Methodological questions about translation research: A model to underpin research into the mental processes of translation
Stuart Campbell and Berta Wakim
University of Western Sydney
Research on the mental processes of written translation has benefited less from the findings of psycholinguistic and cognitive research than interpreting research has. This has left translation research relatively impoverished in the theoretical grounding of research methodology. While the performance speed of interpreting seems to make interpreting research closer to bilingual speech research, the shared features of interpreting and translation suggest that they are points on a continuum rather than discrete production modes. A Translation-Interpreting Continuum is proposed, which allows various production modes to be described in terms of psycholinguistic notions, and which includes a language development dimension to account for second language production. The Continuum allows some very basic questions about translation research methodology to be answered, and opens up the opportunity for a better integration of translation and interpreting research.
While empirical investigations of written translation (e.g. Krings 1986, 1987, Dechert 1987, Gerloff 1987) have made inroads into our understanding of the mental processes underpinning this complex phenomenon, written translation has attracted relatively little interest from researchers in the psycholinguistic and cognitive domains of bilingualism. On the other hand research into oral [ p. 2 ]translation, or interpreting, has interacted much more with research into these fields to the extent that leading authorities on bilingualism are now beginning to discuss simultaneous interpreting (e.g. de Bot 2000, Paradis 2000, MacWhinney 2005) as a topic of interest, and there are even neurolinguistic accounts (e.g. Paradis 1994). Research into interpreting utilises and adapts the findings of psycholinguistic and cognitive studies (e.g. Gile 1995, de Groot 1997, 2000, Christoffels and de Groot 2005, Christoffels el al. 2006) most likely because of the aﬃnity between interpreting and bilingual speech production, particularly in speed of delivery; authorities such as Gile (1995, 1997) and Christoffels and de Groot (2005) cite the relative slowness of written translation as the reason to focus on interpreting rather than translation: “[I]nterpreters work at speech delivery speed”, whereas “[t]ranslators generally have hours, days, or even weeks to complete the operations” (Gile 1995: 111–112). The prospect for collaboration between interpreting and translation research is however beginning to be recognised, for example in Schäffner (2004) where a number of (mainly interpreting) researchers chart some of the common ground.
[ p. 16 ]References
Anderman, Gunilla M. and Margaret Rogers
eds.2005In and out of English: For better, for worse?. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
1983Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
1998Translation into the second language. London: Longman.
2000 “Critical structures in the evaluation of translations from Arabic into English as a second language”. The translator 6:2. 211–229.
Chafe, Wallace L.
1972 “Discourse structure and human knowledge”. Roy O. Freedle and John B. Carroll, eds. Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. Washington: V.H. Winston 1972 41–69.
Christoffels, Ingrid K. and Annette M.B. de Groot
2005 “Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective”. De Groot et al. 2005. 454–479.
eds.2005Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dechert, Hans. W.
1987 “Analysing language processing through verbal protocol”.
Færch and Kasper, 1987
1994 “Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t?”.
Lambert and Moser-Mercer 1994
Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper
eds.1987Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Favreau, Micheline and Norman S. Segalowitz
1983 “Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals”. Memory & cognition 11:6. 565–574.
1987 “Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: Some uses of Think-aloud Protocol data”.
Færch and Kasper, 1987
1995Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1997 “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem”.
Danks et al. 1997
1993 “The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies”. David E. Meyer and Sylvan Kornblum, eds. Attention and performance XIV: [ p. 17 ]Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 1993 299–322.
2001 “The bilingual’s language modes”. One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell 2001 1–22.
2001 “Against full transfer ’ evidence from Swedish learners of German”. Lundt University, Department of Linguistics Working Papers 48. 48–68.
Hale, Sandra Beatriz
2004The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the Law, the Witness, and the Interpreter. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Henderson, Alan I., Frieda Goldman-Eisler and Andrew Skarbek
1966 “Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech”. Language and speech 9. 207–216.
Hyltenstam, Kenneth and Birgitta Englund
eds.2000Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Isham, William P.
1994 “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization”.
Lambert and Moser-Mercer 1994
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou
1999 “Translog documentation”. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur 19999–20.
Kintsch, Walter and Teun A. Van Dijk
1978 “Toward a model of text comprehension and production”. Psychological review 85:5. 363–394.
1986 “The translation strategies of advanced German learners of French”. Juliane, House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, ed. Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1986 263–276.
Krings, Hans P.
1987 “The use of introspective data in translation”.
Færch and Kasper 1987
Lambert, Sylvie and Barbara Moser-Mercer
eds.1994Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1995Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge; New York-USA: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, Willem J.M.
1981 “Déjà vu?”. Cognition 10: 1–3. 187–192.
Levelt, Willem J.M.
1989Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge-Massachusets: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
2003 “Patterns of dictionary use in non-domain-speciﬁc translation”. Fábio Alves dos Santos, ed. Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2003 123–136.
Long, Michael H.
1996 “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition”. William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press 1996 413–468.
1985 “The Kintsch and van Dijk model of discourse ’ comprehension and production applied to the interpretation process”. Meta 30:1. 37–43.
2005 “A unified model of language acquisition”.
de Groot and Kroll, 2005
. 49–67.[ p. 18 ]
Moser-Mercer, Barbara, Uli. H. Frauenfelder, Beatriz Casado and Alexander Künzli
2000 “Searching to deﬁne expertise in interpreting”.
Hyltenstam and Englund 2000
Myers, Jerome L., and Edward J. O’Brien
1998 “Accessing the discourse representation during reading”. Discourse processes 26:2/3. 131–157.
1994 “Toward a neurolinguistic theory of simultaneous translation: The framework”. International journal of psycholinguistics 10:3. 319–335.
2000 “Prerequisites to a study of neurolinguistic processes involved in simultaneous interpreting”.
Hyltenstam and Englund, 2000
2004A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1999Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1968 “Language acquisition in a second language environment”. International review of applied linguistics 6. 165–185.
Sanford, Anthony J.
1990 “On the nature of text driven inference”. David. A. Balota, Giovanni B. Flores D’Arcais and Keith Rayner, ed. Comprehension processes in reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum 1990 515–535.
Sanford, Anthony J. and Simon C. Garrod
1981Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester-New York: Wiley.
ed.2004Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon, England-Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
2005 “Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning”.
de Groot and Kroll, 2005
Shebilske, Wayne L., Barry P. Goettl and Wesley J. Regian
1999 “Executive control and automatic processes as complex skills develop in laboratory and applied settings”. Daniel GopherAsher Koriat, ed. Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Cambridge, Massachusets: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 1999 401–432.
2000 “Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens?”.
Tirkkonen-Condit and Jääskeläinen 2000
1989 “On the variability of interlanguage systems”. Fred R. Eckman, Lawrence H. Bell and Diane Nelson, eds. Universals in second language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House 1989 9–23.
1985Argumentative text structure and translation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Riitta Jääskeläinen eds.
2000Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tokowicz, Natasha and Charles A. Prfetti
De Groot and Kroll 2005
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Daniel, Daniel M.
1994 “Ironic processes of mental control”. Psychological review 101:1. 34–52.[ p. 19 ]