Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography

Riitta Jääskeläinen
University of Joensuu

Table of contents

The official history of think-aloud protocol (TAP) studies into translating dates back to 1986 and to the publication of four articles reporting on TAP projects (Dechert and Sandrock 1986, Gerl off 1986, Krings 1986a, Lörscher 1986; see also Olshtain 1986) as well as Hans-Peter Krings’ doctoral dissertation Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzernvorgeht(1986b). The actual ‘tapping’ had of course started in the early 1980s. To my knowledge, the first research report on using TAPs to study translating was Ursula Sandrock’s Diplomarbeit, supervised by Hans Dechert at the University of Kassel (Germany), which was completed in 1982.

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.

Bibliography

The bibliography has been compiled along the following guidelines: (1) focusing primarily on studies in which translating is the object of research, not as a means of eliciting data on language processing; (2) focusing on studies which draw mainly on TAP data, although some studies using joint translating [ p. 112 ](dialogue protocols or group discussions) or retrospection have also been included; and (3) excluding conference papers. In addition, I have included some overview articles and theoretical discussions related to TAP research as well as a few unpublished theses; unfortunately in this respect, due to availability problems, the bibliography shows a definite Savonlinna bias. In sum, the bibliography is a first attempt at a comprehensive bibliography of TAP studies into translating. In later versions I would be happy to include more theses, for example; therefore, all additions and corrections for an updated second version are most welcome.

1. Alves, Fábio 1996 “Veio-me um ‘click’ na cabeça: The Theoretical Foundation and the Design of a Psycholinguistically Oriented, Empirical Investigation on German-Portuguese Translation Processes”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 33–44.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article outlines a pedagogically oriented research project to study translation processes from German into Portuguese. The pool of subjects would comprise a total of 24 subjects (12 from Portugal and 12 from Brazil). Each of the national groups would include professional translators and novice and mature students.

2. Bernardini, Silvia 2001 “Think-aloud Protocols in Translation Research: Achievements, Limits, Future Prospects”. Target 13:2. 241–263.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

An overview article which, in addition to summing up the findings, suggests e.g. that more attention be paid to routineness, professionalism, translation into L2, as well as methodology in TAP research.

3. Dancette, Jeanne 1994 “Comprehension in the Translation Process: An Analysis of Think-aloud Protocols”. Cay Dollerup and Annette Lindegaard, eds. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Insights, Aims, Visions. [Benjamins Translation Library 5.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 113–120.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Preliminary results from a study with five students of translation (two with 2–3 years of work experience) translating excerpts of news texts from English into French. The analysis highlights three processes and focuses on (mis)comprehension (i.e. translation errors).

4. Dancette, Jeanne 1997 “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension of Translation: Theoretical and Experimental Issues”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. [Applied Psychology: Individual, Social, and Community Issues 3.] Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage. 77–103.Google Scholar

The article discusses text comprehension in translation by analysing the videotaped TAPs of three students of translation (with varying degrees of professional experience) and comparing the students’ comprehension strategies with their translation products. [ p. 113 ]The aims are both theoretical and pedagogical, i.e. to develop a small-scale model of text comprehension in a given situation and to increase the students’ awareness of their own processing.

5. Dancette, Jeanne and Nathan Ménard 1996 “Modèles empiriques et expérimentaux en traductologie: questions d’épistémologie”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G.. Königs. 139–156.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article discusses different approaches to process analysis from an epistemological point of view. The focus is on theoretical considerations, but concrete examples (from e.g. Dancette 1994) are included.

6. Dechert, Hans W. 1987 “Analysing Language Processing through Verbal Protocols”. Claus Faerch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 96–111.Google Scholar

A theoretical contribution discussing the use of verbal reports as data on language processing. The author draws attention to the fact that methodological groundwork done by cognitive psychologists (see note 4) tends to ignore research evidence from language research. TAP research on translation (cf. Dechert and Sandrock 1986) is one of the language tasks used as examples.

7. Dechert, Hans W. and Ursula Sandrock 1986 “Thinking-aloud Protocols: The Decomposition of Language Processing”. Vivian Cook, ed. Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford–New York etc.: Pergamon. 111–126.Google Scholar

The article discusses the main findings of the study which is reported in full in Sandrock (1982).

8. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta 1993 “Semantic Change in Translation—A Cognitive Perspective”. Yves Gambier and Jorma Tommola, eds. Translation and Knowledge. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting. 285–296.Google Scholar

The article gives an outline of a research project which aims at investigating the semantic changes, particularly explicitation, which occur in translation from Russian into Swedish. The first stage of the study includes an analysis of (1) published translations and (2) interpreting performance (by professionals and students). The second stage will include a TAP experiment with professional and student translators translating from Russian into Swedish. A computer logging system will also be used.

9. Fraser, Janet 1993 “Public Accounts: Using Verbal Protocols to Investigate Community Translators”. Applied Linguistics 14:4. 352–343.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article reports on a study in which 12 community translators translated a leaflet in English into ethnic minority languages. The process data was collected by using [ p. 114 ]immediate retrospection. The article discusses the contribution of translation theory to community translating, identifies the strategies used by community translators, and evaluates the usefulness of the method. The community translators seemed to adopt a socio-cultural and reader-oriented approach to the translation task, i.e. their aim was to ensure the readers’ access to British society. The need for ‘user education’ for those using translation services is also discussed.

10. Fraser, Janet 1994 “Translating Practice into Theory: A Practical Study of Quality in Translator Training”. Catriona Picken, ed. ITI Conference 7 Proceedings. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting. 130–142.Google Scholar

A pedagogically oriented study reporting on the salient process features identified in the TAPs produced by 21 freelance translators translating a journalistic text from French into English. The TAPs reveal e.g. the importance of the brief in translational decisionmaking; the role of context in determining meaning; the translators’ habits with using dictionaries; and the translators’ self-image. The author argues for a translation pedagogy based on professional practice.

11. Fraser, Janet 1996a “The Translator Investigated: Learning from Translation Process Analysis”. The Translator 2:1. 65–79.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

An overview article which focuses on research with professional translators as subjects. The author discusses the limitations of the method as well as the contribution which TAP studies could make to translation theory, translator training, and translation practice. More research on professional translating is called for.

12. Fraser, Janet 1996b “Mapping the Process of Translation”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 84–96.Google Scholar

The article opens with a criticism of traditional translation theory which seems to offer little for the purposes of teaching translation. The author then describes features of professional practice identified in earlier research (Fraser 1993, Fraser 1994), such as how the brief guides the process, how professionals deal with cultural concepts, and how they see the translator’s role. A new approach to teaching translation is proposed.

13. Fraser, Janet 2000 “What Do Real Translators Do?: Developing the Use of TAPs from Professional Translators”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 111–120.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

An overview article based mainly on some of the papers presented at the AILA World Congress in Jyväskylä in 1996 and subsequently published in Tirkkonen-Condit and Jääskeläinen (2000).

14. Gerloff, Pamela 1986 “Second Language Learners’ Reports on the Interpretive Process”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 272.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 243–262.Google Scholar

[ p. 115 ]A pilot study on the translation processes of university students of French translating a text excerpt from French into English. The main aim is to develop methodological tools. Two categories of analysis are presented: one of identifying the unit of analysis and another for identifying subjects’ text processing strategies. Later developments are reported in Gerloff (1988).

15. Gerloff, Pamela 1987 “Identifying the Unit of Analysis in Translation: Some Uses of Think-aloud Protocol Data”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 135–158.Google Scholar

A pilot study with focus on the development of methods for data analysis. TAP data from five intermediate-level students of French and one competent bilingual (English/French) are used to create a method for identifying the unit of analysis in translating. The study also illustrates the strategic use of repetition in problem-solving.

16. Gerloff, Pamela 1988From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar

The subjects represent three levels of professional competence: novices (4), competent bilinguals (4), and professional translators (4). The process data are analysed in terms of external processing (time spent) and internal processing, e.g. units of analysis and “problem solving activities” the quality of the translations was also assessed. The findings show that professionals did not necessarily produce the best quality translations (cf. Jääskeläinen 1990b). Instead, quality seemed to be the outcome of the amount of time and effort invested in the task: the processes leading to the best results took more time and required more processing effort than the less successful processes. The author terms her finding as the “translation-does-not-get-easier” phenomenon (see Introduction). See also Jääskeläinen 1996a.

17. Hansen, Gyde. ed. 1999Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar

The book contains nine articles which report on the TRAP (“Translation Process”) project at the Copenhagen Business School. In this project the translation process has been approached from different angles and different language combinations. The researchers have used a combination of methods: computer logs created with the Translog program (Jakobsen and Schou 1999), retrospective and think-aloud protocols. The authors argue for triangulation methods in translation research. The book includes contributions by Jakobsen about using Translog, Lorenzo (1999a, 1999b) about methodology [ p. 116 ]and Danish-Spanish translation, E.H. Jensen (1999) about Spanish-Danish legal translation, Andersen about ‘metaphor phobia’, A. Jensen (1999) about time pressure in translation, and Livbjerg and Mees (1999) about the use of dictionaries in Danish-English translation.

18. Hönig, Hans G. 1988a “Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun?Lebende Sprachen 1/1988. 10–14.Google Scholar

The author takes a critical view of TAP research; in addition to methodological reservations, he criticises e.g. the use of language students as subjects and the absence of a translation brief in the experimental translation tasks. Hönig also discusses students’ irrational strategies in e.g. dictionary use (see also Krings 1986b, Jääskeläinen 1989a).

19. Hönig, Hans G. 1988b “Übersetzen lernt man nicht durch Übersetzen: Ein Plädoyer für eine Propädeutik des Übersetzens”. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen. 17. 154–167.Google Scholar

A didactically oriented article partly based on TAPs. The author argues that students of translation need to be weaned from their “school-translation” concept by e.g. simulating professional assignments in translation class. Otherwise students fail to develop professional attitudes and practices, which shows as a lack of appropriate translation strategies and a failure to take responsibility for the success of translated communication.

20. Hönig, Hans G. 1991 “Holmes’ ‘Mapping Theory’ and the Landscape of Mental Translation Processes”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings from the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 77–89.Google Scholar

Drawing partly on TAP research, the author proposes a flow-chart describing the translation process. The central concepts are controlled (conscious) and uncontrolled (unconscious) mental workspace (Kiraly 1990) in processing, and micro- and macrostrategies, which correspond roughly to local and global strategies (e.g. Jääskeläinen 1993). The latter are the general principles guiding the whole translation process (e.g. foreignising or domesticating), while the former are the isolated rules or procedures used to solve individual translation problems. The claim is that micro-strategic choices should always be guided by the macro-strategy.

21. Hönig, Hans G. 1993 “Vom Selbst-Bewusstsein des Übersetzers”. Justa Holz-Mänttäri and Christiane Nord, eds. Traducere navem: Festschrift für Katharina Reiss zum 70. Geburtstag. [Studia Translatologica, Ser. A, Vol. 3.] Tampere: University of Tampere. 77–90.Google Scholar

In addition to modelling translation process as a flow-chart and discussing controlled vs. uncontrolled workspace and strategies in translation (see Hönig 1991), the author discusses findings from neuro-physiological research. The emphasis is again on translation didactics.[ p. 117 ]

22. House, Juliane 1988 “Talking to Oneself or Thinking with Others?: On Using Different Thinking Aloud Methods in Translation”. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 17. 84–98.Google Scholar

A study of ten language students thinking aloud alone (four students) vs. translating in pairs (three pairs). The author argues for pair translation as a methodological and didactic tool, as the dialogue protocols show evidence of more sophisticated problemsolving strategies.

