Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 28:1 (2016) ► pp.4–41

Fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation

A cognitive perspective

| Macquarie University / North-West University
This paper argues for the addition of a cognitive perspective to the concepts of fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation. Given the disjunctions between the ontological levels (and analytical levels of specificity) implied in these concepts (cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural), the paper first sets out an argument for how these ontologies are related, demonstrating how cognitive processing, and specifically cognitive effort for both translators and readers, form a second-level constituent of both these sets of concepts, by drawing on usage-based theories of language. From within this conceptual frame, the paper turns its attention to an empirical investigation. The study demonstrates how a combination of product and process methods may be utilised to explore the cognitive effort involved in domesticating and foreignising choices. The findings of the study are used to formulate some suggestions regarding how investigations of cognitive effort in translation may contribute to an understanding of fluency/resistancy and domestication/foreignisation in diverse contexts.
Keywords: empirical, theoretical, quantitative, domestication, foreignisation, cognitive approaches, process-oriented methodologies, eye-tracking, keystroke logging
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Crossing ontological divides in translation studies
  • 3.Multi-level and multi-dimensional concepts
  • 4.Fluency, resistancy, domestication, foreignisation: a cognitive perspective
  • 5.Operationalising the cognitive effort associated with translation choices: the data level
  • 6.Methodology
    • 6.1Participants, texts and translation problems
    • 6.2Data collection and analysis
  • 7.Findings
    • 7.1Text analysis: translation choices
    • 7.2Eye-movement data
      • 7.2.1Total dwell time
      • 7.2.2Fixation count
    • 7.3Keystroke data
      • 7.3.1Total pause duration for the production of the translated element
      • 7.3.2Modifications to translation choices
    • 7.4Retrospective verbalisations
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.1.01kru
References (53)
References
Angelone, Erik. 2010. “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” In Shreve and Angelone 2010, 17–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia. 2001. “Think-aloud Protocols in Translation Research: Achievements, Limits, Future Prospects.” Target 13 (2): 241–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. Frequency of Use and the Organisation of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 2000. “Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I — Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 29–42. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, and Emma Wagner. 2002. Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph H., Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael McBeath, eds. 1997. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk. 2010. “Histories and Utopias: On Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility.” The Translator 16 (1): 125–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation: Correlating Product and Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Peter. 1995. “Translation and Power Play.” The Translator 1 (2): 177–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. “Familiarity, Information Flow and Linguistic Form.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 431–448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Aline, and John W. Schwieter, eds. 2015. Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2005. Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2009. “Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Approaches.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, and Gabriela Saldanha, 211–216. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and Method.” In Shreve and Angelone 2010, 349–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, Johan. 1999. “Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World System.” European Journal of Social Theory 4 (2): 429–444.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Lexical Priming and Translation.” In Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications, ed. by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday, 153–168. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nystrom, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost van de Weijer. 2011. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2011. “Using Translation and Parallel Text Corpora to Investigate the Influence of Global English on Textual Norms in Other Languages.” In Corpus-based Translation Studies: Research and Applications, ed. by Alet Kruger, Kim Wallmach, and Jeremy Munday, 187–208. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target 25 (1): 46–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, A. J., Pedro Macizo, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2010. “Language Access and Language Selection in Professional Translators.” Acta Psychologica 1351: 257–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel Adam, and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87 (4): 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kool, Wouter, Joseph T. McGuire, Zev B. Rosen, and Matthew M. Botvinick. 2010. “Decision Making and the Avoidance of Cognitive Demand.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139 (4): 665–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, and Juliane House. 2011. Multilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Peter J. 1984. “Cognition in Emotion: Concept and Action.” In Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior, ed. by Carroll E. Izard, Jerome Kagan, and Robert B. Zajonc, 192–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010. “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (2): 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
National Centre for Reading Education and Research (Stavanger University College). 2005. ScriptLog, version 1.8.19. [URL]
O’Brien, Sharon, ed. 2011. Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2013. “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” Target 25 (1): 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, José, Douglas Bates, Saikat DebRoy, Deepayan Sarkar, and R Core Team 2015. “nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 31.1–122. [URL].Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL].Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT), ed. by Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn, Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Casacuberta, Robin Hill, and Sharon O’Brien, 29–37. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Erik Angelone, eds. 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J.. 2009. Cognitive Psychology. 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Taalkommissie van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. 1991. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 8th ed. Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
. 2002. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 9th ed. Cape Town: Pharos.Google Scholar
. 2009. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 10th ed. Cape Town: Pharos.Google 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
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 501: 405–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2012. “The Neuroscience of Translation.” Target 24 (1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varkel, Adrian. 2006a. Little Lucky Lolo and the Cola Cup Competition. Illustrated by Jacki Lang and Daley Muller. Johannesburg: Giraffe Books.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Little Lucky Lolo en die Cola Cup-Kompetisie. Illustrated by Jacki Lang and Daley Muller, translated by Denise Diamond. Johannesburg: Giraffe Books.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. (1995) 2008. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Mohammed Nihad Ahmed , Mohammed Nihad Ahmed
2024. Translation of Arabic Novel "American Granddaughter" into English: Cognitive Scripts Theory. Al-Noor Journal for Humanities 2:2 DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus & Haidee Kotze
2024. Chapter 9. Conclusion. In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings [Contact Language Library, 60], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Bei
2023. Chapter 10. Flowing to the reception side. In Translation Flows [Benjamins Translation Library, 163], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Walker, Callum
2021. Investigating how we read translations. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Gambier, Yves
2018. Translation studies, audiovisual translation and reception. In Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 141], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Fotheringham, Christopher
2017. A cognitive-pragmatic model for translation-shift analysis in descriptive case studies. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 35:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee & Jan‐Louis Kruger
2017. Cognition and Reception. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 71 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.