Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Translation Processes

Johanna Laukkanen
Savonlinna School of Translation Studies

Abstract

The role of affective and attitudinal factors in translation has lately attracted increasing attention within process-oriented translation research. Think-aloud studies show that affective factors play an important part in the decision-making processes of translation. In the present TAP study the affective dimension of translation was researched via evaluative utterances produced by the subject.

Table of contents

The purpose of the present article is to discuss the importance of affective factors in translation processes. The article is based on a think-aloud protocol study where a professional translator performed a routine and a non-routine type of task. 'Professional translator' in this context refers to a subject who had worked as a translator for several years, and 'routine task' is understood to mean the kind of task that is familiar to the subject from his/her daily work. 'Non-routine task' in turn means practically any assignment that the subject is not very familiar with.

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

Fraser, Janet
1994 “Translating Practice into Theory: A Practical Study of Quality in Translator Training”. Catriona Picken, ed. ITI Conference 7 Proceedings. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting 1994 130–142.Google Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela
1988From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. Harvard University. [Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation.] University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1987What Happens in a Translation Process: Think-Aloud Proto-cols of Translation. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished pro gradu thesis.]Google Scholar
1990Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Licentiate Thesis.]Google Scholar
1996 “Hard Work Will Bear Beautiful Fruit?: A Comparison of Two Think-Aloud Protocol Studies”. Meta 41:1. 60–74.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Königs, Frank G.
1987 “Was beim Übersetzen passiert: Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen”. Die Neueren Sprachen 86:2. 162–185.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P.
1988 “Blick in die ‘Black Box’—Eine Fallstudie zum Übersetzungsprozeß bei Berufsübersetzern”. Reiner Arntz, ed. Textlinguistik und Fachsprache: Akten des Internationalen übersetzungswissenschaftlichen AILA-Symposions, Hildesheim, 13.-16. April 1987. Hildesheim: Olms 1988 393–412.Google Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
1991 “Creativity in the Translation Process: Empirical Approaches”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991: 91–101.Google Scholar
Laine, Eero
1976Student Attitudes in Foreign Language Teaching. Turku: Publications de l’Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée (AFinLA), 16.Google Scholar
Laine, Eero J.
1987Affective Factors in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: A Study of the ‘Filter’, Report 1: Theoretical Concepts and Framework, Operationalization of the Concepts and the First Pilot Stage of Research. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies, 13.Google Scholar
1988The Affective Filter in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, Report 2: A Validation Study of Filtering Factors with a Focus on the Learner’s FL Self Concept. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies, 15.Google Scholar
Laukkanen, Johanna
1993Routine vs. Non-Routine Processes in Translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished pro gradu thesis.]Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty, M. van and Ton Naaijkens
eds. 1991Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 9.]Google Scholar
[ p. 272 ]
Nagy, Ulla
1989Zum Übersetzungsprozeß: Eine Protokolluntersuchung der Unterschiede beim Hin- und Herübersetzen von fortgeschrittenen Deutschstudenten. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished pro gradu thesis.]Google Scholar
Nurmi, Jari-Erik and Katariina Salmela-Aro
1992 “Epaonnistumisen psykologiaa: Katsaus toiminta- ja ajattelustrategioiden tutkimukseen”. Psykologia 1/92. 20–30.Google Scholar
Pöntinen, Tuija A. and Tiina M. Romanov
1989Professional vs. Non-Professional Translator: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies. [Unpublished pro gradu thesis.]Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina
1989 “Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment”. Andrew Chesterman, ed. Readings in Translation Theory. Loimaa: Oy Finn Lectura Ab 1989 105–115.Google Scholar
Séguinot, Candace
1989 “The Translation Process: An Experimental Study”. Candace Séguinot, ed. The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications 1989 21–54.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1987 “Think-Aloud Protocols in the Study of the Translation Process”. Heikki Nyyssönen, Riitta Kataja and Vesa Komulainen, eds. CDEF 86: Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland. Oulu: University of Oulu 1987 39–49. [Publications of the Department of English, 7.]Google Scholar
1993 “What Happens to a Uniquely Finnish Particle in the Processes and Products of Translation?Yves Gambier and Jorma Tommola, eds. Translation and Knowledge, SSOTT IV: Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory, Turku, 4.-6.6.1992. Turku: University of Turku, School of Translation Studies 1993 273–284.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja and Johanna Laukkanen
1996 “Evaluations—A Key towards Understanding the Affective Dimension of Translational Decisions”. Meta 41:1. 45–49.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1991 “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991: 179–192.Google Scholar