23. House, Juliane 2000 “Consciousness and the Strategic Use of Aids in Translation”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 149–162.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article reports on a study in which ten language students translated with or without access to reference books. The students seem to fall into two groups, high-risk-takers, who are confident in both situations, and low-risk-takers, who are lost without their trusted aids. The article also contains a discussion of the nature of consciousness. The author argues for joint translating both as a teaching method (“translation in and as interaction”) and as the research method in translation process analysis.

24. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1987What Happens in a Translation Process: Thinkaloud Protocols of Translation. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

The study investigates non-professional and professional-like translation performance with four translation students (two first-years and two fifth-years) as subjects (translation from English into Finnish). Analyses of the data deal with external processing (time spent, dictionaries used) and internal processing (mainly problem-solving). Reactions to the translation brief (“assignment”) are also looked at. Tentative profiles of nonprofessional vs. professional-like behaviour are drawn to be tested in further research.

25. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1989a “The Role of Reference Material in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Stephen Condit, eds. Empirical Studies in Translation and Linguistics. [Studies in Languages 17.] Joensuu: University of Joensuu. 175–200.Google Scholar

A description of student translators’ use of dictionaries and other reference works on the basis of Jääskeläinen (1987).

26. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1989b “Teaching How to Use Reference Material in Translator Training: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Anita Nuopponen and Rolf Palmberg, eds. Special Languages and Second Languages: Methodology and Research. [AFinLA Yearbook 47.] Vaasa: AFinLA. 69–78.Google Scholar

[ p. 118 ]A description of student translators’ use of dictionaries and other reference works on the basis of Jääskeläinen (1987) with a link to classroom experiences in translator training.

27. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1989c “Translation Assignment in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications. 87–98.Google Scholar

A description of student translators’ reactions to the translation brief on the basis of Jääskeläinen (1987).

28. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1990a “Some Differences between Professionals’ vs. Novices’ Translation Processes: Reactions to the Translation Assignment”. Heikki Nyyssönen, Leena Kuure, Elise Kärkkäinen and Pirkko Raudaskoski, eds. Proceedings from the 2nd Finnish Seminar on Discourse Analysis, Oulu, September 27–28, 1988. [Publications of the Department of English 9.] Oulu: University of Oulu. 43–51.Google Scholar

See Jääskeläinen 1989c.

29. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1990bFeatures of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished licentiate thesis.]Google Scholar

The study combines the student data from Jääskeläinen (1987) with new data from four professional translators and four “educated laypersons” (true non-professionals in translation). Contrary to the initial plan (“identify professional behaviour”), the aim is to identify process features which seem to go together with successful task performance, as not all professionals succeeded well in the experiment. The explanations relate to differences in the amount of time and effort invested in the task, as well as differences in the types of knowledge used: the least successful processes, irrespective of the professionality of the translator, seemed to be characterised by treating the task as a mechanistic code-switching operation.

30. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1993 “Investigating Translation Strategies”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, eds. Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research. [Studies in Languages 28.] Joensuu: University of Joensuu. 99–120.Google Scholar

A theoretical discussion (based on empirical work) which focuses on defining the notion of “translation strategies” for the purposes of empirical translation research. Strategies are divided into global vs. local strategies (see also Hönig 1991).

31. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1994 “Käännösprosessin tutkimus”. Irma Sorvali, ed. Kääntämisentutkimuksen päivät Oulussa 14.– 15.12.1993. [Meddelanden från institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uleåborgs Universität, Ser. B, Nr 18.] Oulu: Oulun yliopisto, Pohjoismaisten kielten laitos. 67–77.Google Scholar

[ p. 119 ]An overview article (in Finnish) which sums up the author’s previous TAP research and outlines future directions.

32. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1995 “Thinking Aloud as a Data Collection Method”. Heikki Nyyssönen and Leena Kuure, eds. Principles of Accessibility and Design in English Texts: Research in Progress. [Publications of the Department of English A12.] Oulu: University of Oulu. 207–228.Google Scholar

A methodological article which describes different verbal report methods, their merits and limits from the point of view of language research.

33. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1996a “Hard Work Will Bear Beautiful Fruit: A Comparison of Two Think-aloud Protocol Studies”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G.. Königs. 60–74.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

A comparison of the findings reported by Gerloff (1988) and Jääskeläinen (1990b). Both studies indicate that official professional status does not automatically guarantee high translation quality. Instead, faced with a non-routine assignment, even professional translators may need to invest more time and effort to ensure translation quality. The article also draws attention to affective factors as a potential explanation to unexpected research findings.

34. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1996b “The ‘Human Translator’ in the Light of Verbal Report Data”. Albrecht Neubert, Gregory M. Shreve and Klaus Gommlich, eds.Basic Issues in Translation Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference. [[Kent Forum on Translation Studies 2.] Kent, OH.: The Kent State University Press. 135–144.Google Scholar

Based on Jääskeläinen (1990b), the article discusses factors which may come into play in a TAP experiment and influence the results. Such factors include e.g. role behaviour as described by Erwin Goffman as well as the (professional) subjects’ work history.

35. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1998 “Think-aloud Protocols”. Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 265–269.Google Scholar

An overview article of TAP research into translating.

36. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 1999Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. [University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 22.] Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar

A doctoral dissertation focusing on three main areas: methodology in TAP research, cognition in translation processes (types of knowledge used), and affect in translation processes (personal involvement in the task). The data includes TAPs from eight subjects: four professional and four non-professional translators who translated a short English text into the subjects’ mother tongue (Finnish).[ p. 120 ]

37. Jääskeläinen, Riitta 2000 “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on Translating”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 71–82.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

A methodological discussion partly based on Jääskeläinen (1999) focusing on the potential interference effects of verbalising and thinking aloud vs. joint translating.

