Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 19:1 (2007) ► pp.1–19

Methodological questions about translation research

A model to underpin research into the mental processes of translation

 | University of Western Sydney
 | University of Western Sydney
Research on the mental processes of written translation has benefited less from the findings of psycholinguistic and cognitive research than interpreting research has. This has left translation research relatively impoverished in the theoretical grounding of research methodology. While the performance speed of interpreting seems to make interpreting research closer to bilingual speech research, the shared features of interpreting and translation suggest that they are points on a continuum rather than discrete production modes. A Translation-Interpreting Continuum is proposed, which allows various production modes to be described in terms of psycholinguistic notions, and which includes a language development dimension to account for second language production. The Continuum allows some very basic questions about translation research methodology to be answered, and opens up the opportunity for a better integration of translation and interpreting research.
Keywords: translation, interpreting, research methodology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1A knowledge gap in translation research
    • 1.2Methodological problems in translation research
    • 1.3Two principal elements of the Translation-Interpreting Continuum
  • 2Prerequisites for a model of the mental representation of the translation task
    • 2.1Mental representation and discourse
    • 2.2Attention switching
    • 2.3Automaticity and control
    • 2.4“Transcoding”
    • 2.5Word order
    • 2.6Retention and decay of source text
  • 3The developmental dimension
    • 3.1Specialised expertise
    • 3.2Second language competence
  • 4The Translation-Interpreting Continuum in overview
  • 5Methodological questions revisited
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.1.02cam
References (59)
References
Anderman, Gunilla M. and Margaret Rogers, eds. 2005. In and out of English: For better, for worse?. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey. 1983. Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 1998. Translation into the second language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Critical structures in the evaluation of translations from Arabic into English as a second language”. The translator 6:2. 211–229.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.. 1972. “Discourse structure and human knowledge”. Roy O. Freedle and John B. Carroll, eds. Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington: V.H. Winston, 1972. 41–69.Google Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid K. and Annette M.B. de Groot. 2005. “Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective”. De Groot et al. 2005. 454–479.Google Scholar
Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M.B. de Groot and Judith F. Kroll. 2006. “Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency”. Journal of memory and language 54:3. 324–345.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danks, Joseph H, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. 1997. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Daro, Valerie, Sylvie Lambert and Franco Fabbro. 1996. “Conscious monitoring of attention during simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 1:1. 101–124.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, Kees. 2000. “Simultaneous interpreting as language production”. Hyltenstam and Englund, 2000 . 65–88.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot Annette M.B.. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches”. Danks et al. 1997 . 25–56.Google Scholar
. 2000. “A complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting”. Tirkkonen-Condit and Jääskeläinen 2000 . 53–68.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Annette M.B. and Judith F. Kroll, eds. 2005. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dechert, Hans. W. 1987. “Analysing language processing through verbal protocol”. Færch and Kasper, 1987 . 96–112.Google Scholar
Dillinger, Mike. 1994. “Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?”. Lambert and Moser-Mercer 1994 . 155–189.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper, eds. 1987. Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Favreau, Micheline and Norman S. Segalowitz. 1983. “Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals”. Memory & cognition 11:6. 565–574.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela. 1987. “Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: Some uses of Think-aloud Protocol data”. Færch and Kasper, 1987 . 135–158.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem”. Danks et al. 1997 . 196–214.Google Scholar
Gopher, Daniel. 1993. “The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies”. David E. Meyer and Sylvan Kornblum, eds. Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1993. 299–322.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 2001. “The bilingual’s language modes”. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2001. 1–22.Google Scholar
Häkansson, Gisela. 2001. “Against full transfer ’ evidence from Swedish learners of German”. Lundt University, Department of Linguistics Working Papers 481. 48–68.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Alan I., Frieda Goldman-Eisler and Andrew Skarbek. 1966. “Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech”. Language and speech 91. 207–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, Kenneth and Birgitta Englund, eds. 2000. Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Isham, William P.. 1994. “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization”. Lambert and Moser-Mercer 1994 . 191–211.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog documentation”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 19999–20.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter and Teun A. Van Dijk. 1978. “Toward a model of text comprehension and production”. Psychological review 85:5. 363–394.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klin, Celia M, Kristin M. Weingartner, Alexandria E. Guzman and William H. Levine. 2004. “Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution”. Memory&cognition 32:3. 511–522.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P.. 1986. “The translation strategies of advanced German learners of French”. Juliane, House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, ed. Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1986. 263–276.Google Scholar
. 1987. “The use of introspective data in translation”. Færch and Kasper 1987 . 159–176.Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. 1994. Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1995. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge; New York-USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M.. 1981. “Déjà vu?”. Cognition 10: 1–3. 187–192.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge-Massachusets: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Livbjerg, Inge and Inger M. Mees. 2003. “Patterns of dictionary use in non-domain-specific translation”. Fábio Alves dos Santos, ed. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. 123–136.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, Michael H. 1996. “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition”. William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 1996. 413–468.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, Jennifer. 1985. “The Kintsch and van Dijk model of discourse ’ comprehension and production applied to the interpretation process”. Meta 30:1. 37–43.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2005. “A unified model of language acquisition”. de Groot and Kroll, 2005 . 49–67.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Uli. H. Frauenfelder, Beatriz Casado and Alexander Künzli. 2000. “Searching to define expertise in interpreting”. Hyltenstam and Englund 2000 . 107–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Jerome L., and Edward J. O’Brien. 1998. “Accessing the discourse representation during reading”. Discourse processes 26:2/3. 131–157.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1994. “Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework”. International journal of psycholinguistics 10:3. 319–335.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Prerequisites to a study of neurolinguistic processes involved in simultaneous interpreting”. Hyltenstam and Englund, 2000 . 17–24.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, Manfred. 1999. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ravem, Roar. 1968. “Language acquisition in a second language environment”. International review of applied linguistics 61. 165–185.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. 1990. “On the nature of text driven inference”. David. A. Balota, Giovanni B. Flores D’Arcais and Keith Rayner, ed. Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum, 1990. 515–535.Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. and Simon C. Garrod. 1981. Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester-New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina, ed. 2004. Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon, England-Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, Norman. 2005. “Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning”. de Groot and Kroll, 2005 . 371–388.Google Scholar
Shebilske, Wayne L., Barry P. Goettl and Wesley J. Regian. 1999. “Executive control and automatic processes as complex skills develop in laboratory and applied settings”. Daniel Gopher Asher Koriat, ed. Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Cambridge, Massachusets: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1999. 401–432.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 2000. “Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens?”. Tirkkonen-Condit and Jääskeläinen 2000 . 3–15.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, Elaine. 1989. “On the variability of interlanguage systems”. Fred R. Eckman, Lawrence H. Bell and Diane Nelson, eds. Universals in second language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1989. 9–23.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1985. Argumentative text structure and translation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. 2000. Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha and Charles A. Prfetti. 2005. De Groot and Kroll 2005 . 173–177.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Daniel M.. 1994. “Ironic processes of mental control”. Psychological review 101:1. 34–52.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Modarresi, Ghasem
2019. Developing and validating involvement in translation scale and its relationship with translation ability. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 17:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
SUI, LONGJIAO, HAIDEE KRUGER & HELEN SLATYER
2019. The central processing bottleneck during word production: Comparing simultaneous interpreters, bilinguals and monolinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22:5 ► pp. 968 ff. DOI logo
Risku, Hanna
2012. Cognitive Approaches to Translation. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Risku, Hanna
2020. Cognitive Approaches to Translation. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.