Cover not available
Part of
Reembedding Translation Process Research
Edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Benjamins Translation Library 128] 2016
► pp. 47–68

Writing vs. translating

dimensions of text production in comparison

ORCID logo | Department of Translation Studies, University of Graz
| Department of Translation Studies, University of Graz
| Department of Translation Studies, University of Graz

The tasks of writing and translation show several similarities in the challenges they pose and the processes they include. In translation studies, the fuzzy edges between these tasks have been studied in many ways. To compare the processes of writing and translating in the field, we observed a freelance translator in the workplace for two working days (1 day of writing, 1 day of translating) and interviewed her on her work processes. We analysed the data with regard to the process phases, strategies, contextual features, and creativity dimensions of text production (Dam-Jensen and Heine 2013). In addition to the many similarities in the processes, our findings also show substantial differences in the text production dimensions.

Keywords: context, creativity, phases, strategies, translation process, workplace study, writing process
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.03ris
References
Abdallah, Kristiina
2008 “Why Do We Experience Quality-related Problems in Production Networks? Reconstructing an Actor-Network in the Subtitling Industry.” In XXVIII FIT World Congress Proceedings/Actes 4–7.8.2008. Translation and Cultural Diversity. Shanghai, China, ed. by Translation Association of China. Shanghai: Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Translators’ Agency in Production Networks.” In Translators’ Agency, ed. by T. Kinnunen and K. Koskinen, 11–46. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation task.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by G.M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asare, Edmund
2011 An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Translation Tools in a Translation Agency. Implications for Translation Tool Design. PhD diss., Kent State University.Google Scholar
Baur, Wolfram, Sylvia Kalina, Jutta Witzel, and Felix Mayer
(eds) 2009 Übersetzen in die Zukunft. Herausforderungen der Globalisierung für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Berlin: Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer.Google Scholar
Becker-Mrotzeck, Michael
1997 Schreibentwicklung und Textproduktion. Der Erwerb der Schreibfertigkeit am Beispiel der Bedienungsanleitung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter
1923/2004 “The Task of the Translator.” In The Translation Studies Reader, ed. by L. Venuti, 15–22. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia
1987 The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bosserhoff, Ria
2005 “Schreiben in der B2B-Kommunikation. Vorgehensweise in der Schreibpraxis einer Werbeagentur.” In Schreiben am Arbeitsplatz, ed. by E. Jakobs, K. Lehnen, and K. Schindler, 93–108. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène
2005 “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Independent Publisher in the Networks of Translation.” TTR 19 (1): 135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Jody
2013 “Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Reassessing Research Agendas in Specialized Translation.” Connexions 1 (1): 55–58.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy
1997 Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2000 “Memetics and Translation Strategies.” Synaps 5: 1–17, [URL]. [15 April 2016]Google Scholar
2005 “Problems with Strategies.” In New Trends in Translation Studies, ed. by K. Károly and Á. Fóris, 17–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2011. “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by C. Alvstad, A. Hild, and E. Tiselius, 23–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly
1997 Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement With Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dam-Jensen, Helle, and Carmen Heine
2013 “Writing and Translation Process Research: Bridging the Gap.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1): 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doloughan, Fiona, and Margaret Rogers
2006 “Mediation and Regulation of Textual Space: The Role of Creative Writing in Translator Training.” In Translation and Creativity: How Creative is the Translator? ed. by I. Kemble and C. O’Sullivan, 34–43. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto
2003 Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” In Minding Translation. Con la traducción en mente, MonTI Special Issue 1, ed. by R. Muñoz, 355–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fix, Martin
2008 Texte schreiben. Schreibprozesse im Deutschunterricht. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John
1981 “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32 (4): 365–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2010 “Translation Strategies and Tactics.” In Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 1, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. Van Doorslaer, 412–418. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel
2010 Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
2007 Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
1996 “(Fach)Übersetzen vs. Technical Writing: Parallelen und Unterschiede.” In Multilingualism in Specialist Communication. Proceedings of the 10th European LSP Symposium, Vienna, 29.8.–1.9.1995, ed. by G. Budin, 399–434. Wien: International Network of Terminology.Google Scholar
Guilford, Joy Paul
1950 “Creativity.” American Psychologist 5 (9), 444–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, John
1996 “A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, ed. by M. Levy and S. Ransdell, 1–27. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G
1995 Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2010 Konstruktives Übersetzen (3rd edition). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984 Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientarum Fennicae.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1959 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, ed. by R.A. Brower, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, Eva-Maria
2005 “Writing at Work. Fragen, Methoden und Perspektiven einer Forschungsrichtung.” In Schreiben am Arbeitsplatz, ed. by E. Jakobs, K. Lehnen, and K. Schindler, 13–40. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1989 “Translation Assignment in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study.” In The Translation Process, ed. by C. Séguinot, 87–98. Toronto: H.G. Publications.Google Scholar
Jensen, Astrid
2001 The Effects of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Translation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaiser-Cooke, Michèle
2007 Wissenschaft - Translation - Kommunikation. Wien: Facultas (Basiswissen Translation 2).Google Scholar
Krings, Hans
1987 “Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French (L2).” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, ed. by J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 263–276. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia
1986 “Word, Dialogue and Novel.” In The Kristeva Reader, ed. by T. Moi, 35–61. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kruse, Otto, and Daniel Perrin
2003 “Intuition und Professionelles Schreiben.” In Schreiben. Von Intuitiven zu Professionellen Schreibstrategien, ed. by D. Perrin,I. Böttcher, O. Kruse, and A. Wrobel, 7–13. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
1991 “Creativity in the Translation Process: Empirical Approaches.” In Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the 1st James S. Holmes Symposium in Translation Studies, ed. by K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens, 91–101. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2007 Kreatives Übersetzen (2nd edition). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kuznik, Anna, and Joan Miquel Verd
2010 “Investigating Real Work Situations in Translation Agencies. Work Content and its Components.” Hermes 44: 25–43.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André
1998 “Translation Practice(s) and the Circulation of Cultural Capital. Some Aeneids in English.” In Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation, ed. by S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere, 41–56. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malena, Anne
2011 “Authors – Translators – Authors.” TranscUlturAl 4 (1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Malmkjaer, Kirsten
2003 “Looking Forward to the Translation. On ‘A Dynamic Reflection of Human Activities’.” In Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, ed. by G. Anderman and M. Rogers, 76–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McDonough, Julie
2007 “How Do Language Professionals Organize Themselves? An Overview of Translation Networks.” Meta 52 (4): 793–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Wolfgang
1982 “Gestalttheoretische Ansätze zur Frage der Kreativität.” In Psychologie der Kultur. Band 2: Imagination. Kunst und Kreativität, ed. by G. Condrau, 331–338. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Molitor, Sylvie
1984 Kognitive Prozesse beim Schreiben. Tübingen: Deutsches Institut für Fernstudien (DIFF) – Forschungsbericht Nr. 31.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by G.M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 169–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Birds of a Feather. Translation and Communication Studies.” Connexions 1 (1): 99–103.Google Scholar
2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” In Minding Translation. Con la traducción en mente, MonTI Special Issue 1, ed. by R. Muñoz, 49–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nickl, Markus
2005 “Industrialisierung des Schreibens.” In Schreiben am Arbeitsplatz, ed. by E. Jakobs, K. Lehnen, and K. Schindler, 93–108. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortner, Hanspeter
1998 “Das kreative Schreiben—halbierte Kreativität und halbierte Schriftlichkeit?” Informationen zur Deutschdidaktik (DIE) 22 (4): 37–52.Google Scholar
2003 “Schreiben und Wissen. Einfälle fördern und Aufmerksamkeit staffeln.” In Schreiben. Von intuitiven zu professionellen Schreibstrategien, ed. by D. Perrin, I. Böttcher, O. Kruse, and A. Wrobel, 63–81. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parks, Gerald
1998 “Towards a Sociology of Translation.” Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione (RITT) 3, 25–35.Google Scholar
Perteghella, Manuela
2013 “Translation as Creative Writing.” In A Companion to Creative Writing, ed. by G. Harper, 195–212. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prunč, Erich
2012 Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht, 3rd edition. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2011 “The Translator as Non-author, and I am Sorry About that.” In The Translator as Author. Perspectives on Literary Translation, ed. by C. Buffagni, B. Garzelli, and S. Zanotti, 31–44. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer
1984 Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
1998 Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2004 “Migrating from Translation to Technical Communication and Usability.” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. by G. Hansen, D. Gile, and K. Malmkjaer, 181–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Cognitive Approaches to Translation.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by C. Chapelle. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research. From Mental to Socio-cognitive Processes.” In Minding Translation. Con la traducción en mente, MonTI Special Issue 1, ed. by R. Muñoz, 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Angela Dickinson
2009 “Translators as Networkers: The Role of Virtual Communities.” Hermes 42: 49–70.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler
2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 2: 151–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrijver, Iris, and Leona van Vaerenbergh
2008 “Die Redaktionskompetenz des Übersetzers: eine Mehrwertleistung oder ein Muss?” trans-kom 1 (2): 209–228, online [URL] [15 April 2016].Google Scholar
Schubert, Klaus
2009 “Positioning Translation in Technical Communication Studies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 11: 17–30.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, Paul
1996 “Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 9 (1): 233–257. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy A
2007 Human-Machine Reconfigurations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos
2014 The Impact of Metadata on Translator Performance: How Translators work with Translation Memories and Machine Translation. PhD diss., Universitat Rovira i Virgili; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2004. “Unique Items – over- or under-represented in Translated Language?” In Translation Universals: Do they Exist? ed. by A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, 177–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen–Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo, and Sini Immonen
2008 “The Translation Process: Interplay between Literal Rendering and a Search for Sense.” Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulmann, Gisela
1968 Kreativität. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Vaerenbergh, Leona van
2007 “Die Überwindung der Grenze zwischen Translation und Redaktion: eine Theorie der translatorischen Kommunikation.” In Multilinguale Kommunikation. Linguistische und translatorische Ansätze, ed. by S. Bastian and L. van Vaerenbergh, 103–118. München: Martin Meidenbauer.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
1996 “Translation as Social Practice or The Violence of Translation.” In Translation Horizons. Beyond the Boundaries of Translation Spectrum, ed. by M. Gaddis-Rose, 195–213. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Wrobel, Arne
1995 Schreiben als Handlung. Überlegungen und Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Textproduktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Dam-Jensen, Helle, Carmen Heine & Iris Schrijver
2019. The Nature of Text Production – Similarities and Differences between Writing and Translation. Across Languages and Cultures 20:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Leblay, Christophe
2018. Génétique textuelle et écritures mono- et plurilingues. TTR 29:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo & Matthias Apfelthaler
2021. Spillover Effects in Task-Segment Switching: A Study of Translation Subtasks as Behavioral Categories Within the Task Segment Framework. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo & José Mª. Cardona Guerra
2019. Translating in fits and starts: pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes. Perspectives 27:4 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl & Jelena Milosevic
2017. Translation practice in the field. Translation Spaces 6:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl & Jelena Milosevic
2019. Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. In Translation Practice in the Field [Benjamins Current Topics, 105], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2023. 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.