38. Jääskeläinen, Riitta and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit 1991 “Automatised Processes in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research on Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988. [Language in Performance 5.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 89–109.Google Scholar

The analysis of automatised processing is based on Königs’ (1987) notions of Adhocblock and Rest-block and draws on data from the experiments reported in Jääskeläinen (1987) and Tirkkonen-Condit (1987, 1988, 1989). The authors provide evidence of potentially automatised parts of the translation process; they also argue that while some processes become automatised with increasing experience, other processes are evoked into consciousness leading to a heightened awareness of potential problems.

39. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. forthcoming. “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Segmentation”. Fábio Alves, Célia Magalhães and Adriana Pagano eds. Translating the Millennium: Corpora, Cognition and Culture.Selected Papers from the II International Brazilian Translators’ Forum

A methodological study which investigates the effect of thinking aloud (TA) on translation processing; more specifically, translation speed, the number of revisions, and the number of text production segments per source-text unit. In the experiment four semi-professionals and five professionals participated in four translating situations: English into Danish translation in TA vs. non-TA conditions, and Danish into English translation in TA vs. non-TA conditions. Translog (see Hansen 1999) was used in all conditions. The findings indicate that (1) thinking aloud significantly reduced translation speed, (2) had little effect on the number of revisions, and (3) increased the relative number of segments per source-text unit.

40. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou 1999 “Appendix: Translog Documentation”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 151ff.Google Scholar

See Hansen (1999).[ p. 121 ]

41. Jensen, Astrid 1999 “Time Pressure in Translation”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 103–119.Google Scholar

A preliminary report on the doctoral dissertation reported in full in Jensen (2000).

42. Jensen, Astrid 2000The Effects of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Translation. Copenhagen Business School, Faculty of Modern Languages. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar

The study investigates the effect of time pressure on the translation processes of nonprofessional translators, young professionals, and expert translators. The subjects performed translation tasks with a time limit of 30, 20 and 10 minutes. The qualitative TAP data are supplemented with quantitative data, i.e. computer logs files (Translog), which were also subjected to quantitative analysis (analysis of variance and multiple regression). Statistically significant effects of time pressure include faster start-up times the less time there is for the process, as well as the application of coping tactics, particularly among non-professionals.

43. Jensen, Astrid and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen 2000 “Translating under Time Pressure: An Empirical Investigation of Problem-solving Activitity and Translation Strategies by Non-professional and Professional Translators”. Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier, eds. Translation in Context: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. [Benjamins Translation Library 39.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 105–116.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article sums up the methods and findings reported in full in Jensen (2000).

44. Jensen, Elisabeth Halskov 1999 “Complejedidad y comprensión en la traducción juridica”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 69–82.Google Scholar

See Hansen (1999).

45. Jonasson, Kerstin 1996 “Förståelse och överföring av ett flertydigt textavsnitt”. Gisela Håkansson and Ulrika Nettelbladt, eds. Språkförståelse: Rapport från ASLAs höstsymposium. Lund, 9–11 november 1995. Uppsala: Repro HSC. 111–125.Google Scholar

The study describes (in Swedish) the text comprehension processes of four students of translation and two professional translators tackling a translation task from French into Swedish. As a case in point the author discusses an ambiguous ST expression (typical of French) and its interpretation by the subjects.[ p. 122 ]

46. Jonasson, Kerstin 1997 “Norm and Variation in Translation from French into Swedish”. Norm, Variation and Change in Language: Proceedings of the Centenary Meeting of the Nyfilologiska Sällskapet. Nedre Manilla, 22–23 March 1996. [Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis / Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology 11.] Stockholm. 85–107.Google Scholar

In this article two professional translators’ (cf. Jonasson 1996) products and processes are analysed from the point of view of the Tourian notion of translation norms. Based on textual and TAP evidence, it seems that one of the processes is guided by the norm of adequacy, while the other one is aiming at acceptability. Interestingly, neither subject makes an explicit statement of his or her initial normor global strategy, but these can be inferred from their commentary on local decisions. Differences in the translators’ attitude are also discussed.

47. Jonasson, Kerstin 1998 “Degree of Text Awareness in Professional vs. Non-professional Translators”. Ann Beylard-Ozeroff, Jana Králová and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. Translators’ Strategies and Creativity: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. [Benjamins Translation Library 27.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 189–200.Google Scholar

A preliminary report of a longitudinal study in which five students participating in a translator training programmeand three professional translators,who also acted as teachers in the course, were the subjects. They translated a text fromFrench into Swedish (L1). The author’s hypothesis is that the differences between students vs. professionals identified at the beginning of the programme would tend to decrease during the course. The article focuses on text awareness which refers to the subjects’ reactions, if any, to the origin or purpose of the ST, ST coherence, and the text as a whole.

48. Kiraly, Donald Charles 1990Towards a Systematic Approach to Translation Skills Instruction. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar

A doctoral dissertation the main aim of which is to contribute to the development of a systematic approach to translator training. The author identifies a pedagogical gap in Translation Studies; he also draws attention to the translator’s role in interlingual acts of communication. The empirical part of the study comprises TAPs from 18 subjects; nine novice students of translation and nine professional translators.

49. Kiraly, Donald Charles 1995Pathways to Translation: From Process to Pedagogy. Kent, OH.: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar

A revised version of Kiraly (1990).

50. Kiraly, Donald Charles 1997 “Think-aloud Protocols and the Construction of a Professional Translator Self-concept”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. [Applied Psychology: Individual, Social, and Community Issues 3.] Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage. 137–160.Google Scholar

[ p. 123 ]With a clear pedagogical emphasis, the article draws on the findings reported in Kiraly (1990) and (1995). In the light of his TAP data, the author argues for the adoption of a constructivist approach in the teaching of translation.

51. Königs, Frank G. 1986 “Der Vorgang des Übersetzens: Theoretische Modelle und praktischer Vollzug. Zum Verhältnis von Theorie und Praxis in der Übersetzungswissenschaft”. Lebende Sprachen 1/1986. 5–12.Google Scholar

After a discussion of the product-orientedness of translation theory, the author suggests a shift into investigating translational practice. He reports on a pilot study with five subjects translating from Spanish into German. The analysis covers lexical and syntactic problem-solving strategies.

52. Königs, Frank G. 1987 “Was beim Übersetzen passiert: Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen”. Die Neueren Sprachen 86:2. 162–185.Google Scholar

The translation process is here divided into two \‘blocks’: the Adhoc-block includes automatic processing, e.g. automatic 1:1 equivalents and translational experience (procedural knowledge), while the Rest-block includes items requiring conscious processing, e.g. linguistic problems as well as considerations regarding ST author or TT recipients. The model is illustrated by TAP data from five subjects: two novice students, two advanced students, and one professional translator. Didactic implications are discussed with regard to both translator training and FL teaching. See also Jääskeläinen and Tirkkonen-Condit (1991).

53. Königs, Frank G. 1991 “Dem Übersetzen den Prozess machen?: Psycholinguistische Überlegungen zum Übersetzen und ihre didaktische Konsequenzen”. Eijiro Iwasaki, ed. Begegnung mit dem ‘Fremden’: Grenzen—Traditionen—Vergleiche. Akten des VIII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Tokyo 1990. (Vol. 5.) München: iudicium verlag. 132–142.Google Scholar

The study describes an experiment in which four subjects carried out two tasks, an FL writing task and a translation task into FL; in both cases travel brochures for Spanish speakers. The TAP data on the two tasks were first analysed separately (e.g. global planning, problem identification and solutions, revisions, dictionary use, and cultural transfer), then the writing processes were compared with the translation processes (structure of plans, strategies, etc.). One of the findings is that neither process proceeds in a linear fashion; both are characterised by recursiveness.

54. Königs, Frank G. and Reinhard Kaufmann 1996 “Processus mentaux étudiés chez les sujets allemands apprenant le français lorsquils sont en train de traduire”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 7–25.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

[ p. 124 ]The authors aim at providing new perspectives into the mental activities which take place during non-professional translation for language teaching purposes. The data comprise the TAPs from three advanced students of French, and the analysis covers e.g. global textual considerations, revision processes, and the use of dictionaries.

55. Kovacˇicˇ, Irena 2000 “Thinking-aloud Protocol—Interview—Text Analysis”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 97–109.Google Scholar

The article reports on a study in which TAP data was collected in a subtitling task with six subjects (two beginners, two with some experience, and two experts). In addition to TAPs, the analysis contains text analysis (e.g. condensation strategies) and interviews.

56. Krings, Hans-Peter 1986a “Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French (L2)”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 272.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 263–276.Google Scholar

A preliminary report on the study reported in full in Krings (1986b). This report focuses on the identification of translation problems and translation strategies.

57. Krings, Hans-Peter 1986bWas in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 291.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

The first major publication in the field. Krings’ Doktorarbeit discusses thoroughly the methodological foundations of verbal report methods and describes the translational behaviour of eight subjects. The subjects are all German students of French as a foreign language (FL), i.e. non-professional translators. The data includes translation processes into the subjects’ mother tongue (by four students) and into the foreign language (by four students). Analyses cover the subjects’ use of time and reference books, the nature of problems as well as problem-solving strategies.

58. Krings, Hans-Peter 1987 “The Use of Introspective Data in Translation”. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 158–176.Google Scholar

The article discusses think-aloud methodology on the basis of the experiment reported in full in Krings (1986b).

59. Krings, Hans-Peter 1988a “Blick in die ‘Black Box’—Eine Fallstudie zum Übersetzungsprozess bei Berufsübersetzern”. Reiner Arntz, ed. Textlinguistik und Fachsprache: Akten des internationalen übersetzungswissenschaftlichen AILA-Symposions, Hildesheim, 13.–16. April 1987. Hildesheim: Olms. 393–412.Google Scholar

[ p. 125 ]A case study in which one professional translator tackled the same translation task as the language students inKrings (1986b). The findings indicate that the professional engaged in more problem-solving activities than the language students; also, her processing was more concentrated on particular problem areas which she returned to over and over again.

60. Krings, Hans-Peter 1988b “Thesen zu einer empirischen Übersetzungswissenschaft”. Justa Holz-Mänttäri, ed. Translationstheorie—Grundlagen und Standorte. [Studia translatologica, Ser. A, Vol. 1.] Tampere: University of Tampere. 58–71.Google Scholar

An overview article of the first empirical studies into the translation process.

61. 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 from the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 91–101.Google Scholar

A report of an experiment with student pairs translating together a text which calls for creative input. The author introduces findings and methods from creativity research; he also draws attention to affective factors, e.g. creating a classroom atmosphere conducive to creativity.

62. Kussmaul, Paul 1995Training the Translator. [Benjamins Translation Library 10.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

A book on translator training which draws partly on TAP research.

63. Kussmaul, Paul 1996 “Die Bedeutung des Verstehensprozesses für das Übersetzen”. Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 229–238.Google Scholar

The study focuses on the interpretation of ST meaning in four dialogue protocols by advanced translation students. The theoretical framework includes prototype and scenes-and-frames semantics. The findings indicate that, at the reverbalisation stage of the process, students may abandon the good solutions which they have come up with while analysing the ST. As a result, the author suggests that the division between ST analysis and reverbalisation be discouraged in translation teaching.

64. Kussmaul, Paul 1998 “Die Erforschung von Übersetzungsprozessen: Resultate und Desiderate”. Lebende Sprachen 2/98. 49–53.Google Scholar

An overview article combining TAPs and dialogue protocols, summarising findings, and suggesting future directions.[ p. 126 ]

65. Kussmaul, Paul and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit 1995 “Think-aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR—Traduction Terminologie Rédaction 8:1. 177–199.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

An overview article of TAP research in Europe.

