Article published in:
Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process ResearchEdited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich and Sharon O'Brien
[Target 25:1] 2013
► pp. 107–124
Investigating the conceptual-procedural distinction in the translation process
A relevance-theoretic analysis of micro and macro translation units
Fabio Alves | Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
José Luiz Gonçalves | Federal University of Ouro Preto, Brazil
This article draws on relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995) and its application to translation (Gutt 2000) to investigate processing effort in translation in relation to two different types of encodings, namely conceptual and procedural encodings (Blakemore 2002, Wilson 2011). Building on the experimental paradigm of data triangulation in translation process research (Alves 2003; Jakobsen 2005), it analyses the translation processes of eight professional translators when performing a direct and an inverse translation task. The analysis focuses on the number and types of encodings found in micro/macro translation units (Alves and Vale 2009; 2011). Results suggest that processing effort in translation is greater in instances of procedural than conceptual encodings.
Keywords: translation process research, relevance theory, conceptual and procedural encodings, micro/macro translation units, processing effort in translation
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical underpinnings
- 2.1Relevance and translation: in search of a cause-effect relation
- 2.2Some important relevance theory concepts
- 2.2.1The principle of relevance and the effect-effort relation
- 2.2.2The conceptual-procedural distinction in relevance theory
- 2.3Revisiting the conceptual-procedural distinction in translation
- 3.Methodological framework
- 3.1Experimental design
- 3.2Procedures for data analysis
- 3.3Hypotheses
- 4.Analyses and discussion
- 4.1Types of macro translation units in direct/inverse translation tasks
- 4.2Editing procedures in micro/macro translation units
- 4.3Distance indicators of conceptual and procedural encodings
- 4.4Processing effort in relation to conceptual and procedural encodings
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 04 March 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.09alv
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.09alv
References
Alves, Fabio
Alves, Fabio, and José Luiz Gonçalves
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor Silva
2009 “A New Window on Translators’ Cognitive Activity: Methodological Issues in the Combined Use of Eye Tracking, Key Logging and Retrospective Protocols.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, ed. by Inger Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 267–291. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel, Vale
Dragsted, Barbara
Elman, Jeffrey L., Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett
Gutt, Ernst-August
Jakobsen, Arnt
Jensen, Astrid
Königs, Frank
PACTE
Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter
Shreve, Gregory
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
Taboada, Maite, and William C. Mann
Cited by
Cited by 14 other publications
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Alos, Julieta
Alves, Fabio
Alós, Julieta
Behrens, Bergljot
Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Lieve Macken
Dai, Guangrong
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Katrin Andermatt, Andrea Hunziker Heeb & Caroline Lehr
Ferreira, Aline
Liu, Kanglong, Muhammad Afzaal & Diego Raphael Amancio
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Bo Wang, Yuanyi Ma & Isaac N. Mwinlaaru
Schaeffer, Moritz, David Huepe, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Sascha Hofmann, Edinson Muñoz, Boris Kogan, Eduar Herrera, Agustín Ibáñez & Adolfo M. García
Wang, Fuxiang
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.