Article published in:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:2 (2019) ► pp. 187–210

‘Default’ translation

A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies

| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences

Investigating translation and interpreting from the perspective of a non-computational theory of cognition requires continuing development of the requisite theoretical constructs. As part of the ongoing elaboration of this alternative approach, this paper proposes the construct of ‘default translation’ as a specific phase of translation production. This phase is characterized by rapid, relatively uninterrupted production and in this paper the kinds of knowledge accessed in this phase are outlined. The proposal is that default translation involves primarily bilingual linguistic knowledge (including communication norms), metalinguistic knowledge, and a specific understanding of the translation/interpreting task. The paper suggests a means of identifying the phase in process data. Finally, the construct is positioned relative to the idea of ‘literal translation’ and a proposal for terminological use is given in the concluding remarks.

Keywords: default translation, literal translation, cognitive translation and interpreting studies
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory remarks and rationale
  • 2.Default translation: The knowledge base and key processing properties
    • 2.1Bilingual knowledge in cognitive networks
      • 2.1.1Types of knowledge
      • 2.1.2Network change over time
    • 2.2Task conception
  • 3.Empirical investigations
  • 4.‘Default’ or ‘literal’ translation
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 06 September 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00023.hal
References

References

Balling, Laura, Kristian T. Hvelplund, and Annette C. Sjørup
2014 “Evidence of Parallel Processing during Translation.” Meta 59 (2): 234–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bangelore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm
2016 “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 211–238. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger
1991 Translation and Translating. Theory and Practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly, and Martin J. Pickering
2017 “An Experimental Approach to Linguistic Representation.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 401: e282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc and Wouter Duyck
2010 “Is it Time to Leave Behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of Bilingual Language Processing after Fifteen Years of Service?” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (3): 359–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted
2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition. 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Martin Kay
2011 “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4): 952–975. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Mortiz J. Schaeffer
2018 “The Development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method.” Translation, Cognition and Behavior 1 (1): 168–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz J. Schaeffer
2017a “Models of the Translation Process.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. S. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 50–70. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b “Why Translation is Difficult: A Corpus-based Study of Non-literality in Post-editing and From-scratch Translation. Hermes 561: 43–57.Google Scholar
2017c “Measuring Translation Literality.” In Translation in Transition. Between Cognition, Computing, and Technology. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 81–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997 Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B.
2011 Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. An Introduction. New York: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Anette M. B.
1993 “Word-type Effects in Bilingual Processing Tasks. Support for a Mixed Representational System.” In The Bilingual Lexicon. Edited by R. Schreuder and B. Weltens, 27–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992a “Bilingual Lexical Representation: A Closer Look at Conceptual Representations.” In Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Edited by R. Frost and L. Katz, 389–412. Amsterdam: North Holland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992b “Determinants of Word Translation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18 (5): 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2010 “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Unchartered Territory.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Segmentation in Translation. Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems. An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: CBS.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François
2013 “Bilingualism. A Short Introduction.” In The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Edited by F. Grosjean and P. Li, 5–25. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2018 Metalinguistic Knowledge/Awareness/Ability and Translation: Some Questions. Hermes 571: 11–28.Google Scholar
2017 “Developing a Cognitive-semantic Model: Magnetism, Gravitational Pull, and Questions of Data and Method.” In Empirical Translation Studies. New Methods and Theoretical Traditions. Edited by G. de Sutter, M.-A. Lefer and I. Delaere, 9–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015a “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms. The Case of ‘Literal Translation’.” Translation Spaces 4 (2): 310–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b “The Status of Contrastive Data in Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures. 16 (2), 163–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” Cognitive linguistics and translation: advances in some theoretical models and applications. Edited by A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxe, 33–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and Method.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone, 349–369. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Translations as Institutional Facts. An Ontology for ‘Assumed Translation’”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Edited by A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni, 343–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp
2004 “Is Syntax Separate or Shared between Languages? Cross-linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals.” Psychological Science 15 (6): 409–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, and Stella Neumann
2016 “Dynamic Pause Assessment of Keystroke Logged Data for the Detection of Complexity in Translation and Monolingual Text Production.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity, 98–103.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T.
2017 “Four Fundamental Types of Reading during Translation.” In Translation in Transition. Between Cognition, Computing, and Technology. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2016 “Are Gaze Shifts a Key to a Translator’s Text Segmentation?” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 149–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian T. Hvelplund Jensen
