Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The concept of involvement has not been touched by professionals in Translation Studies. The present study aimed to develop and validate a scale of involvement in translation and to examine its relationship with students’ translation ability. In so doing, altogether, a pool of 20 translation teachers and 120 translation students participated in the study. Initially, the researcher tried to elicit the most commonalities from translation teachers regarding students’ involvement in translation. Then, the reliability and validity of the designed scale were determined by means of Cronbach’ Alpha, Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The validated scale was named Involvement in Translation Scale, including four underlying constructs. Finally, the results confirmed that there was a large, positive correlation between students’ scores on involvement in translation and their translation ability [ = .72,  = 40,  < .05]. Translation students are suggested to focus on those aspects of their translation that foster their immersion in translation practice.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, M.
    1992In other words: A course book on translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203327579
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327579 [Google Scholar]
  2. Basile, E.
    2005 Responding to the enigmatic address of the other: A psychoanalytical approach to the translator’s labor. New Voices in Translation Studies1, 12–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biel, L., & Engberg, J.
    2013 Research models and methods in legal translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 12, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell, S. & Wakim, B.
    2007 Methodological questions about translation research: A model to underpin research into the mental processes of translation. Target19 (1), 1–19. 10.1075/target.19.1.02cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.1.02cam [Google Scholar]
  5. Cayirdag, N.
    2011 Attribution and creativity. InM. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp.96–100). Cambridge: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑375038‑9.00018‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00018-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, W.
    1982 Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy: Advances in discourse processes (pp.35–53). Norwood/ New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chesterman, A.
    2000 Memetics and translation studies. Synapse5, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J.
    1992 Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletins, 112 (1), 155–159. 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  9. Delisle, J., & Woodsworth, J.
    1995Translators through history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, UNESCO Publishing. 10.1075/btl.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.13 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dörnyei, Z.
    2007Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A.
    1984Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Farhadi, H., Jafarpur, A. & Birjandi, P.
    1994Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F.
    2012 Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian non–English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 197–211. 10.1177/0261927X12438538
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12438538 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gile, D.
    2001Getting started in interpreting research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.33 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008Hypotheses and research questions in empirical TS research. RetrievedNovember 17, 2017from: www.est-translationstudies.org
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Göpferich, S.
    2010 Data documentation and data accessibility in translation process research. The Translator16 (1), 93–124. 10.1080/13556509.2010.10799295
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10799295 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jääskeläinen, R.
    2002 Think-aloud protocol studies into translation. An annotated bibliography. Target14 (1), 107–36. 10.1075/target.14.1.05jaa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.1.05jaa [Google Scholar]
  18. 2009 Think-aloud protocols. InM. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encylopedia of translation studies (pp.290–293). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, M.
    2009 Meaning-oriented translation assessment. InC. V. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies (pp.123–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/ata.xiv.08kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xiv.08kim [Google Scholar]
  20. Kline, R. B.
    2011Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kussmaul, P. & Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
    1995 Think-aloud protocol analysis in translation studies. TTR8 (1), 177–99. 10.7202/037201ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037201ar [Google Scholar]
  22. Laviosa, S.
    2008 Translation. InR. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp.474–489). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LeCompete, M. & Preissle, J.
    1993Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z. & Noels, K.
    1998 Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb05543.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Mason, I.
    2008 Text parameters in translation: Transitivity and institutional cultures. InL. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp.470–482). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mees, I., Fabio, A. & Susanne, G.
    2010Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mirzaee, M.
    1997Intermediate reading comprehension. Rahnama Publication: Tehran.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N.
    1998 Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. InA. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp.339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Munday, J.
    2016Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4nd ed.). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315691862
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315691862 [Google Scholar]
  30. Muñoz, M. R.
    2012 Cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches. InM. C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (pp.241–256). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Brien, S.
    2011Cognitive explorations of translation. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PACTE
    PACTE 2003 Building a translation competence model. InF. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (pp.43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  33. PACTE
    PACTE 2005 Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta50 (2), 609–19. 10.7202/011004ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011004ar [Google Scholar]
  34. PACTE
    PACTE 2009 Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision making. Across Languages and Cultures10 (2), 207–230. 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pallant, J.
    2005SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Quinney, A.
    2004 Translation as transference: A psychoanalytic solution to a translation problem. The Translator10 (1), 109–28. 10.1080/13556509.2004.10799170
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2004.10799170 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S.
    (1995) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanchez, M. T.
    2017 The pragmatics of translator training in the 21th century. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 5 (2), 81–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tannen, D.
    1993 Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. InD. Olson, N. Torrance, & Hildyard, S. (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp.124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Toury, G.
    1992 A rationale for descriptive translation studies. Dispositio, 7, 23–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N.
    2008 Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 58, 357–400. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00444.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Tymoczko, M.
    2007Why European translators should want to de-westernize translation studies. Paper presented at the5th European Society for Translation Studies Congress, Slovenia.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Venuti, L.
    1995The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203360064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064 [Google Scholar]
  44. Yashima, T.
    2002 Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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