Some Thoughts About Think-Aloud Protocol


Empirical studies of the translation process have used think-aloud protocols to provide a window into the mental activity which is not directly observable. This paper reports on a protocol study in a natural discourse situation involving two professional translators and discusses the relevance of the data to the debate on the use of verbalization as a methodology. The protocol provides evidence of translation strategies and points to the need for a dynamic model of the translation process that takes into account activation, suppression, and attending mechanisms.

Table of contents

Think-aloud protocols have been associated with empirical studies in translation since some unpublished work by Brian Harris and widely understood as a possible methodology largely thanks to the study by Hans P. Krings (1986). In a recent exchange in the pages of Target, Harris (1992) and Krings (1992) rather ironically entered into a debate over the best way to study translation competence. The irony comes from the fact that both authors support empirical studies, yet were arguing for particular directions in research as though the [ p. 76 ]field is ready for limitations. In the exchange, Harris reaffirmed his 1977 position that natural translation should be the object of more study because, in his words (1992: 101), ". . . to study advanced forms of a skill before understanding how beginners do it is to build the house before digging the foundations ...". In much the same way, though I support protocol research, I will be arguing in this paper for a closing of some of the problematic gaps in protocol methodology. And I will be doing this in the context of a study also concerned with the issue of naturalism, though with respect to the experimental design rather than the choice of subjects.

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.


Delisle, Jean
1993La Traduction raisonnée. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Ericsson, Karl Anders and Herbert Alexander Simon
1980 “Verbal Reports as Data”. Psychological Review 87. 215–251.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 89 ]
Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper
eds. Introspection in Second Language Research Clevedon and Philadelphia Multilingual Matters
Gerloff, Pamela
1987 “Identifying the Unit of Analysis in Translation: Some Uses of Think-Aloud Protocol Data”. Færch and Kaspe 1987 159–176.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian
1976 “The Importance of Natural Translation”. Working Papers on Bilingualism 12. 96–114.Google Scholar
1992 “Natural Translation: A Reply to Hans P. Krings”. Target 4:1. 97–103.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1990Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, University of Joensuu. [Unpublished Licentiate Thesis.]Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1986Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1987 “The Use of Introspective Data in Translation”. Færch and Kasper 1987 : 159–176.Google Scholar
1992 “Bilinguismus und Übersetzen: Eine Antwort an Brian Harris”. Target 4:1. 105–110.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara and Marcel Thelen
eds. 1992Translation and Meaning, Part 2 . Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool Maastricht.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E. and Timothy D. Wilson
1977 “Telling More Than You Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”. Psychological Review 84. 231–259.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel
1987 “Le bilinguisme”. J. Rondal and J.P. Thibaut, eds. Problèmes de psycholinguistique. Brussels: Mardaga 1987 421–489.Google Scholar
Russo, J. Edward, Eric J. Johnson and Debra L. Stephens
1989 “The Validity of Verbal”. Memory & Cognition 17:6. 759–769.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1989a “A Process View of Translation”. Séguinot 1989c : 1–4.Google Scholar
1989b “The Translation Process: An Experimental Study”. Séguinot 1989c : 21–53.Google Scholar
ed. 1989cThe Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications, School of Translation, York University.Google Scholar
1989d “Understanding Why Translators Make Mistakes”. TTR 2:2. 73–81.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992a “Where Angels Fear to Tread...: In Defence of Translation Theory”. Language International 4:4. 40–41.Google Scholar
1992bReview of Lôrscher 1991. TTR V:1. 271–275.Google Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
eds. 1990Translation and Meaning, Part 1 . Maastricht: Euroterm.Google Scholar