66. Lauer, Angelika 1996 “Lautes Denken und Übersetzen: Fehlerlinguistik, die LD-Methode und die Analyse von Übersetzungsfehlern”. Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 239–250.Google Scholar

An investigation of translation errors combining TT quality assessment with an analysis of process data. The data comprises two translations from German into French (L2) which were assessed by four native speakers of French. One of the subjects was a translation student. The findings indicate e.g. that the translation student’s information retrieval skills were better, which may stem from the subjects’ different educational backgrounds.

67. Laukkanen, Johanna 1993Routine vs. Non-routine Processes in Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

A case study of one professional translator tackling two kinds of tasks: one which belonged to her normal commissions (travel brochures fromFinnish into English), and another which resembled them in terms of text-type (advertising) but dealt with a different topic. The findings indicate that the two processes differed not so much in terms of cognitive processing, but in terms of the translator’s attitude and self-image which were more positive in the routine task. This, in turn, led to better translation quality. To investigate attitude, the author analysed the quality and quantity of evaluative utterances in the TAP data.

68. Laukkanen, Johanna 1996 “Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Translation Processes”. Target 8:2. 257–274.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article sums up the main findings of Laukkanen (1993) and suggests topics for further research.

69. Laukkanen, Johanna 1997Affective Factors and Task Performance in Translation. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished licentiate thesis.]Google Scholar

The study compares three professional translators performing routine vs. non-routine tasks. The subjects’ attitude and their text production strategies were investigated. The findings show that the link between attitude and translation quality is complex: in this study positive attitude seemed to be linked with perseverance and maintenance of highquality text production goals, while negative attitudes led to giving up easily and settling for less satisfying solutions.[ p. 127 ]

70. Livbjerg, Inge and Inger M. Mees 1999 “A Study of the Use of Dictionaries in Danish-English Translation”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 135–149.Google Scholar

See Hansen (1999).

71. Lorenzo, María Pilar 1999a “Apuntes para una discusión sobre métodos de estudio del proceso de traducción”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 21–42.Google Scholar

See Hansen (1999).

72. Lorenzo, María Pilar 1999b “La seguridad del traductor profesional en la traducción a una lengua extranjera”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.] Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 121–134.Google Scholar

See Hansen (1999).

73. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1986 “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 272.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 277–292.Google Scholar

A preliminary report of Lörscher’sHabilitationsschrift (1991a) focusing on the methodology for analysing the subjects’ translation strategies.

74. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1988 “Modelles des Übersetzungsprozesses: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit”. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 17. 62–83.Google Scholar

See Lörscher (1989).

75. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1989 “Models of the Translation Process: Claim and Reality”. Target 1:1. 43–68.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

A theoretical discussion which identifies the research gap in translation research to be filled by empirical translation process analysis.

76. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1991aTranslation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. [Language in Performance 4.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Lörscher’s book (based on his Habilitationsschrift) is the second extensive TAP publication and it describes the oral translation processes (i.e. sight translation) of 52 German learners of English (non-professional translators).Methodological issues are discussed [ p. 128 ]at length within a psycholinguistic framework and a sophisticated method for analysing translation strategies is introduced. The findings indicate, for example, that FL learners prefer a sign-oriented approach in translation (as opposed to sense-oriented translation by professional translators, see Lörscher 1993).

77. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1991b “Thinking Aloud As a Method for Collecting Data on Translation Processes”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research on Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988. [Language in Performance 5.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 67–78.Google Scholar

A methodologically oriented article discussing the merits and problems of thinking aloud as a research tool.

78. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1993 “Translation Process Analysis”. Yves Gambier and Jorma Tommola, eds. Translation and Knowledge. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting. 195–212.Google Scholar

The article describes a research project in progress; the first stage describes the translation strategies of 45 advanced learners of French (findings reported in Lörscher 1991a); the second stage includes data from 22 professional translators (bilingual children were included later). The analysis is based on the method introduced in Lörscher (1991a). Preliminary findings show that professionals prefer a sense-oriented approach and considerably larger units of translation than the language learners.

79. Lörscher, Wolfgang 1996 “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Translation Processes”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 26–32.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

See Lörscher 1993.

80. Luukkainen, Tiina 1996Comparisons of Translations Made with and Without Reference Material. A Think-aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

The study compares two first-year and two fourth-year students of translation who translate in two conditions, with or without access to dictionaries. Access to dictionaries slowed down the advanced students’ processing, but had little effect on the global strategies they used. Access to dictionaries did not seem to affect translation quality.

81. Malmkjær, Kirsten 2000 “Postscript: Multidisciplinarity in Process Research”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 163–170.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

[ p. 129 ]A summarising article which discusses the inherent multidisciplinarity of Translation Studies and the potential problems involved, particularly from the point of view of translation and interpreting process analysis.

82. Martikainen, Kati 1999What Happens to Metaphorical Expressions Relating to Comprehension in the Processes and Products of Translation? A Think-aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

The study reports on an investigation of metaphor translation (English-Finnish). The theoretical framework is cognitive linguistics, and the aim is to test the “cognitive translation” hypothesis (if SL and TL metaphors utilise different conceptual mappings, translation requires not only a linguistic, but also a conceptual shift which, in turn, requires more processing effort). The data comprise TAPs from five students of translation. The findings support the cognitive translation hypothesis; in addition, the best translations were produced by those who were able to make the conceptual shift in translating metaphors.

83. Matrat, Corinne Marie 1992Investigating the Translation Process: Thinkingaloud versus Joint Activity. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar

A comparison of thinking aloud alone vs. joint translating (in groups of three) with the same subjects translating two source texts in the two experimental conditions. The subjects are grouped into novices (three first-year students), advanced students (three thirdyears + three fourth-years), and experts (three professional translators). The theoretical framework is based onVygotsky’s notions of consciousness, metacognition, and the genetic method. The author argues for joint translating as the method to study translating.

