scholarly journals 13. Insights from translation process research in the workplace

2017 ◽  
pp. 116-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Pym

For Gadamer, translation operates as an illustrative “extreme case” of interpretation, of interest to the extent that it can push the logics of less-extreme interpretative practices. Yet the main thing Gadamer consistently says about what is extreme in translation seems to be that it is a strangely intellectual process, bereft of lived experience. One can nevertheless trace threads of lived experience within translation knowledge, both through what translators say and from what translation process research reveals. Further, the nature of that experience, in exceeding its interpretations, can justify an empirical attitude to its study. Hence hermeneutics could do worse than incorporate empirical attitudes into its work on translation, rather than endlessly repeat inherited insights.


2018 ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Igor A. Lourenço da SILVA ◽  
Tânia Liparini CAMPOS ◽  
Traduzido por Júlio César de Sousa e AMARAL ◽  
Guilherme DELGADO

O Prof. Dr. Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (Copenhagen Business School) em boa medida lançou as bases para o que hoje se denomina “Pesquisa do Processo Tradutório”. Nesta entrevista, ele fornece um histórico e perspectivas da área, bem como informações sobre o próprio pesquisador. Palavras-chave: Pesquisa do Processo Tradutório. Translog. Entrevista. Abstract: Prof. Dr. Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (Copenhagen Business School) in several ways has set the grounds to the development of what now is known as “Translation Process Research.” In this interview, he provides some background of and perspectives to the field, as well as some information about the scholar himself. Keywords: Translation Process Research. Translog. Interview.


Author(s):  
Mónica Giozza ◽  
Riitta Jääskeläinen ◽  
Christopher Mellinger ◽  
Patricia Rodríguez-Inés

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jankowiak ◽  
Olha Lehka-Paul

Abstract Previous translation process research has pointed to an increased cognitive load when translating metaphoric compared to literal language. Yet, studies conducted thus far have not examined the role of translation direction (i.e., L1–L2 vs. L2–L1) in novel metaphor translation and have not tested whether and how this process might be modulated by the linguistic form of a novel meaning. In the present study, Polish (L1) – English (L2) translation students translated novel nominal metaphors (A is B), novel similes (A is like B), and literal sentences, in either L1–L2 or L2–L1 translation directions, while their translation behavior was recorded using a keystroke logging method. The results revealed longer translation durations for both metaphors and similes relative to literal utterances. Furthermore, we found slower translation times for novel nominal metaphors compared to novel similes and literal sentences, yet only in the L2–L1 translation direction. Such results might indicate that novel meaning translation is more cognitively taxing in the case of novel nominal metaphors, which require a more robust activation of comparison mechanisms, relative to novel similes. Importantly, this effect might be stronger when translating in the direction in which access to semantic representations is potentially more automatic (i.e., L2–L1 translation).


Author(s):  
Moritz Schaeffer ◽  
Anke Tardel ◽  
Sascha Hofmann ◽  
Silvia Hansen-Schirra

Empirical studies of revision are often based on either think aloud protocols, interviews, or observational methods. Eye tracking and keylogging methods are rarely applied to the study of revision behavior. The authors employ established methods from translation process research (TPR) to study the eye movement and typing behavior during self-revision (i.e., the phase in the translation process that follows a first complete draft). The authors measure the effect of behavior during the drafting phase on the relative revision duration. Relative revision duration is the time translators spend revising the first complete draft of the source text. They find that the most efficient process involves a large degree of concurrent reading and writing and few deletions during the drafting phase. The efficiency gains in terms of relative revision duration achieved by avoiding discontinuous typing, by making a larger number of deletions, pausing for longer amounts of time, and engaging in less concurrent reading and writing are outweighed by the gains in total task time by doing the exact opposite.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document