1887
Volume 33, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This research aims to study segmentation (i.e., translation unit (TU)) in students’ translations of cultural references and assess the translation quality, using Translog software and a translation task. This product and process-oriented research examines the same independent variable, that is, segmentation, from two angles, namely, student production and translation output. Ten female postgraduate students aged between 28 and 30 performed a computer-based translation task on cultural references. Their translations of English cultural references into Arabic revealed process and production problems (i.e., unsystematic management of translation stages, high mean TUs and time, low mean scores, and deviant translations). The study recommended student training in translation process and product management by employing innovation technological tools (e.g., Translog software and eye-tracking device). Moreover, presenting the cultural dimension should go beyond written translation materials and include audio and visual materials. Sound methodology of training should be adopted, one that draws upon the computational model of human translation, linguistic and cultural models, and models of translation quality assessment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18017.qas
2021-02-10
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aixelá, J.
    (1996) Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Alvarez & M. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp.52–78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alves, F. , & Goncalves, J.
    (2003) A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: perspectives in process-oriented research (pp.3–24). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45.04alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.04alv [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves, F. , & Vale, D.
    (2009) Probing the unit of Translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data”. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 251–273. doi:  10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Angelone, E.
    (2010) Uncertainty, uncertainty management, and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp.17–39). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.03ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.03ang [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M.
    (1992) In other words: A course book on translation. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barkaoui, K.
    (2016) What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. doi:  10.1111/modl.12316
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bassenett, S. , & Lefevere, A.
    (1990) Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, D.
    (1994) Principles of language learning and teaching (1st ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, S. , & Hale, S.
    (2003) Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp.205–224). UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596179‑017
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596179-017 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carl, M. , & Buch-Kromann, M.
    (2010) Correlating translation product and translation process data of professional and student translators. Proceeding of European Association for Machine Translation, 14, 1–8. Retrieved fromwww.mt-archive.info/EAMT-2010-Carl.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carl, M. , & Jakobsen, A.
    (2009) Towards statistical modelling of translators’ activity data. International Journal of Speech Technology, 12(4), 125–138. 10.1007/s10772‑009‑9044‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-009-9044-6 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010) Relating production units and alignment units in translation activity data. In B. Sharp & M. Zock (Eds.), Natural language processing and cognitive science (pp.37–46). Portugal: Scitepress Digital Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carl, M. , & Kay, M.
    (2011) Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 56(4), 952–975. 10.7202/1011262ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar [Google Scholar]
  14. Carl, M. , Kay, M. , & Jensen, K.
    (2010) Long distance revisions in drafting and post-editing. Proceeding of CIC Ling 2010, 1–12. Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/10398/8046
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Carl, M. , Dragsted, B. , & Jakobsen, A.
    (2011) A Taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal, 16(2). Retrieved fromtranslationjournal.net/journal/56taxonomy.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Catford, J.
    (1965) A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chesterman, A.
    (1997) Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.22 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dragsted, B.
    (2005) Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 17,1, 49–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 17(1), 49–70. doi:  10.1075/target.17.1.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.1.04dra [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010) Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In G. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp.41–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra [Google Scholar]
  21. (2012b) Indicators of difficulty in translation – correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 81–98. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dragsted, B. , & Carl, M.
    (2013) Towards a classification of translator profiles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133–158. 10.17239/jowr‑2013.05.01.6
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fawcett, P.
    (1987) Putting translation theory to use. In H. Keith & I. Mason (Eds.), Translation in the modern language degree (pp.31–18). London: CILT.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gerloff, P.
    (1986) Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive processes: Talk-aloud protocols of translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulla (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp.243–262). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hansen, G.
    (2008) The speck in your brother’s eye – the beam in your own. In G. Hansen , A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp.255–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.80.19han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.80.19han [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Some Thoughts about the evaluation of translation products in empirical translation process research. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38, 389–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jensen, A.
    (2000) The effects of time on cognitive processes and strategies in translation, Copenhagen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hatim, B. , & Mason, I.
    (1990) Discourse and the translator (5th ed.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. House, J.