84. Mondahl, Margrethe 1995 “Lexical Search Strategies: A Study of Translation Processes in a Brief Text”. Multilingua 14:2. 183–204.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article discusses the findings fromthe study reported inMondahl and Jensen (1992, 1996); in addition, there is a brief discussion of six more subjects’ (divided into two groups: medium and high proficiency) lexical search strategies.

85. Mondahl, Margrethe and Knud Anker Jensen 1992 “Information Processing in a Translation Task”. Multilingua 11:2. 195–215.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article reports on a study in which TAPs, retrospection and translated texts (Danish- English)were used as data. The subjectswere two advanced students of translation and two non-professionals (military personnel) who need English for their own professional purposes. The analysis deals with identifying differences in information processing (e.g. procedural vs. declarative knowledge) and the subjects’ interlanguage.

86. Mondahl, Margrethe and Knud Anker Jensen 1996 “Lexical Search Strategies in Translation”. Meta, 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 97–113.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

[ p. 130 ]Drawing on the data introduced inMondahl and Jensen (1992), the authors describe the subjects’ behaviour in terms of translation sequences (spontaneous vs. problematic) and different search strategies (divided into achievement and reduction strategies) and evaluation strategies. The advanced students seem to use more knowledge-based and experience-based knowledge. The findings also highlight the need for good evaluation strategies to assess translation solutions.

87. Nagy, Ulla 1989Zum Übersetzungsprozess: Eine Protokolluntersuchung der Unterschiede beim Hin-und Her-Übersetzen von fortgeschrittenen Deutschstudenten. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

In this study the subjectswere four students of translation: twowith Germanas their major subject in translator training (B-language), and two with German as their minor subject (C-language). All the subjects performed tasks both into and from German. As the quality of the translations was equally good, it is hypothesised that general strategic competence in translation may to some extent balance differences in language proficiency.

88. Olshtain, Elite 1986 “Translating Noun-compounds from English into Hebrew”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 272.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 229–242.Google Scholar

An exception among the first studies which used thinking aloud in their research design, this study has a narrower focus than the other contributions published in 1986. TAPs from five naive bilinguals are used as one source of data about noun-compound translation between English and Hebrew. The other sources include native speaker interpretations of the meaning of the compounds and six written translations produced by naive translators (i.e. not professionals).

89. Pöntinen, Tuija and Tiina Romanov 1989Professional vs. Non-professional Translator: A Think-aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished M.A. thesis.]Google Scholar

The study compares the translation processes of one professional and one non-professional (subject specialist). The findings indicate that the professional translator gleans information from the text as a neutral mediator of information, while the subject specialist tends to be side-tracked by her own views and attitudes. In addition, the nonprofessional proceeds in a linear fashion, while the professional’s process is characterised by numerous backward and forward shifts and concentration on problematic items (see Krings 1988a).[ p. 131 ]

90. Sandrock, Ursula 1982 “Thinking-aloud Protocols” (TAPs)—Ein Instrument zur Dekomposition des komplexen Prozesses “Übersetzen”. University of Kassel. [Unpublished Diplomarbeit.]Google Scholar

To the best of my knowledge, this is first research report of a study in which TAPs were used to study translating. The TAP data was collected as an assignment in a seminar and the author was among the students who took part in the experiment. The categories of analysis include automatic retrieval, self-correction, and lexical search strategies.

91. Schmid, Annemarie 1994 “Gruppenprotokolle—ein Einblick in die black box des Übersetzens?TextConText 9. 121–146.Google Scholar

The article reports on a study in which translation students translated texts in fairly large groups (up to 20 students in a group). The data comprises five ‘general’ translations and five LSP translations from English into German, and six ‘general’ translations and four LSP translations from German into English.

92. Séguinot, Candace 1989 “The Translation Process: An Experimental Study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications. 21–53.Google Scholar

A case study of a Canadian government translator performing a routine translation task (from English into French). The subject verbalised little, and her processing had to be inferred fromthe external behaviour recorded on videotape, which supported the early hypothesis of automatic processing by professional translators (cf. e.g. Tirkkonen- Condit 1989; Krings 1988a). The analysis deals with e.g. the subject’s global translation strategies.

93. Séguinot, Candace 1996 “Some Thoughts about Think-aloud Protocols”. Target 8:1. 75–95.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Starting with a discussion of the limitations of TAPs as a research tool, the author then describes a study in which two translators, who regularly work together, were videotaped. The analysis of the joint translation process shows evidence of non-linear procession, parallel processing, and the iterative nature of the process (returning again to accepted solutions). Furthermore, sometimes “the meaning on which the translation operates can be self-generated”.

94. Séguinot, Candace 1997 “Accounting for Variability in Translation”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. [Applied Psychology: Individual, Social, and Community Issues 3.] Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage. 104–119.Google Scholar

The author draws on a number of studies to account for the inherent variability in translation, which complicates experimentation in translation research. The nature of the translation process is such that it does not lend itself easily to rigorously controlled experiments with neatly isolated variables. The sources of variation include skills, strategies, and the organisation of memory.[ p. 132 ]

95. Séguinot, Candace 2000a “Management Issues in the Translation Process”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 143–148.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Based on the dialogic data also discussed in Séguinot (1996), the article draws attention to the seemingly irrelevant processing which goes on in the joint translation process. This type of processing tends to be suppressed in think-aloud conditions—or at least, based on my own experiences, such phenomena tend to be ignored in the analysis. The author argues that a theory which aims at explaining the mental processes underlying translation should be able to account for the types of phenomena observed here and in Séguinot (1996).

96. Séguinot, Candace 2000b “Knowledge, Expertise, and Theory in Translation”. Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier, eds. Translation in Context: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. [Benjamins Translation Library 39] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 87–104.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The article opens with summarising different approaches to translation and knowledge. Drawing on cognitive science and translation studies (incl. TAP studies), the author discusses e.g. the development of translator competence as well as the notion of expertise in general and translational expertise in particular.

97. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1987 “Think-aloud Protocols in the Study of the Translation Process”. Heikki Nyyssönen, Riitta Kataja and Vesa Komulainen, eds. CDEF 86: Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland. [Publications of the Department of English 7.] Oulu: University of Oulu. 39–49.

A preliminary report on the experiment later discussed in Tirkkonen-Condit (1988, 1989, 1991). The analysis covers two TAPs, one first-year student and one fifth-year student of translation (labelled as ‘non-professional’ and ‘professional’). The study focuses on translation problems and shows, for example, that the mature student identified more problems but spent less time on the process, i.e. was more sensitised to potential problems but also more efficient in problem-solving.

98. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1988 “Tekstin tulkinta käännösprosessin osana”. Leena Laurinen and Anneli Kauppinen, eds. Kielen käyttämisen ja ymmärtämisen ongelmia/Problems in Language Use and Comprehension. [AFinLA yearbook 46.] Helsinki: AFinLA. 145–155.Google Scholar

The study reports (in Finnish) on three translation students’ (two beginners and one mature student) processing while translating a text from English into their native Finnish. The aim is to identify different ways of interpreting the source text. The subjects are divided into two groups on the basis of their text comprehension patterns: [ p. 133 ](1) globalists who add textual and extralinguistic knowledge to linguistic details of the text, and (2) localists who rely on the linguistic details only.

99. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1989 “Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications. 73–85.Google Scholar

The study reports on the same experiment as Tirkkonen-Condit (1988). Here the analysis focuses on classifying the subjects’ decisions and their distribution to different stages in the process. The mature student’s process contained the highest number of (verbalised) decisions (cf. Séguinot 1989), which also showed a higher reliance on encyclopedic knowledge than did the beginners’ decisions.

100. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1991 “Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. M.A.K. Halliday, John Gibbons and Howard Nicholas, eds. Learning, Keeping and Using Language: Selected Papers from the 8th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Sydney, 16–21 August 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 381–394.Google Scholar

See Tirkkonen-Condit (1989).

101. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1992 “The Interaction of World Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge in the Processes of Translation: A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, eds. Translation and Meaning, Part 2. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool Maastricht, Faculty of Translation and Interpreting. 433–440.Google Scholar

Two subjects’ (a professional and a non-professional from Pöntinen and Romanov 1989) translation processes are analysed from the point of view of the type of knowledge used in translational decision-making. The professional’s process is described as a topdown governed, holistic process which utilises textual knowledge, while the nonprofessional processes sentences in isolation and allows her extra-textual knowledge to interfere with the contents of the ST.

102. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1993 “What Happens to a Uniquely Finnish Particle in the Processes and Products of Translation?”. Yves Gambier and Jorma Tommola, eds. Translation and Knowledge. Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting. 273–284.Google Scholar

The study reports on an experiment in which three teachers of translation translated a text from Finnish into English (two subjects translating from L1 into L2 and one from L2 into L1). The purpose was to test the subjects’ sensitivity to ST relational structure, more specifically to the Finnish clitic particle -kin.

103. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1996 “What is in the Black Box?: Professionality in Translational Decisions in the Light of TAP Research”. Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 251–257.Google Scholar

[ p. 134 ]The author discusses research evidence from several TAP studies in order to illustrate the ways in which professionality is reflected in translators’ decision-making. Professionality is defined as successful task performance in relation to the translation brief, which means that sometimes success equals speed, sometimes it requires the production of a publishable text. Professional translators seem to be able to invest their efforts strategically depending on their analysis of the translation brief. In addition, contrary to some other contributions, the evidence reported here indicates that professionals have access to a well-organised and articulate body of procedural knowledge.

104. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 1997 “Who Verbalises What: A Linguistic Analysis of TAP Texts”. Target 9:1. 69–84.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

The study focuses on the development of translational proficiency by looking at e.g. addressee-oriented verbalisations in TAPs fromfour different experiments (Tirkkonen- Condit 1987, 1993; Pöntinen and Romanov 1989; Jääskeläinen 1990b).

105. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja 2000 “Uncertainty in Translation Processes”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. [Benjamins Translation Library 37.] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 123–142.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Based on the assumption that translation competence involves tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty, the study examines ‘uncertainty management’, i.e. the ways in which professional translators deal with the uncertainty inherent in translation. An analysis of six translators’ TAPs suggests that uncertainty management includes e.g. deliberation of tentative solutions and postponement of final decisions.

106. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Johanna Laukkanen 1996 “Evaluations—A Key Towards Understanding the Affective Dimension of Translational Decisions”. Meta 41:1. Special issue: Translation Process(es), ed. Frank G. Königs. 45–59.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Drawing on data from two TAP experiments with professional translators, the authors analyse evaluative utterances to identify the translators’ professional self-image and their subjective theories of translation. The findings seem to indicate a positive relation between confidence and translation quality (but cf. Laukkanen 1997), which would challenge translator training to facilitate the development of positive professional selfimage and confidence in students of translation.

107. Toury, Gideon 1991 “Experimentation in Translation Studies: Achievements, Prospects and Some Pitfalls”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988. [Language in Performance 5.] Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 45–66.Google Scholar

[ p. 135 ]A critical overview article of empirical translation research, with TAP research (Sandrock 1982) as one of the cases discussed. The author raises the still unanswered issue of the potential interference effect of the need to verbalise on the end product.

108. Wilton, Antje 1996Bilinguals and the Translation Process. GerhardMercator-Universität, Duisburg. [Unpublished Magisterarbeit.]Google Scholar

A case study with three balanced bilinguals (English/German) with no formal translator training as subjects. The aim is to investigate Harris and Sherwood’s natural translation hypothesis5 (see e.g. Krings 1986b), although the subjects were asked to produce a written translation of a written text.