The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty

Brenda Malkiel
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Abstract

Twenty-two translation students translated two texts using Translog keystroke-monitoring software, once at the beginning of their studies and again three semesters later. Performance on two measures of interference, lexicalizable strings and false cognates, improved significantly among both the students working into L1 and those working into L2. Students working into L1 found the task as difficult after three semesters as they had at the beginning of their studies. For students translating into their L2, translation did get significantly easier as judged by the objective measures of time and keystrokes, but the students’ subjective assessment of difficulty and satisfaction was unchanged. This study also indicates that students appreciate the contribution of translation theory to practice.

Keywords:
Table of contents

The lay view of translation as a straightforward and rather simple task and of the translator as someone who knows several languages has very little to do with the reality of professional translation. Professional translation is a highly complex undertaking, which requires a wealth of expertise and can be dauntingly difficult. By its very nature, professional translation involves decision making, compromise, and problem solving.

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

Barčenkov, Aleksandr A.
1992 “Training translators and interpreters in the USSR”. Meta XXXVII:1. 163–168.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastin, Georges L.
2000 “Evaluating beginners’ re-expression and creativity: A positive approach”. The translator 6:2. 231–245.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börsch, Sabine
1986 “Introspective methods in research on interlingual and intercultural communication”. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Narr 1986 195–209.Google Scholar
[ p. 359 ]
Campbell, Stuart
1991 “Towards a model of translation competence”. Meta XXXVI:2/3. 329–343.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Translation into the second language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
1999 “A cognitive approach to source text difficulty in translation”. Target 11:1. 33–63.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Domínguez, Pedro José and Brigitte Nerlich
2002 “False friends: Their origin and semantics in some selected languages”. Journal of pragmatics 34. 1833–1849.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997 Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delisle, Jean
1988 Translation: An interpretive approach, trs.Patricia Logan and Monica Creery. Canada: University of Ottowa Press.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto
2001 Experiences in translation, tr. Alastair McEwen. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Frame, Donald
1989 “Pleasures and problems of translation”. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds. The craft of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press 1989 70–92.Google Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela
1988 From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals, and professional translators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. [Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation.]Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Miriam Shlesinger
1997 “The proposed role of suppression in simultaneous interpretation”. Interpreting 2:1/2. 119–140.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brian
1978 “The difference between natural and professional translation”. Canadian modern language review 34. 417–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R.
1997 Le ton beau de Marot: In praise of the music of language. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1996 “Hard work will bear beautiful fruit: A comparison of two thinkaloud protocol studies”. Meta XLV:1. 60–74.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 361 ]
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. Tübingen: Narr 1991 89–109.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
1999 “Logging target text production with Translog”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur 1999 9–20. [Copenhagen studies in language 24.]Google Scholar
2003 “Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation”. Fabio Alves, ed. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2003 69–95.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald Charles
1995 Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, Ohio/ London, England: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Krouglov, Alexandr
1996 “Social and cultural differences”. Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1996 81–87.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka
2004 “What happens to ‘unique items’ in learners’ translations?: ‘Theories’ and ‘concepts’ as a challenge for novices’ views on ‘good translation’”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2004 187–204.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 360 ]
Levenston, Edward
1971 “Over-indulgence and under-representation—Aspects of mother-tongue interference”. Gerhard Nickel, ed. Papers in contrastive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1971 115–121.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, A. Sophia S.
1996 “Directionality in translation processes and practices”. Target 8:1. 49–73.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian
1994 “Goals and methods for a course in translation theory”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1994 401–409.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, Aryeh
1987 “Translation universals: Perspectives and explorations”. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, ed. Translation perspectives III: Selected papers, 1985–86. Binghamton: SUNY-Binghamton 1987 69–83.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1996 “Translation: Possible and impossible”. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, ed. Translation perspectives IX: Translation horizons. State University of New York at Binghamton 1996 7–23.Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, José
1937/1992 “The misery and the splendor of translation”, tr.Elizabeth Gamble Miller. Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet, eds. Theories of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press 1992 93–112.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K.
2005 Challenging the traditional axioms: Translation into a non-mother tongue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1993 Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching: A seminar for thinking students. Spain: Caminade.Google Scholar
Rabassa, Gregory
1989 “No two snowflakes are alike: Translation as metaphor”. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds. The craft of translation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press 1989 1–12.Google Scholar
Raffel, Burton
1971 The forked tongue: A study of the translation process. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1992 “Lexicalization in translation: An empirical study of students’ progress”. Cay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, eds. Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1992 123–127.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. and Bruce J. Diamond
1997 “Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage 1997 233–251.Google Scholar
Spilka, Irène V.
1970 “Why not ‘sur la ferme’?: A case of linguistic interference”. Meta XV:4. 212–219.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, George
1975/1992 After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic
2000 “Poor relations and black sheep in translation studies”. Target 12:2. 205–228.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tennent, Martha
ed. 2005 Training for the new millennium. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1989 “Professional vs. non-professional translation: A thinkaloud protocol study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The translation process. Toronto: H.G. Publications 1989 73–85.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma
1986 “Translation as a psycholinguistic process”. Lars Wollin and Hans Lindquist, eds. Translation Studies in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT) II, Lund 14–15 June 1985. Sweden: CWK Gleerup 1986 140–149.Google Scholar
Topalova, Antoanita
1996 “False friends in translation work: An empirical study”. Perspectives: Studies in translatology 4:2. 215–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1979 “Interlanguage and its manifestations in translation”. Meta XXIV:2. 223–231.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
2002 “The difference that translation makes: The translator’s unconscious”. Alessandra Riccardi, ed. Translation Studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002 214–241.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean
1958/1995 Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation, trs. and eds. Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar