Cover not available
Part of
Reembedding Translation Process Research
Edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Benjamins Translation Library 128] 2016
► pp. 89–106

Quality and translation process research

| University of Eastern Finland

In translation studies, translation quality tends to be discussed in terms of the quality of the products only. Abdallah (2007) suggests adopting a multidimensional concept of total quality consisting of product quality, process quality and social quality. The aim of this paper is to describe and discuss the three dimensions of quality from the point of view of translation process research. Looking at different kinds of quality may offer explanations to such unexpected findings as translation students outperforming professional translators in experimental conditions. The three dimensions of quality also comply with the recent suggestions of investigating the translation process as “extended translation” (Risku & Windhager 2013) or embodied and situated cognition (Muñoz 2010).

Keywords: process quality, product quality, quality assessment, social quality, translation process research
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.05jaa
References
Abdallah, Kristiina
2007 “Tekstittämisen laatu – mitä se oikein on? [Subtitling quality – what is it?].” In Olennaisen äärellä. Johdatus audiovisuaaliseen kääntämiseen [Introduction to audiovisual translation], ed. by R. Oittinen and T. Tuominen, 272–293. Tampere: Tampereen yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
2012 Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on Agency, Quality and Ethics. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Abdallah, Kristiina, and Kaisa Koskinen
2007 “Managing Trust: Translating and the Network Economy.” Meta 52 (4): 673–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by G.M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia
2012 “Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 3, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 172–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
2001 “Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-based Approach to Translation Evaluation.” Meta 46 (2): 345–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chi, Michelene T.H
2006 “Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. by K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, and R. Hoffman, 21–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia
2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach.” The Translator 14 (1): 97–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Evaluation/Assessment.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 43–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conde Ruano, Tomás
2012 “Quality and Quantity in Translation Evaluation: A Starting Point.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Henrik Selsøe Sørensen
2009 “Experts Exposed.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by I.M. Mees, F. Alves, and S. Göpferich, 294–317. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014a “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in Professional Translation.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, ed. by J.W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2014b “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
Ericsson, K. Anders
2006 “Introduction.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. by K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, and R. Hoffman, 3–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela
1986 “Second Language Learners’ Reports on the Interpretive Process.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 243–262. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1988 From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2009 “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp .” In Behind the Mind. Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2010 “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective: Novices and Professionals Compared.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research, ed. by S. Göpferich, F. Alves, and I.M. Mees, 5–52. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
2010 “Quality in Translation.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 270–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L
2016 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The Case of ‘Literal Translation’.” Translation Spaces 4 (2): 310–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Gyde
2009 “Some Thoughts about the Evaluation of Translation Products in Empirical Translation Process Research.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by I.M. Mees, F. Alves, and S. Göpferich, 389–402. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2010 “Translation ‘Errors’.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1, ed. by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 385–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatano, G. and K. Inagaki
1992 “Desituating Cognition through the Construction of Conceptual Knowledge.” In Context and Cognition: Ways of Knowing and Learning, ed. by P. Light and G. Butterworth, 115–133. New York: Harvester.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1997 Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description Versus Social Evaluation.” Meta 46 (2): 149–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine
2013a “The Role of Intuition in the Translation Process. A Case Study.” Special Issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 63–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “Emotional Intelligence and Translation Studies: A New Bridge.” Meta 58 (2): 324–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T
This volume. “Cognitive Efficiency in Translation.”
Hvelplund, Kristian T., and Barbara Dragsted
2015 “Translation Process Differences between Literary and Technical Translators.” Paper presented at the IATIS 2015 Congress , 7–10 July 2015, Belo Horizonte.
Ivir, Vladimir
1981 “Formal Correspondence Vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” In Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations, ed. by I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury. Poetics Today 4 (2): 51–59. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1990 Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-aloud Protocol Study. Unpublished Licentiate’s Thesis. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
1995 “The ‘Human Translator’ in the Light of Verbal Report Data.” In Basic Issues in Translation Studies, ed. by A. Neubert, G.M. Shreve and K. Gommlich, 135–143. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Tapping the Process. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
2010 “Are All Professionals Experts? Definitions of Expertise and Reinterpretation of Research Evidence in Process Studies.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by G.M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 213–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “What’s behind the Monitor Model?” Paper presented at the TRA&CO symposium , 27–30 April 2016, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz/Germersheim.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta, Pekka Kujamäki, and Jukka Mäkisalo
