1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores decision-making in translation focusing on the self-revision process of novice and experienced translators of biomedical content in the English to European Portuguese language pair. Adopting process- and product-oriented methods, an experiment was designed to study thirty translations of a 244-word instructional text about a medical device intended for health professionals. The data elicited from fifteen novice translators and fifteen experienced translators included keylogging and screen-recording data. These data were triangulated and analyzed to describe the translation solutions in the interim and final versions in response to problematic translation units and to test if, during the self-revision process, novice and experienced translators tend to proceed from more literal versions to less literal ones, or vice versa, in biomedical translation. Contrary to expectations, the analysis points towards a literalization phenomenon in the translators’ processes. The data also indicates that the tendency to proceed from less literal versions to more literal ones is more pronounced in novice translators than in experienced translators. The findings reported here shed new light on the self-revision processes of novice and experienced translators and their relationship with prevailing translation norms, and enable us to better understand the practices in place in professional biomedical translation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
2021-11-22
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, F., & Vale, D. C.
    (2011) On drafting and revision in translation: a corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition, 1(1), 105–122. doi:  10.5281/zenodo.283500
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.283500 [Google Scholar]
  2. Balling, L. W., Hvelplund, K. T., & Sjørup, A. C.
    (2014) Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta, 59(2), 234–259. doi:  10.7202/1027474ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1027474ar [Google Scholar]
  3. Borg, C.
    (2017) Decision-making and alternative translation solutions in the literary translation process: A case study. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 279–304. doi:  10.1556/084.2017.18.2.6
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carl, M.
    (2012) Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. The Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. 21–27May 2012, Istanbul, Turkey, 2–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Carl, M., & Dragsted, B.
    (2012) Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. TC3: Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition, 2(1), 127–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chesterman, A.
    (2011) Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis. InC. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp.23–35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.94.05che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.05che [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Memes of translation (Revised). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.123
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.123 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dragsted, B.
    (2004) Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems. An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process. (PhD diss.). Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen.
  9. Drugan, J.
    (2013) Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Englund Dimitrova, B.
    (2005) Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.64
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  11. Englund Dimitrova, B., & Tiselius, E.
    (2014) Retrospection in interpreting and translation: explaining the process?MonTI. Monografías de traducción e interpretación, 1, 177–200. doi:  10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.5
     https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.5 [Google Scholar]
  12. European Parliament, C. of the E. U.
    (2007) Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, Series L 169, 21–55. Retrieved fromeur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2007.247.01.0021.01.ENG
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Frankenberg-Garcia, A.
    (2005) A corpus-based study of loan words in original and translated texts. InP. Danielsson & M. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings from the corpus linguistics 2005 conference series 1 (pp.1–19).
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gambier, Y.
    (2016) Translation strategies and tactics. InY. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies online (pp.412–418). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.1.tra7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Göpferich, S.
    (2010a) Data documentation and data accessibility in translation process research. The Translator, 16(1), 93–124. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2010.10799295
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10799295 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010b) The translation of instructive texts from a cognitive perspective: novices and professionals compared. InS. Göpferich, F. Alves, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), New approaches in translation process research (pp.5–55). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Halverson, S. L.
    (2015) Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms. Translation Spaces. A Multidisciplinary, Multimedia, and Multilingual Journal of Translation, 4(2), 310–340. doi:  10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  18. Hermans, T.
    (1999) Translation and normativity. InC. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation and norms (pp.50–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, B.
    (2020) How are translation norms negotiated?Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 32(1), 83–122. doi:  10.1075/target.19050.hu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19050.hu [Google Scholar]
  20. Ivir, V.
    (1981) Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. InI. Even-Zohar & G. Toury (Eds.), Theory of translation and intercultural relations [Poetics Today 2:4] (pp.51–59). Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. 10.2307/1772485
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1772485 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kotze, H.
    (2021) Translation, language contact and cognition. InF. Alves & A. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp.113–131). Oxon and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Krings, H.-P.
    (1986) Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Mossop, B.
    (2014) Revising and editing for translators (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315767130
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767130 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Revision. InY. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies online. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hts.2.rev1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.rev1 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2019) Revising and editing for translators. Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315158990
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158990 [Google Scholar]
  26. Munday, J.
    (2013) The role of archival and manuscript research in the investigation of translator decision-making. Target, 25(1), 125–139. doi:  10.1075/target.25.1.10mun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.10mun [Google Scholar]
  27. Plońska, D.
    (2014) Strategies of translation. Psychology of Language and Communication, 18(1), 67–74. doi:  10.2478/plc‑2014‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2014-0005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Płońska, D.
    (2016) Problems of literality in French-Polish translations of a newspaper article. InM. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp.279–291). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_13 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pym, A.
    (2017) A typology of translation solutions (draft). RetrievedNovember 1, 2017, fromhttps://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/training/2017_solutions_revised.pdf
  30. Robert, I.
    (2008) Translation revision procedures: An explorative study. InP. Boulogne (Ed.), Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. Retrieved fromwww.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/robert.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Robert, I., Ureel, J. J. J., Remael, A., & Rigouts Terryn, A.
    (2017) Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘fairness and tolerance’ attitudinal component. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 18(1), 1–22. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2017.1330894
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1330894 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rosa, A. A.
    (2000) The negotiation of literary dialogue in translation: Forms of address in Robinson Crusoe translated into Portuguese. Target, 12(1), 31–62. doi:  10.1075/target.12.1.03ass
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.1.03ass [Google Scholar]
  33. Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S.
    (2013) Research methodologies in translation studies. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M.
    (2013) Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8, 169–190. doi:  10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  35. (2014) Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. InU. Germann, M. Carl, S. O’Brien, P. Koehn, G. Sanchis-Trilles, F. Casacuberta, & R. Hill (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT) (pp.29–37). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/v1/W14‑0306
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-0306 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schaeffer, M., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Balling, L. W., & Carl, M.
    (2016) Word translation entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. InM. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp.183–210). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Serbina, T., Hintzen, S., Niemietz, P., & Neumann, S.
    (2017) Changes of word class during translation-Insights from a combined analysis of corpus, keystroke logging and eye-tracking data. InS. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling oftranslation and interpreting (pp.177–208). Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1090968
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1090968 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shih, C. Y.
    (2007) Revision from translators’ point of view: An interview study. Target, 18(2), 295–312. doi:  10.1075/target.18.2.05shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.05shi [Google Scholar]
  39. Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    (2005) The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2), 405. doi:  10.7202/010990ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  40. Tirkkonen-Condit, S., Mäkisalo, J., & Immonen, S.
    (2008) The translation process – interplay between literal rendering and a search for sense. Across Languages and Cultures, 9(1), 1–15. doi:  10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Toury, G.
    (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2012) Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  43. Valdez, S.
    (2019) Perceived and observed translational norms in biomedical translation in the contemporary Portuguese translation market: a quantitative and qualitative product- and process-oriented study. Phd diss., University of Lisbon and Ghent. Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/10451/38410
  44. WHO
    WHO (2021) Medical device – Full definition. RetrievedMarch 1, 2021, fromhttps://www.who.int/medical_devices/full_deffinition/en/
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
Loading
Literalization in the self-revision process of novice and experienced biomedical translators
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8, 356 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): biomedical translation; experienced translators; literal translation hypothesis; self-revision; translation process research

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error