Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 18:2 (2006) ► pp.337–366

The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty

 | Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Twenty-two translation students translated two texts using Translog keystroke-monitoring software, once at the beginning of their studies and again three semesters later. Performance on two measures of interference, lexicalizable strings and false cognates, improved significantly among both the students working into L1 and those working into L2. Students working into L1 found the task as difficult after three semesters as they had at the beginning of their studies. For students translating into their L2, translation did get significantly easier as judged by the objective measures of time and keystrokes, but the students’ subjective assessment of difficulty and satisfaction was unchanged. This study also indicates that students appreciate the contribution of translation theory to practice.
Keywords: translator training, false cognates, lexicalization, interference, time, keystrokes, difficulty, satisfaction, Translog, directionality, theory and practice
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Interference
    • Lexicalization
    • False cognates
    • Difficulty
  • Method
  • Subjects
  • Materials
    • Source texts
    • Instructions
    • Post-task questionnaires
    • Translog software
  • Procedure
  • Data analysis
  • Findings
    • Guide to the tables
    • Experiment 1: Interference
    • Experiment 2: Difficulty
  • Discussion
    • Interference
    • Difficulty
    • Directionality
  • Implications for training and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Source texts
      • Education text
      • Fast Lane text
    • Appendix B: Sample post-task questionnaire
  • References
Published online: 1 May 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.07mal
References (44)
References
Barčenkov, Aleksandr A. 1992. “Training translators and interpreters in the USSR”. Meta XXXVII:1. 163–168.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastin, Georges L. 2000. “Evaluating beginners’ re-expression and creativity: A positive approach”. The translator 6:2. 231–245.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börsch, Sabine. 1986. “Introspective methods in research on interlingual and intercultural communication”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Narr, 1986. 195–209.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 1991. “Towards a model of translation competence”. Meta XXXVI:2/3. 329–343.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Translation into the second language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1999. “A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation”. Target 11:1. 33–63.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Domínguez, Pedro José and Brigitte Nerlich. 2002. “False friends: Their origin and semantics in some selected languages”. Journal of pragmatics 341. 1833–1849.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delisle, Jean. 1988. Translation: An interpretive approach, trs.Patricia Logan and Monica Creery. Canada: University of Ottowa Press.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2001. Experiences in translation, tr. Alastair McEwen. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Frame, Donald. 1989. “Pleasures and problems of translation”. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds. The craft of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. 70–92.Google Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela. 1988. From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals, and professional translators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. [Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation.]Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Miriam Shlesinger. 1997. “The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 2:1/2. 119–140.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brian. 1978. “The difference between natural and professional translation”. Canadian modern language review 341. 417–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1997. Le ton beau de Marot: In praise of the music of language. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1996. “Hard work will bear beautiful fruit: A comparison of two thinkaloud protocol studies”. Meta XLV:1. 60–74.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1991. “Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Narr, 1991. 89–109.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1999. “Logging target text production with Translog”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur 1999. 9–20. [Copenhagen studies in language 24.]Google Scholar
. 2003. “Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation”. Fabio Alves, ed. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. 69–95.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald Charles. 1995. Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, Ohio/ London, England: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Krouglov, Alexandr. 1996. “Social and cultural differences”. Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 81–87.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka. 2004. “What happens to ‘unique items’ in learners’ translations?: ‘Theories’ and ‘concepts’ as a challenge for novices’ views on ‘good translation’”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 187–204.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levenston, Edward. 1971. “Over-indulgence and under-representation—Aspects of mother-tongue interference”. Gerhard Nickel, ed. Papers in contrastive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. 115–121.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, A. Sophia S. 1996. “Directionality in translation processes and practices”. Target 8:1. 49–73.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 1994. “Goals and methods for a course in translation theory”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994. 401–409.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Aryeh. 1987. “Translation universals: Perspectives and explorations”. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, ed. Translation perspectives III: Selected papers, 1985–86. Binghamton: SUNY-Binghamton, 1987. 69–83.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1996. “Translation: Possible and impossible”. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, ed. Translation perspectives IX: Translation horizons. State University of New York at Binghamton, 1996. 7–23.Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, José. 1937/1992. “The misery and the splendor of translation”, tr.Elizabeth Gamble Miller. Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet, eds. Theories of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. 93–112.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K. 2005 Challenging the traditional axioms: Translation into a non-mother tongue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1993. Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching: A seminar for thinking students. Spain: Caminade.Google Scholar
Rabassa, Gregory. 1989. “No two snowflakes are alike: Translation as metaphor”. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds. The craft of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. 1–12.Google Scholar
Raffel, Burton. 1971. The forked tongue: A study of the translation process. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1992. “Lexicalization in translation: An empirical study of students’ progress”. Cay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 123–127.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. and Bruce J. Diamond. 1997. “Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage, 1997. 233–251.Google Scholar
Spilka, Irène V. 1970. “Why not ‘sur la ferme’?: A case of linguistic interference”. Meta XV:4. 212–219.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, George. 1975/1992. After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic. 2000. “Poor relations and black sheep in translation studies”. Target 12:2. 205–228.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tennent, Marthaed. 2005. Training for the new millennium. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1989. “Professional vs. non-professional translation: A thinkaloud protocol study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The translation process. Toronto: H.G. Publications, 1989. 73–85.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma. 1986. “Translation as a psycholinguistic process”. Lars Wollin and Hans Lindquist, eds. Translation Studies in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT) II, Lund 14–15 June 1985. Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1986. 140–149.Google Scholar
Topalova, Antoanita. 1996. “False friends in translation work: An empirical study”. Perspectives: Studies in translatology 4:2. 215–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1979. “Interlanguage and its manifestations in translation”. Meta XXIV:2. 223–231.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 2002. “The difference that translation makes: The translator’s unconscious”. Alessandra Riccardi, ed. Translation Studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 214–241.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean. 1958/1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation, trs. and eds. Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Li, Jia & Xianyao Hu
2024. A better or worse communicator? Comparing human and machine translation in source language shining through across registers. Lingua 312 ► pp. 103834 ff. DOI logo
Novoseletska, Svitlana, Yuliia Ivchenko-Chekholka & Nataliia Shapran
2023. Linguistic interference in translation (on the material of professionally-oriented intercultural communication of Ukrainian-English languages). Zeszyt Naukowy Prac Ukrainoznawczych 11 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Zhihong & Defeng Li
2021. Translation Competence Revisited: Toward a Pedagogical Model of Translation Competence. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Kujamäki, Minna
2019. Source text influence in student translation: results of a longitudinal study. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13:4 ► pp. 390 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore & Moritz J. Schaeffer
2016. Computational linguistics and translation studies. In Border Crossings [Benjamins Translation Library, 126], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 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.