2008 “Eye Movement Behaviour Across Four Different Types of Reading Tasks.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
John, Bonnie E.
1996 “Typist: A Theory of Performance in Skilled Typing. Human-Computer Interaction 11 (4): 321–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Nan, and Kenneth I. Forster
2001 “Cross-language Priming Asymmetries in Lexical Decision and Episodic Recognition.” Journal of Memory and Language 441: 32–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone
2012 “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Congitve Effort in Post-editing: A Case Study.” In Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice. Edited by S. O’Brien, M. Simard and L. Specia, 21–30. Stroudsburg, PA: AMTA.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2017 “Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language. Edited by H.-J. Schmid, 39–56. Washington, DC: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1989/1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vols. 1–21. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991 Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Macizo Soria, Pedro, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina
2006 “Reading for Understanding and Reading for Translation: Do They Involve the Same Processes?” Cognition 991: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
2017 “Does Translation Involve Structural Priming?” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (8): 1575–1589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
2011 “Translation Universals.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Edited by K. Malmkjær and K. Windel, 83–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marin García, Álvaro
2017 Theoretical Hedging: The Scope of Knowledge in Translation Process Research. PhD dissertation. Kent State University.Google Scholar
Martín de León, Celia
2010 “Metaphorical Models of Translation. Transfer vs. Imitation and Action. In Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors. Edited by J. St. André, 75–108. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2017 “Looking toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 555–572. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a “Of Minds and Men—Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b ‘Processes of what Models? On the Cognitive Indivisibility of Translation Acts and Events’. Translation Spaces 5 (1): 145–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de León
2018 “ Fascinatin’ Rhythm—and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes.” Hermes 571: 1–19.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo and José Mª. Cardona Guerra
2018 “Translating in Fits and Starts. Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Presas Corbella, Marisa, and Celia Martín de León
2014 “The Role of Implicit Theories in the Non-Expert Translation Process.” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 273–302. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman
1960 Word & Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenqvist, Simon
2015 Developing Pause Thresholds for Keystroke Logging Analysis. B. A. thesis. University of Umeå, Sweden. Available at http://​www​.diva​-portal​.org​/smash​/get​/diva2:834468​/FULLTEXT01​.pdf
Ruiz Navarro, Carmen, Natalia Paredes Jiménez, Pedro Macizo Soria, and Mª. Teresa Bajo Molina
2008 “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica 128 (3): 490–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz
2013 The Ideal Literal Translation Hypothesis: The role of shared representations during translation. PhD dissertation. University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
2017a “Language Processing and Translation.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo and S. Hofmann, 117–154. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl
2017b “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-editing.” Proceedings of MT Summit XVI, Vol. 11: 18–22.Google Scholar
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process. A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. 8 (2): 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Katharina Oster, Jean Nitzke, Anke Tardel, Anne-Kathrin Gros, Silke Gutermuth, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, and Michael Carl
2018 “Cross-linguistic (Dis)similarities in Translation: Process and product.” Paper presented at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Kevin Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kristen Malmkjær
2017 “Reading for Translation.” In Translation in Transition. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 18–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schoonbaert, Sophie, Walter Duyck, Marc Brysbaert, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
2009 “Semantic and Translation Priming from a First Language to a Second and Back: Making sense of the findings.” Memory and Cognition 37 (5): 569–586. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence
2011 Embodied Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Isabel Lacruz
2017 “Aspects of a Cognitive model of Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 127–143. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Christine Schaeffner, Joseph H. Danks, and Jennifer Griffin
1993 “Is there a special kind of “reading” for translation? An empirical investigation of reading in the translation process.” Target 5 (1): 21–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Gary F., and Charles D. Fennig
eds. 2018 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 21st edition. Dallas: SIL International. Online version at http://​www​.ethnologue​.com
St. André, James
2010 Thinking through Translation with Metaphors. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Timarová, Šárka, Barbara Dragsted, and Inge Gorm Hansen
2011 “Time Lag in Translation and Interpreting: A methodological exploration.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Edited by C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius, 121–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
2007 Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2010 “Western Metaphorical Discourses Implicit in Translation Studies”. In Thinking through Translation with Metaphors, edited by James St. André, 109–143. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Vandevoorde, Lore, and Els Lefever
2018 “Keen on cognates or afraid of false friends. Cognate ratios in translated and non-translated Dutch”. Paper presented at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Verhagen, Véronique, Maria Mos, Ad Backus, and Joost Schilperoord
2018 “Predictive Language Processing Revealing Usage-based Variation.” Language and Cognition 101: 329–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

García, Álvaro Marín
2021. Bridging the epistemological gap. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 462 ff. Crossref logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Joseph V. Casillas
2021. Literal is not always easier. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 february 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.