    (1997) Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: G. Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2001) Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 46(2), 243–257. doi:  10.7202/003141ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003141ar [Google Scholar]
  31. (2014) Translation quality assessment: Past and present. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315752839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315752839 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ivir, V.
    (1987) Procedures and strategies for the translation of culture. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jakobsen, A.
    (1999) Logging time delay in translation. In G. Hansen (Ed.), LSP texts and the process of translation (pp.71–101). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2011) Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. In C. Alvstad , A. Held & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. integrative approaches in translation studies (pp.37–55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.06jak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.06jak [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) Are gaze shifts a key to a translator’s text segmentation?Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 149–172. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  36. Karoubi, B.
    (2016) Translation quality assessment demystified. Babel. Revue Internationale de la Traduction / International Journal of Translation, 62(2), 253–277. 10.1075/babel.62.2.05kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.2.05kar [Google Scholar]
  37. Katan, D.
    (1999) Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Krings, H.
    (1986) Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp.263–75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kupulainen, M.
    (2015) On the operationalisation of pauses in translation process research. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting, 7 (1), 47–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lindgren, E. , & Sullivan, K.
    (2006a) Analysing online revision. In K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (pp.157–188). Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lörscher, W.
    (1991) Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies. A psycholinguistic investigation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mailhac, J.
    (1996) The formulation of translation strategies for cultural references. In C. Hoffmann (Ed.), Language, culture and communication in contemporary Europe (pp.132–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mossop, B.
    (2007a) Editing and revising for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Munday, J.
    (2008) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2012) Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision making. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203117743
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203117743 [Google Scholar]
  46. Newmark, P.
    (1988) A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nida, E.
    (1964) Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nida, E. , & Taber, C.
    (1974c) The theory and practise of translation. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nord, C.
    (1996) Text type and translation method. The Translator, 2(1), 81–88. 10.1080/13556509.1996.10798965
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1996.10798965 [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Brien, S.
    (2006) Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(1), 1–21. 10.1556/Acr.7.2006.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  51. Olk, H.
    (2013) Cultural references in translation: A framework for quantitative translation analysis. Perspectives, 21(3), 344–357. 10.1080/0907676X.2011.646279
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.646279 [Google Scholar]
  52. PACTE
    PACTE (2003) Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems in a research project. In A. Beeby , D. Ensinger & M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating Translation (pp.99–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.32.13pac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.32.13pac [Google Scholar]
  53. PICT
    PICT (2012b) Promoting intercultural communication in translators. Situational Survey Report. Retrieved fromwww.pictllp.eu/download/PICT_SURVEY_REPORT.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saldanha, G. , & O’ Brien, S.
    (2015) Research methodologies in translation studies. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Qassem, M.
    (2016) Culture-based text translation strategy analysis: English to Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Mysore University, India.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schaeffer, M. , Carl, M. , Lacruz, I. , & Aizawa, A.
    (2016) Measuring cognitive translation effort with activity units. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2), 331–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharmin, S. , Spakov, O. , Raiha, K. , & Jakobsen, A.
    (2008) Where on the screen do translation students look while translating, and for how long?In S. Gopferich , A. Jakobsen , & I. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes: Eye-Tracking studies of reading and translation processing (pp.30–51). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Studies in Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tomozeiu, D. , & Kumpulainen, M.
    (2016) Operationalising intercultural competence for translation pedagogy. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 268–284. 10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236558
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236558 [Google Scholar]
  59. Toury, G.
    (1995) Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  60. Ulrych, M.
    (2005) Curricula and syllabi designers and translation practices. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp.3–33). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.60.06ulr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.06ulr [Google Scholar]
  61. Yarosh, M.
    (2015) Translator intercultural competence: A model, learning objectives and level Indicators. In Y. Cui & W. Zhao (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (pp.160–178). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑6615‑3.ch010
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6615-3.ch010 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, M.
    (2015) Teaching translation with a model of multimodality. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 2(1), 30–45. 10.1080/23306343.2015.1014081
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2015.1014081 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18017.qas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18017.qas
Loading

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