Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty
Copenhagen Business School
The subject of this article is cognitive segmentation in translation. Based on experiments carried out in Translog, a keyboard logging program, significant differences, and also certain similarities, were observed of cognitive segmentation when data from two different subject groups and text types were compared. In the translation of a relatively easy text, novice and professional translators were found to behave fundamentally differently with respect to the size and nature of cognitive units and the speed with which they were produced. When faced with a difficult text, the behaviour in both groups was clearly affected, but some of the differences observed between novice and professional translators in the translation of the easy text were neutralized in that the professionals took over many of the features characteristic of the novices.
The focus of the present article will be on the extent to which segmentation differences observed between novices and professionals in the translation of a relatively easy text were neutralised when the same subjects were faced with a more difficult text.
1986Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Broadbent, Donald E.
1975 “The magic number seven after fifteen years”. Alan, Kennedy eds. Studies in long term memory. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1975 3–18.
1980 “Evidence from pauses in speech”. Brian, Butterworth ed. Language production 1: Speech and talk. London: Academic Press 1980 155–156.
1999 “A cognitive approach to source text diﬃculty in translation”. Target 11: . 33–63.
Crowder, Robert G.
1976Principles of learning and memory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2004Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems. An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [PhD thesis.]
1986 “Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process: Talkaloud protocols of translation.” House and Blum-Kulka 1986 243–262.
1995Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1988 “Bi-text, a new concept in translation theory”. Language monthly 54.
House, JulianeShoshana Blum-Kulka
eds.1986Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1986
Jääskeläinen, RiittaSonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1991 “Automated processes in professional vs non-professional translation: A Think-aloud protocol study” Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1991 89–109.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou
1999 “Translog documentation”. Probing the process in translation Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24.]
Kiraly, Donald C.
1995Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Königs, Frank G.
1987 “Was beim Übersetzen passiert”. Die Neueren Sprachen. 86: 2. 162–185.
Krings, Hans P.
1986aWas in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Krings, Hans P.
1986b “Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2)”.
House and Blum-Kulka 1986
1986 “Linguistic aspects of translation processes: Towards an analysis of translation performance”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986 277–292.
1991Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
[ p. 69 ]
1996 “A psycholinguistic analysis of translation processes”. Meta 41: 1. 26–32.
1967The psychology of communication: Seven essays. New York and London: Basic Books Inc.
Newell, Allen and Herbert A. Simon
1972Human problem solving. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
1996It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.