2012 “Towards Professionalism – or Against It? Dealing with the Changing World in Translation Research and Translator Education.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2003 “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Segmentation.” In Triangulating Translation, ed. by F. Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Kristian T.H
2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” In Behind the Mind. Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 62–80. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jonasson, Kerstin
1998 “Degree of Text Awareness in Professional Vs. Non-Professional Translators.” In Translators’ Strategies and Creativity, ed. by A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová, and B. Moser-Mercer, 189–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Sylvia
2012 “Quality in Interpreting.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 2, ed. by Y. Gambier, and L. van Doorslaer, 134–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Königs, Frank G
1987 “Was beim Übersetzen passiert: Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” Die Neueren Sprachen 86 (2): 162–185.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2008 Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU translation. Manchester: St. Jerome. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans-Peter
1986 Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing Processes. Kent, OH: Kent University Press.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander
2005 “Investigating Translation Proficiency: A Study of the Knowledge Employed by Two Engineers in the Translation of a Technical Text.” Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 81: 41–56.Google Scholar
Kuznik, Anna, and Joan M. Verd
2010 “Investigating Real Work Situations in Translation Agencies. Work Content and its Components.” Hermes 44: 25–43.Google Scholar
Laukkanen, Johanna
1993 Routine vs. Non-routine Processes in Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
1997 Affective Factors and Task Performance in Translation. Unpublished licentiate’s thesis. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Lauscher, Susanne
2000 “Translation Quality-assessment: Where Can Theory and Practice Meet?” The Translator 6 (2): 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehr, Caroline
2014 The Influence of Emotion on Language Performance - Study of a Neglected Determinant of Decision-making in Professional Translators. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Translation and Interpreting/Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, Ingrid, and Inger M. Mees
2003 “Patterns of Dictionary Use in Non-Domain-Specific Translation.” In Triangulating Translation, ed. by F. Alves, 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1986 “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, 277–292. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mertin, Elvira
2006 Prozessorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement im Dienstleistungsbereich Übersetzen. Leipzig: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2009 “The Way They Were: Subject Profiling in Translation Process Research.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by I.M. Mees, F. Alves, and S. Göpferich, 87–108. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by G.M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing Machine Translation Output.” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Processing Fuzzy Matches in Translation Memory Tools: An Eye-Tracking Analysis.” In Looking at Eyes. Eye-tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 79–102. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
PACTE
2003 “Building a Translation Competence Model.” In Triangulating Translation, ed. by F. Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prunč, Erich
1997 “Translationskultur. (Versuch einer konstruktiven Kritik des translatorischen Handelns.)” TextconText 11 (1): 99–127.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
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 Florian Windhager
2013 “Extended Translation: A Socio-cognitive Research Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo, Ana, and Marina Ramos
This volume. “Can Emotion Stir Translation Skill? Defining the Impact of Positive and Negative Emotions on Translation Performance.”
Schäffner, Christina
(ed) 2001 Translation and Quality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem, and Luis Pérez González
(eds) 2012 The Translator. Special Issue: Non-professionals Translating and Interpreting. Participatory and Engaged Perspectives 18 (2).Google Scholar
Sirén, Seija, and Kai Hakkarainen
2002 “Expertise in Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 71–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suojanen, Tytti, Kaisa Koskinen, and Tiina Tuominen
2012 Käyttäjäkeskeinen kääntäminen [User-centred translation]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
2015 User-centred Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suokas, Juho
2014 “ Nothing freeze-dried .” Testing Usability Evaluation Methods with the Finnish Translation of The Guitar Handbook. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Eastern Finland, English language and translation.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1987 “Think-aloud Protocols in the Study of the Translation Process.” In CDEF 86: Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland, ed. by H. Nyyssönen, R. Kataja, and V. Komulainen, 39–49. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. 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
Tiselius, Elisabet
2013 Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting: An investigation of Swedish conference interpreters. PhD dissertation. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, Lucas
2014 “Indices of Cognitive Effort in Machine Translation Post-editing.” Machine Translation 28: 187–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2018. Crowdsourcing and Translation Quality: Novel Approaches in the Language Industry and Translation Studies. In Translation Quality Assessment [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 1], ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Massey, Gary & Peter Jud
2020. Translation Process Research in Audiovisual Translation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility [Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, ], ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2018. Re-thinking translation quality. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Xiangyan, Xiangling Wang & Xiaodong Liu
2022. The impact of task complexity and translating self-efficacy belief on students’ translation performance: Evidence from process and product data. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 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.