism”. Journal of Personality 191: 303–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochner, Stephen
1965 “Defining Intolerance of Ambiguity”. Psychological Record 151: 393–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolaños-Medina, Alicia
2012 “Las pruebas psicométricas en la investigación empírica sobre los procesos cognitivos del traductor”. En Traducir en la Frontera, editado por Susana Cruces-Collado, maribel Pozo-Triviño, ana Luna-Afonso, y Alberto Álvarez-Lugris, 469–482. Granada: Atrio.Google Scholar
2014 “La investigación de las diferencias individuales en traductología cognitiva.” Trans. Revista de Traductología 181:199–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budner, Stanley
1962 “Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable”. Journal of Personality 301: 29–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vega, Manuel
1984 Introducción a la psicología cognitiva. Madrid: Alianza Psicología.Google Scholar
Dixon, John
1993 “Translation Studies: The Integration of Uncertainty”. Translation and Literature 21: 125–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downey, Kirk, y John Slocum
1975 “Uncertainty: Measures, Research and Sources of Variation”. Academy of Management Journal 181: 562–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Robert
1972 “Characteristics of Organizational Environment and Perceived Environment Uncertainty”. Administrative Science Quarterly 171: 313–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Sánchez, María Manuela, y Ricardo Muñoz Martín
2008 Aproximaciones cognitivas al estudio de la traducción y la interpretación. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1977 “Scenes and Frames Semantics”. En Linguistic Structures Processing, editado por Antonio Zampolli, 55–88. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Fraser, Janet
1996 “The Translator Investigated: Learning from Translation Process Analysis”. The Translator 2 (1): 65–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “What Do Real Translators Do? Developing the Use of TAPs from Professional Translators”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 111–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frenkel-Brunswik, Else
1948 “Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable”. American Psychologist 31: 268–269.Google Scholar
1949 “Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional Perceptual Personality Variable”. Journal of Personality 181: 108–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Froeliger, Nicolas
2004 “Les mécanismes de la confiance en traduction – Aspects Relationnels”. Journal of Specialised Translation 21: 52–60.Google Scholar
Furnham, Adrian
1994 “A content, Correlational and Factor Analytic Study of Four Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaires”. Personality and Individual Differences 161: 403–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furnham, Adrian, y Tracy Ribchester
1995 “Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Concept, its Measurement and Application”. Current Psychology 141: 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Edward
1957 “Perceptual and Personality Dynamics in Reactions to Ambiguity”. British Journal of Psychology 481: 200–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, John
1987 Personality and the Linguist: A Comparison of the Personality Profiles of Professional Translators and Interpreters. Bradford: University of Bradford Press.Google Scholar
Hjort-Pedersen, Mette, y Dorrit Faber
2009 “Uncertainty in the Cognitive Processing of a Legal Scenario: A Process Study of Student Translators”. Hermes 421: 189–210.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G., y Paul Kußmaul
1982 Strategie der Übersetzung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
2000 “Consciousness and the Strategic Use of Aids in Translation”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical research, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 149–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Severine
2007 An Empirical Investigation into the Effects of Personality on the Performance of French to English Student Translators. Tesis doctoral. University of Bath.
2009 “Personal Diversity and Diverse Personalities in Translation: A Study of Individual Differences”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 17 (3): 175–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riita
2000 “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on Translating”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 71–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jungermann, Helmut, Pfister Hans-Rüdiger, y Katrin Fischer
2005 Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung. München: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander
2004 “Risk taking: Trainee Translators vs Professional Translators. A Case Study”. Journal of Specialised Translation 21: 34–49.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul, y Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1995 “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8 (1): 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
2010 “The Necessary Degree of Precision Revisited”. En Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, editado por Inger Mees, Fabio Alves, y Susanne Göpferich, Copenhagen Studies in Language 381: 354–374. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Laukkanen, Johanna
1996 “Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Translation Processes”. Target 8 (2): 257–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipshitz, Raanan, y Orna Strauss
1997 “Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69 (2): 149–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzi, Peter, Henry Sims, y John Slocum
1981 “Perceived Environmental Uncertainty: An Individual or Environmental Attribute?” Journal of Management 7 (2): 27–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, A.P
1970 “Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: reliability and validity”. Psychological Reports 261: 791–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLain, David L
1993 “The MSTAT-1: A New Measure of an Individual’s Tolerance for Ambiguity”. Educational and Psychological Measurement 531: 183–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Evidence of the Properties of an Ambiguity Tolerance Measure (MSTAT-II)”. Psychological Reports 1051: 975–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milliken, Frances J
1987 “Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty about the Environment: State, Effect and Response Uncertainty”. Academy of Management Review 121: 133–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norton, Robert W
1975 “Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance”. Journal of Personality Assessment 39 (6): 607–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
(ed.) 2011 Cognitive Explorations of Translation. Londres: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Patricia
1952 “Ethnocentrism, ‘Intolerance of Ambiguity’, and Abstract Reasoning Ability”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 471: 526–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prassl, Friederike
2010 “Translators’ Decision-Making Processes in Research and Knowledge Integration”. En New Approaches in Translation Process Research, editado por Susanne Göpferich,Fabio Alves, e Inger M. Mees, Copenhagen Studies in Language 391: 57–82. Copenhague: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Pratt, Jamie
1980 “The Effects of Personality on a Subject’s Information Processing: A Comment”. The Accounting Review 551: 501–506.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2005 “Explaining Explicitation”. En New Trends in Translation Studies. In Honour of Kinga Klaudy, editado por Krisztina Károly, 29–34. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Sanjuán Suárez, Pilar, Ana María Pérez García
, y José Bermúdez Moreno 2000 “Escala de autoeficacia general: datos psicométricos de la adaptación para población española”. Psicothema 12 (2): 509–513.Google Scholar
Shaffer, David, Clyde Hendrick, Robert Regula, y Joseph Freconna
1973 “Interactive Effects of Ambiguity Tolerance and Task Effort on Dissonance Reduction”. Journal of Personality 41 (2): 224–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1997 “Accounting for Variability in Translation”. En Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, editado por Josepht Danks, Gregory Shreve, Stephen Fountain, y Michael McBeath, 104–119. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Smithson, Michael
2008a “The Many Facets and Masks of Uncertainty”. In Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Gabriele Bammer y Michael Smithson, 13–26. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
2008b “Psychology’s Ambivalent View of Uncertainty.” In Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Gabriele Bammer y Michael Smithson, 205–218. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1996 “What is in the Black Box? Professionality in Translational Decisions in the Light of TAP Research”. En Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70 Geburtstag, editado por Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller, y Erich Steiner, 251–257. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2000 “Uncertainty in Translation Processes”. En Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weil-Barais, Annick
1999 L’homme cognitif. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
2007 “The Impact of Uncertainty on Translation”. En Text, Processes, and Corpora: Research Inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, editado por Riitta Jääskeläinen, Tiina Puurtinen, y Hilkka Stotesbury, 163–170. Joensuu: Universidad de Joensuu.Google Scholar
Yanes Estévez, Vanessa
2002 Incertidumbre percibida del entorno y riesgo estratégico asumido en la toma de decisiones estratégicas. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de La Laguna.
Yongguo, Chen
2003 “The Uncertainty of Translation.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 11 (1): 37–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

del Mar Haro-Soler, María
2018. Chapter 7. Self-confidence and its role in translator training. In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XVIII], ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Haro Soler, María del Mar
2019. Vicarious learning in the translation classroom: how can it influence students’ self-efficacy beliefs?. English Studies at NBU 5:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.