The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation

Sharon O’Brien
Dublin City University, Ireland

Abstract

The paper considers the interdisciplinary interaction of research on the cognitive aspects of translation. Examples of influence from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, reading and writing research and language technology are given, with examples from specific sub-disciplines within each one. The breadth of borrowing by researchers in cognitive translatology is made apparent, but the minimal influence of cognitive translatology on the respective disciplines themselves is also highlighted. Suggestions for future developments are made, including ways in which the domain of cognitive translatology might exert greater influence on other disciplines.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Translation process research has been ongoing for approximately thirty years now, but the field has grown significantly in the last decade or so, as evidenced by the number of recent publications dedicated to the topic (see, for example, the volumes by Hansen 1999; Alves 2003; Göpferich 2008; Göpferich et al. 2008; Mees et al. 2010; Shreve and Angelone 2010; O’Brien 2011a). The impetus for this growth, in my opinion, is due to a thirst for a greater understanding of translation as an expert task. The growth in research has also come about due to the development and increased accessibility of tools and methods for measuring specific cognitive aspects of the translation task, in particular screen recording, keystroke logging and eye-tracking technologies.

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

Agrifoglio, Marjorie
2004 “Sight Translation and Interpreting: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failures.” Interpreting — International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 6 (1): 43–68.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio
(ed) 2003 Triangulating Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-Based Translation Research.” In ”Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva
2010 “A New Window on Translators Cognitive Activity: Methodological Issues in the Combined Use of Eye Tracking, Key Logging and Retrospective Protocols.” In ”Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by Inger Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 267–292. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.[Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38.]Google Scholar
[ p. 14 ]
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale
2011 “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” TC3: Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 1 (1): 105–122.Google Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving.” In ”Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik, and Gregory Shreve
2011 “Uncertainty Management, Metacognitive Bundling in Problem Solving, and Translation Quality.” In ”Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien , 108–130. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Austermühl, Frank
2001 Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D., and Graham Hitch
1974 “Working Memory.” In ”The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 8., ed. by Gordon H. Bower, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne
2002 Computer-Aided Translation Technology: A Practical Introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Callison-Burch Chris, Cameron Fordyce, Philipp Koehn, Christof Monz, and Josh Schroeder
2008 “Further Meta-Evaluation of Machine Translation.” Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT. Third Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. June 19, 70–106.The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Chang, Vincent Chieh-Ying
2009 Testing Applicability of Eye-Tracking and fMRI to Translation and Interpreting Studies: An Investigation into Directionality. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Choi, Bernard, and Anita Pak
2006 “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Health Research, Services, Education and Policy: 1. Definitions, Objectives, and Evidence of Effectiveness.” Clinical and Investigative Medicine 29 (6): 351–364.Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph, and Gregory Shreve
1997 Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Désilets, Alain, Louise, Brunette, Christiane Melançon, and Geneviève, Patenaude
2008 “Reliable Innovation — A Tecchie’s Travels in the Land of Translators.” 8th Association of Machine Translation in the Americas Conference, 339–345.Hawaii 21–25 October.Google Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, Sharon O’Brien, and Michael Carl
2010 “Eye Tracking as an MT Evaluation Technique.” Machine Translation 24 (1): 1–13.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert, and Stuart Dreyfus
2005 “Peripheral Vision: Expertise in Real World Contexts.” Organization Studies 26 (5): 779–792.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Daniel Perrin
2010 “Progression Analysis. Tracing Journalistic Language Awareness.” 5th International Conference on ELT in China, 485–510. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, Herbert Simon
1993 Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves, Daniel Gile, and Christopher Taylor
1994 Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting — What do We Know and How? Turku, August 25–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2008 Translationsprozessforschung. Stand—Methoden—Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009 “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in [ p. 15 ]Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 37.]Google Scholar
2010 “Data Documentation and Data Accessibility in Translation Process Research.” The Translator 16 (1): 93–124.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “From Multidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity: The Investigation of Competence Development as a Case in Point.” MikaEL Electronic Proceedings of the KäTu Symposium on Translation and Interpreting Studies 5, 1–24.Google Scholar
Göpferich Susanne, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees (eds)
2008 Looking at Eyes. Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 36.]Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde (ed)
1999 Probing the Process in Translation — Methods and Results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Severine
2009 “Personal Diversity and Diverse Personalities in Translation: A Study of Individual Differences.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 17 (3): 175–192.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2010 “Are All Professionals Experts? Definitions of Expertise and Reinterpretation of Research Evidence in Process Studies.” In ”Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 213–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta, and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1991 “Automatised Processes in Professional vs. Non-Professional Translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study.” In Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, 89–109. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2003 “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Segmentation.” In ”Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Investigating Expert Translators’ Processing Knowledge.” In Knowledge Systems and Translation — Text, Translation and Computational Processing 7, ed. by Helle van Dam, Jan Engberg, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 173–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Kristian T.H.
2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” In Behind the Mind: Methods and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 61–80. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.[Copenhagen Studies in Language, 37.]Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A., and Patricia Carpenter
1980 “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixation to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87: 329–354.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karamanis, Nikiforas, Saturnino Luz, and Gavin Doherty
2011 “Translation Practice in the Workplace: A Contextual Analysis and Implications for Machine Translation.” Machine Translation 25 (1): 35–52.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1986 Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. Translated byG. S. Koby. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Lachaud, Christian M.
2011 “EEG, EYE and Key: Three Simultaneous Streams of Data for Investigating the Cognitive Mechanisms of Translation.” In ”Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 131–153. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lavie, Alon, and Mark A. Przybocki (eds.)
2009 “Automated Metrics for Machine Translation Evaluation.” Special Issue of Machine Translation 23 (2/3): 69–70.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 16 ]
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1988 “Thinking-Aloud as a Method for Collecting Data on Translation Processes.” In ”Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, 67–77. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mees, Inger, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich (eds)
2010 Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
2010 “The Search for Neuro-Physiological Correlates of Expertise in Interpreting.” In ”Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 263–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2010a “The Way they were: Subject Profiling in Translation Process Research.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by Inger Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 87–108. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38.]Google Scholar
2010b “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissani, Moti
1997 “Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Interdisciplinary Knowledge and Research.” The Social Science Journal 34 (2): 201–216.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon.
2006 “Eye Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2008 “Processing Fuzzy Matches in Translation Memory Tools: An Eye-Tracking Analysis.” In Looking at Eyes. Eye Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 79–102. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.[Copenhagen Studies in Language, 36.]Google Scholar
2010 “Controlled Language and Readability.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 143–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon (ed.)
2011a Cognitive Explorations of Translation. IATIS Yearbook 2010. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2011b “Towards Predicting Post-Editing Productivity.” Machine Translation 25 (3): 197–215.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, Minako O’Hagan, and Marian Flanagan
2010 “Keeping an Eye on the UI Design of Translation Memory: How do Translators Use the Concordance Feature?” In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics ed. byWillem-Paul Brinckman and Mark Neerincx, 187–190. Delft University of Technology.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE
2003 “Building a Translation Competence Model.” In ”Triangulating Translation, ed. by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papineni, Kishore, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu
2002 “BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of ACL-2002: 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 311–318. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Quah, Chiew Kin
2006 Translation and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2010 “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatednesss Really Make a Difference?” Target 22 (1): 94–111.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydning, Antin Fougner, and Christian Michel Lachaud
2010 “The Reformulation Challenge in Translation.” In ”Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 85–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrijver, Iris, Leona Van Vaerenbergh, and Luuk Van Waes
2011 Transediting in Students’ Translation Processes. Antwerp: Artesis Working Papers in Translation Studies 2010–3.Google Scholar
[ p. 17 ]
Shreve, Gregory, and Erik Angelone
2010 Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jacqui, and K. Anders Ericsson
1991 Towards a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite, and William Mann
2006 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead.” Discourse Studies 8 (3): 423–459.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Waes, Luuk, and Peter Jan Jan
2003 “Writing Profiles: The Effect of the Writing Mode on Pausing and Revision Patterns of Experienced Writers.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 829–853.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Carl, and Gerard Lynch
2008 “Computational Stylometry: Who’s in Play?” In Verbal and Nonverbal Features of Human-Human and Human-Machine Interaction, ed. by Anna Esposito, Nicolaos Bourbakis, Nikolaos Avouris, and Ioannis Hatzilygeroudis, 169–186. [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5042/2008.]. Berlin: Springer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar