Translation processes in time

Hella Breedveld
Utrecht Institute for Linguistics
Abstract

In think-aloud protocol studies of cognitive processes in translation, the analysis of TAPs very often results in the description of overall characteristics of the processes of individual translators or proficiency groups of translators. The problem with this approach is that it does not allow the researcher to draw conclusions about the actual organisation of the cognitive processes and its effects on text quality. In writing research, functional dependency of cognitive processes—the fact that the context, function and effect of different cognitive processes vary according to the moment in the process on which they occur—was demonstrated by Rijlaarsdam and Van den Bergh (1996). In the present paper the idea is developed that in translation process research, the inclusion of time as a variable may prove to be useful in improving understanding of the effect of process characteristics on process outcome. A dynamic approach, in which a translation process is viewed and analysed as belonging to a changing task situation, is proposed.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Although the study of cognitive processes in translation is not a complete novelty, the number of studies is still fairly limited, as is the range of research questions that have been addressed.

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

Anderson, John R.
1995 Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ericsson, Karl Anders and Herbert Simon
1980 “Verbal reports as data”. Psychological review 87. 215–251.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984/1993 Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. (first edition 1984, revised edition 1993.)Google Scholar
Flower, Linda. S. and John. R. Hayes
1981 “A cognitive process theory of writing”. College composition and communication 32. 365–387.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela
1988 From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals, and professional translators. UMI Dissertation services.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1996 “Hard work will bear beautiful fruit: A comparison of two thinkaloud protocol studies”. Meta 41:1. 60–74.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in the Humanities 22.Google Scholar
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 in translation and intercultural studies: Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988. Tübingen: Narr 1991 89–109.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2000 “Logging target text production with Translog”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundsliteratur 2000 9–20. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24.]Google Scholar
Janssen, Daniël, Joost Schilperoord, Huub van den Bergh, Luuk van Waes and Walter Wassenaar
1994 “Effecten van hardop denken op het schrijfproces”. Alfons Maes, Paul van Hauwermeiren and Luc van Waes, eds. Perspectieven in Taalbeheersingsonderzoek. Dordrecht: ICG Publications 1994 177–190.Google Scholar
Kiraly, Donald
1995 Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent—London: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1986 Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
[ p. 239 ]
1987 “The use of introspective data in translation. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in second language research. Clevedon—Philadelphia: Multilingual matters 1987 159–176.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
1995 Training the translator. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laukkanen, Johanna
1996 “Affective and attitudinal factors in translation processes”. Target 8:2. 257–274.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991 Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian
1999 “The workplace procedures of professional translators”. Paper read at the EST Conference in Barcelona, 1999.Google Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, Gert and Huub van den Bergh
1996 “The dynamics of composing—An agenda for research into an interactive compensatory model of writing: Many questions some answers”. Michael C. Levy and Sarah Ransdell, eds. The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA 1996 107–126.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost
1996 It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [Utrecht studies in language and communication.]Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1989 “The translation process: An experimental study”. Séguinot 1989a : 21–53.Google Scholar
ed. 1989a The translation process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, School of Translation, York University.Google Scholar
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. London: Sage 1997 104–119.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1989 “Professional vs. non-professional translation: A thinkaloud protocol study”. Séguinot 1989a : 73–85.Google Scholar
1997 “Who verbalises what: A linguistic analysis of TAP texts”. Target 9:1. 69–84.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 240 ]