Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects

Silvia Bernardini
Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori, University of Bologna

Abstract

Over the last decade, Think-aloud Protocols (TAPs) have been used extensively in process-oriented Translation Studies (TS). The serious questions regarding the experimental validity of this research methodology when applied to translation have nonetheless often remained unspoken. This paper surveys the breakthroughs as well as the limits of the growing body of literature dealing with TAPs in TS, points at the necessity to take issues of experimental, theoretical and environmental validity more seriously, and offers suggestions for improvements. The claim is that the risks involved in the adoption of a lax experimental methodology in TAP studies, often underestimated in the past, may invalidate not only the results obtained in the single projects, but, crucially, the method as a whole.

Keywords
Table of contents

Interest in empirical research into the translation process has grown substantially in the last decade, driven by the idea that what goes on in translators’ heads while they are translating (versus what scholars had claimed might go on) is crucial to an understanding of translation, and is not derivable solely from an analysis of the final product, the translated text. The latter provides an incomplete and often misleading way into the translation process, hiding both successful strategies and problems.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Biber, Douglas
1988Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stuart
1998Translation into the second language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1998 “Communication strategies, learning strategies and translation strategies”. Malmkjær 1998:135–143.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon
1993 (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper
1983 “On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman 1983 210–238.Google Scholar
eds. 1987aIntrospection in second language research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
1987b “From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research”. Færch and Kasper 1987a:5–23.Google Scholar
Floyd, P. and Patricia L. Carrell
1987 “Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content schemata”. Language learning 37:1. 89–108.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela
1986 “Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process: Talkaloud protocols of translation”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986: 243–262.Google Scholar
[ p. 262 ]
House, Juliane and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
eds. 1986Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ivanova, Adelina
1998 “Educating the ‘language élite’: Teaching translation for translator training”. Malmkjær 1998:91–109.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1990Features of successful translation processes: A think-aloud protocol study. Joensuu: University of Joensuu. [Unpublished licentiate thesis.]Google Scholar
1993 “Investigating translation strategies”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, eds. Recent trends in empirical translation research. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Faculty of Arts 1993 99–120.Google Scholar
1997Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Faculty of Arts. [Doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1991 “Automatised processes in professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study”. Tirkkonen-Condit 1991:89–109.Google Scholar
Königs, Frank G. and Reinhard Kaufmann
1996 “Processus mentaux étudiés chez des sujets allemands apprenant le français lorsqu’ils sont en train de traduire”. Meta 41:1. 7–25.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1986 “Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2)”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986:263–275.Google Scholar
1987 “The use of introspective data in translation”. Færch and Kasper 1987:159–175.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
1991 “Creativity in the translation process: Empirical approaches”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies, the state of the art: Proceedings of the first James S Holmes symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1991 91–101.Google Scholar
Laukkanen, Johanna
1996 “Affective and attitudinal factors in translation processes”. Target 8:2. 257–274.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1986 “Linguistic aspects of translation processes: Towards an analysis of translation performance”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986:277–292.Google Scholar
1991Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1996 “A psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes”. Meta 41:1. 26–32.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
ed. 1998Translation and language teaching: Language teaching and translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mondahl, Margrethe and Knud Anker Jensen
1996 “Lexical search strategies in translation”. Meta 41:1. 97–112.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Oller, John W.Jr.
1995 “Adding abstract to formal and content schemata: Results of recent work in Peircean semiotics”. Applied linguistics 16:3. 273–305.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1991 “A study of student translation strategies”. Tirkkonen-Condit 1991:79–88.Google Scholar
1996 “Some thoughts about think-aloud protocols”. Target 8:1. 75–95.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
ed. 1991Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies: Selected papers of the TRANSIF seminar, Savonlinna 1988. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
[ p. 263 ]
1992 “The interaction of world knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the processes of translation: A think-aloud protocol study”. Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Translation and meaningPart 2. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool Maastricht 1992 433–440.Google Scholar
1997 “Who verbalises what: A linguistic analysis of TAP texts”. Target 9:1. 69–84.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Johanna Laukkanen
1996 “Evaluations: A key towards understanding the affective dimension of translational decisions”. Meta 41:1. 45–59.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1986 “Monitoring discourse transfer: A test-case for a developmental model of translation”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986:79–94.Google Scholar
1988 “The coupled pair of ‘solution + problem’ in Translation Studies”. Patrick Nigel Chaffey, Antin Fougner Rydning and Solveig Schult Ulriksen, eds. Translation theory in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the Scandinavian symposium on translation theory (SSOTT) III, Oslo, 11–13 August 1988. Oslo: University of Oslo 1988 1–23.Google Scholar
1991 “Experimentation in Translation Studies: Achievements, prospects and some pitfalls”. Tirkkonen-Condit 1991:45–66.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1994 “A framework for decision-making in translation”. Target 6:2. 131–150.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar