Article published in:
The Development of Professional Competence
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Séverine Hubscher-Davidson
[Translation and Interpreting Studies 9:1] 2014
► pp. 25–51

Effortful text production in translation

A study of grammatical (de)metaphorization drawing on product and process data

This article analyzes data generated by the combined use of keylogging and eye tracking to examine grammatical (de)metaphorization as a case of explicitation/implicitation (Steiner 2001). It also aims at investigating effortful text production from the perspective of automaticity and monitoring in the translation process (Tirkkonen-Condit 2005). Brazilian and German physicists and professional translators were recruited to translate one of two versions of an English (L2) source text into Brazilian Portuguese or German, respectively (L1). The versions differed in the level of grammatical metaphoricity of the sentences. Quantitative and qualitative data was analyzed to determine the impact of metaphoricity level on target text renditions as evidence of effort in the translation process. Results showed that regardless of which of the two versions was translated, most subjects opted for a particular wording from the start of their text production process; subsequent changes had to do with attempting more delicate choices in lexis rather than in grammar, evidence in favor of Tirkkonen-Condit’s claims about automatism in the translation process. Variables used to measure effort (i.e., number of renditions in microunits, pause duration, and drafting time) indicated that (de)metaphorization is an effortful procedure. Eye tracking, eliciting more fine-grained data, was instrumental in mapping instances of grammatical (de)metaphorization. The results have implications for issues related to the development of professional competence in translation, suggesting that instances of grammatical (de)metaphorization relate to higher levels of monitoring.
Keywords: eye tracking, effortful target text production, keylogging, grammatical (de)metaphorization, translation process research
Published online: 07 July 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.02alv
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

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. Crossref logo
Dai, Guangrong
2016.  In Hybridity in Translated Chinese [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo
Espunya, Anna
2020. Reduced abstractness in Spanish-English translation: the case of property-denoting nouns. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 65:2 ► pp. 440 ff. Crossref logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Daniel Couto Vale & Stella Neumann
2019. Shorter than a text, longer than a sentence. Target 31:1 ► pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina & Stella Neumann
2018. Processing of grammatical metaphor. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:2 ► pp. 195 ff. Crossref logo
Massey, Gary & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2017. Translating Conceptual Metaphor: The Processes of Managing Interlingual Asymmetry. Research in Language 15:2 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Schmaltz, Márcia, Igor A. L. da Silva, Adriana Pagano, Fabio Alves, Ana Luísa V. Leal, Derek F. Wong, Lidia S. Chao & Paulo Quaresma
2016.  In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 239 ff. Crossref logo
Sun, Sanjun
2019.  In Researching Cognitive Processes of Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2021. 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.

References

References

Alves, Fabio
(ed) 2003 Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva
2011 “Modeling (Un)packing of Meaning in Translation: Insights from Effortful Text Production.” In Proceedings of the 8th International NLPCS Workshop (Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Sciences) . Special Theme: Human-Machine Interaction in Translation, ed. by Bernadette Sharp, Michael Zock, Michael Carl, and Arnt L. Jakobsen, 153–162. Copenhagen: Samfundslitterattur.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve, and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale
2009 “Probing the Unit of Translation in Time: Aspects of the Design and Development of a Web Application for Storing, Annotating, and Querying Translation Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 251–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, ed. by Juliane House, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barabara Dragst
ed 2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
da Silva, Igor
2007 Conhecimento experto em tradução: Aferição da durabilidade de tarefas tradutórias realizadas por sujeitos não-tradutores em condições empírico-experimentais. M.A. thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
2012 (Des)compactação de significados e esforço cognitivo no processo tradutório: Um estudo da metáfora grammatical na construção do texto traduzido. Ph.D. dissertation, Federal University of Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen
2009 “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and James R. Martin
1993 Writing Science. Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian Matthiessen
1999 Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Jonathan Webster
2009 Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hansen, Silvia
2003 The Nature of Translated Text. Saarbrücken: Language Technology Lab.Google Scholar
Holsanova, Jana, Kenneth Holmqvist, and Henrik Rahm
2006 “Entry Points and Reading Paths on Newspaper Spreads: Comparing a Semiotic Analysis with Eye-Tracking Measurements.” Visual Communication 5 (1): 65–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Taansgard
2011 Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation. An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Hyönä, Jukka, Johanna K. Kaakinen, and Robert F. Lorch, Jr
2002 “Individual Differences in Reading to Summarize Expository Text: Evidence from Eye Fixation Patterns.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (1): 44–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L.
2002 “Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students.” Traducción & Comunicación 3: 89–103.Google Scholar
2005 “Instances of Peak Performance in Translation.” Lebende Sprachen 50 (3): 111–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L., and Kristian T.H. Jensen
2008 “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 103–124. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L., and Lasse Schou
1999 “Translog Documentation, Version 1.0.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 1–36. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L., Selina Sharmin, Oleg Spakov, and Kari-Jouko Räihä
2008 “Effects of Time Pressure and Text Complexity on Translators’ Fixations.” In Symposium on Eye Tracking and Applications , 123–126. New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga
1998 “Explicitation.” In Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 80–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “Eye Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker
2000 “Reporting That in Translated English. Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pagano, Adriana, and Igor da Silva
2008 “Domain Knowledge in Translation Task Execution: Insights from Academic Researchers Performing as Translators.” In Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress , ed. by Translator’s Association of China. CD-ROM. Shanghai: Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychology Bulletin, 124 (3): 372–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost
1996 It’s About Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Utrecht: USI.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1988 “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1 (2): 106–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory
2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C.
2008 “Metaphor Comprehension in Translation: Methodological Issues in a Pilot Study.” In Looking at Eyes. Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 53–78. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2011 “Cognitive Effort in Metaphor Translation: An Eye-Tracking Study.” Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 197–214. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
2013 Cognitive Effort in Metaphor Translation. An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2001 “Intralingual and Interlingual Versions of a Text: How Specific is the Notion of Translation.” In Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Context, ed. by Erich Steiner, and Carl Yallop, 161–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
1958 Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar