Conferences
2021
ICTIC3 - 3rd International Conference on Translation, Interpreting and Cognition, 2-5 November 2021, University of Bologna
Presentation: The same, similar or different? Syntactic priming and the order of information in L1 and L2 translation
Bogusława Whyatt & Mateusz Marczyk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University
Abstract
Although priming is a powerful mechanism (Traxler and Tooley 2012), studying its effects in translation of entire texts is not easy. In this presentation we explore to what extent the order of information in the source text (ST) sentence primes translators to copy the available sequence of information in target texts (TT), and we ask whether the effects can be attributed to syntactic priming (Hartsuiker et al. 2004, Gries 2005). We tested 26 professional bidirectional translators in two conditions – when translating into their native language (L1 Polish) and into their foreign language (L2 English). The participants translated two short texts of comparable level of difficulty and their translation process was recorded by a keylogger (Translog II), an eye-tracker (EyeLink 1000 Plus) and by a screen capture (Morae). We aligned all TT sentences with the ST sentence to see if the translators started their sentences with the same sequence of information as in the ST sentence. The results show that irrespective of the direction, our participants preferred to start TT sentences with the same order of information as in the ST sentence. When translating into their L1, they more frequently copied the ST sentence structure. In L2 translations, we observed more cases of slight modifications in the TT sentence structure but the order of information frequently remained the same. Irrespective of the direction in which they translated, the participants reordered information in only about 25 per cent of the sentences. We zoom in on the process of translation and look at relationships between the same, similar or different order of information and the cognitive effort operationalized as time needed to start typing the TT sentences. The sentences in which the order of information was changed required the most planning time and effort (cf. Bangalore at al. 2016; Maier at al. 2017).
References:
Bangalore, S., Behrens, B., Carl, M., Ghankot, M., Heilmann, A., Nitzke, J., Schaeffer, M., & Sturm, A. (2016). Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation. In M. Carl, Bangalore, S., & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. New Frontiers in Translation Studies (pp. 211-238). Cham: Springer.
Gries, S. (2005). Syntactic priming: a corpus based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365-399.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is Syntax separate or shared between languages?: Cross-Linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414.
Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker. R. J. (2017). Does translation involve structural priming?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1575–1589.
Traxler, M J., & Tooley, K. M. (2012). Lexical and Syntactic Priming in Language Comprehension. In H. Nobuaki, & Z. Schutt (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive psychology. Psychology of Priming (pp. 79-99). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
2020
The Łódź-ZHAW Duo Colloquium on Translation and Meaning (online), 28-30 May 2020, Uniwersytet Łódzki
Presentation: In and out of context: the cognitive cost of information handling in the translation process
Bogusława Whyatt, Ewa Tomczak, Olga Witczak
Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of English
Abstract
Translators work with meaning in context and become ‘providers of meaning’ accessible in another language and another context. The context is crucial for understanding a source text (ST), i.e. activating cognitive domains in the translator’s mind and creating a target text (TT) in anticipation of which cognitive domains will become activated in the TT reader’s mind. This makes translation a knowledge intensive contextualized work in which the working environment more and more extends to digital information tools (Risku, Windhager and Apfelthaler, 2013). But reaching out to the world wide web for information (i.e., extended cognition) requires from the translator to physically abandon both the ST and the emerging TT. In psycholinguistic terms, the translator is task switching – from contextualized meaning transfer to information searching seemingly out of context to the outside observer. Searching for information is therefore a double-edged process – necessary to make meaning and costly in terms of cognitive effort (Hvelplund, 2017). In this presentation we focus on the cognitive cost of information handling in translation by professional bidirectional translators. We report on a study in which 26 professional translators translated different text types into their native and foreign language while their use of online resources was being monitored by an eye-tracker, screen-capture and a keylogging program (Whyatt, 2019). The results show that the cognitive cost of information handling (searching and application) is modulated by directionality, text type and the number of years of professional translation experience. We illustrate the quantitative results with a detailed case study of how the three factors affect the type of search queries and the speed and durability of decision making (Hvelplund and Dragsted, 2018). By presenting our results we want to contribute to the largely under-researched area of the role of information behavior in translation as a complex cognitive process which is embodied, embedded and which extends to interacting with information tools (Gough, 2019; Enríquez Raído, 2014; Pakkala-Weckström, 2015; Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011). Enhancing our understanding of the cognitive and affective consequences of interrupting the process of translation in order to search for information is essential to prepare translation students for their future profession and for the dynamic changes that we face in information technology.
References:
Gough J., 2019. Developing translation-oriented research competence: What can we learn from professional translators? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13(3), pp. 342–359. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2019.1656404.
Enríquez Raído, V., 2014. Translation and web searching. London: Routledge.
Hvelplund, K. T., 2017, Translators’ use of digital resources during translation. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 56, pp. 71–87. doi:10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97205.
Risku, H., Windhager, F. and Apfelthaler, M, 2013. A dynamic network model of translatorial cognition and action. Translation Spaces 2(1), pp. 151–182. doi: 10.1075/ts.2.08ris
Whyatt, B., 2019. In search of directionality effects in the translation process and in the end product. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2(1), pp. 79–100. doi:10.1075/tcb.00020.why.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
2019
Bilingualism and directionality in translation Workshop, 12 December 2019, The “TranSphères” Research Centre (USL-B), Brussels
Invited talk: Cognitive and psycholinguistic differences between L1 and L2 translation: evidence from eye-tracking, key-logging and screen capture
Bogusława Whyatt, Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
Although translation directionality, i.e. whether translators work into their native language (L1) or into their foreign language (L2), has been one of the most contentious issues in Translation Studies, our knowledge of how directionality affects the process of translation of entire texts is very limited (Gile 2005, Ferreira and Schwieter 2017). In this presentation I want to report on the EDiT project which has been designed to investigate L1 and L2 translation processes and the end products (Whyatt 2019). Our participants, 26 professional translators, translated 2 texts (160 words) into their L1 (Polish) and 2 comparable texts into their L2 (English), and performed a series of psycholinguistic tests. The translation process was recorded by eye-tracking, key-logging and screen capture software. The translations were proof-read by experienced proof-readers and their corrections were analysed. The results show that directionality is not the only factor affecting the translation process and the end product – the type of text is also important. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of total task time for L1 and L2 translation but cognitive effort was differently distributed throughout the translation process, with more effort needed for orientation (reading the source text in L2) in L1 translation, faster text production in L1, but more long pauses when translating into L2. In general, the results confirm the L2 cognitive disadvantage (Muñoz et al. 2018, Pavlović and Jensen 2009) but they also show that translators compensate for their unequal language proficiencies in their L1 and L2. Most importantly, it is clear that translation as a cognitively demanding process is intrinsically complex and error prone. A better understanding of how translators use their bilingual resources in L1 and L2 translation can help trainers to focus on error preventing strategies for bidirectional translation.
References
Ferreira, Aline, and John Schwieter. 2017. “Directionality in Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 90–105. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gile, Daniel. 2005. “Directionality in Conference Interpreting: a Cognitive View.” In Directionality in interpreting. The ‘Retour’ or the Native?, edited by Rita Godijns, and Mike Hinderdael, 9-26. Ghent: Communication and Cognition.
Muñoz, Edinson, Noelia Calvo, and Adolfo M. García. 2018. “Grounding Translation and Interpreting in the Brain: What Has Been, Can Be, and Must be Done”. Perspectives.
Pavlović, Natasa, and Kristian Jensen. 2009. “ Eyetracking Translation Directionality.” In Translation Research Projects 2, edited by Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko, 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Whyatt, Bogusława. 2019. “In search of directionality effects in the translation process and end product”. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2(1): 79–100.
L2 Translation: Getting Out of the Grey Zone, 20–21 September 2019, Charles University, Prague
Presentation: Information behaviour in L2 translation. Insights from eye-tracking professional translators, screen capture, and key-logging.
Bogusława Whyatt, Olga Witczak, Ewa Tomczak, Marcin Turski
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University
Abstract
In this presentation we share the results of a large-scale research project devoted to a thorough investigation of the effects directionality has on the translation process and the end product (Whyatt 2018, 2019). Thirty professional translators who regularly translate into their L1 (Polish) and into their L2 (English) participated in an experimental study (the EDiT project). All the participants worked in the same conditions and translated two texts of different type in each direction, performed verbal fluency tasks, and filled in a brief questionnaire. Their performance was recorded in an unobtrusive way by a remote eye-tracker, screen capture software, and a key-logging program. These well-established tools in Translation Process Research (Jakobsen 2017) allowed us to gain a comprehensive insight into how the translators made decisions (Levý 1967). Using such process parameters as total task time, number of pauses, typing speed, and average fixation duration, we compared the cognitive effort which was required to translate the texts into L1 and L2. Although there was no statistically significant difference in terms of time needed to translate in both directions, the translators divided their time on the tasks in a way which was determined not only by the direction they translated into but also by the type of text. One aspect which was particularly affected by the direction and text type is the translators’ information behaviour. Information behavior (Wilson 1999), as part of instrumental competence (Kuźnik 2017), is a term used to describe how translators search for information and knowledge online when they are unable to make decisions. A close analysis of the percentage of total task time spent on online resources and the queries typed in the Internet browser show how the information needs of the translators differ depending on the direction of the translation. The results of our study provide empirical evidence that the more frequent use of online resources reported for L2 translation (Mraček 2018) is strategically motivated not only by directionality but also by the type of text. Enhanced knowledge about information needs in L2 translation can help us understand how bidirectional translators use their bilingual resources and compensate for their unequal language proficiency in L1 and L2. A better understanding of the cognitive challenges of L2 translation can be applied to train future bidirectional translators.
References
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2017. “Translation Process Research,” in: John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 19–49.
Kuźnik, Anna. 2017. “Use of Instrumental Resources,” in: Amparo Hurtado Albir (ed.), Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group. Benjamins Translation Library, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 219–241.
Levý, Jiří. 1967. “Translation as a decision process”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton: 1171-1182.
Mraček, David. 2018. “Inverse translation: the more challenging direction”. Linguistica Pragensia 2: 202-221.
Whyatt, Bogusława. 2018. “Old Habits Die Hard: Towards Understanding L2 Translation.” Między Oryginałem a Przekładem 24(41): 89–112.
Whyatt, Bogusława. 2019. “In search of directionality effects in the translation process and end product”. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2(1): 79–100.
Wilson, T.D. 1999. “Models in information behaviour research,” Journal of Documentation 55, 3: 249–270.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt & Olga Witczak
Translation Process Research Workshop 6, 21-23 January, University of Murcia
Presentation: Explaining the effects of directionality on lexical selection in professional translators – evidence from the process and the proofread end product
Bogusława Whyatt
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
There is a common consensus in bilingualism research that for a bilingual person both languages remain active and compete for selection even if one of the two languages in not currently in use. This, in theory, is good news when translating. When reading a source text in one language and making sense/meaning out of the words we read, activation (e.g. via semantic priming) is spreading across both languages in our mental lexicon and all we need to do is pick and choose target language words to compose a new target text. In practice, when selecting target language words, professional translators try to map the meaning they themselves constructed from the source text in the belief that the words they choose will allow the end user of the translation to make similar sense when reading the target text (Muñoz and Rojo 2018). Translation Process Research has demonstrated that lexical selection is affected by the level of translation expertise and modulated by text difficulty (Dragsted 2012). The majority of TPR findings, however, come from studies where translators work from their foreign language (L2) into their native language (L1). In real life settings, translators more and more often perform bidirectional translation (Ferreira and Schwieter 2017). In this paper we investigate how directionality affects the process of lexical selection in ten professional translators who translate texts of the same genre and complexity into their L1 (Polish) and L2 (English). We look at the process (key-logging and eye-tracking ) to see when translators change their minds and replace a word they have already typed by a different one, which they probably consider more effective in guiding the meaning construal by the end user. We also look at the finished translations, which were corrected by experienced proofreaders, to see how infelicitous lexical choices were actually made in the translation process – were they automatic , pre-meditated or guided by consulting online resources? We compare the results for the L1 and L2 translation direction and explain them referring to L1 comprehension advantage and L2 production disadvantage.
References
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation – Correlating Product and Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98.
Ferreira, Aline, and John Schwieter. 2017. “Directionality in Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 90–105. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Ana María Rojo López. 2018. “Meaning”. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture. Edited by S. A. Harding and O. Carbonell Cortés, 61-78. New York: Routledge.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
2018
Young Linguists Meeting in Poznań, 23-25 November 2018, Faculty of English, UAM
Presentation: Cognitive effort in L1 and L2 translation processes
Tomasz Kościuczuk (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań)
In the translation market the concept of directionality is mostly associated with the quality of translation. Translation teachers and international institutions such as the EU tend to favour L1 translation while the opinion of clients and translators in this respect is divided. It has been proved that L2 translation is a popular market practice, particularly in the minor language > English combination (see Pavlović 2008; Whyatt and Kościuczuk 2013). Why does market practice vary from common beliefs? I believe part of the answer is translation competence which can be learnt thus excluding the translator’s native language as a required condition of successful translation (even though it may be an asset). In this presentation I will argue that a better understanding of the notion of directionality can be achieved by explaining the translator’s cognitive effort involved in the process of translating into and out of the translator’s native language.
For the purpose of my PhD project (part of the EDiT project financed by the National Science Centre under contract UMO - 2015/17/B/HS6/03944), five hypotheses have been formulated related to how the translator processes the source text and the target text depending on the direction of translation and how the direction affects the work of independent revisers. The source texts had been carefully selected to ensure that the only independent variables are: the direction of translation and text genre (creative vs formulaic). The set of parameters used as dependent variables includes: total task time, duration of the orientation/drafting/revision stages, pause lengths, fixation count and average fixation duration. The data has been collected from the sample of 26 professional translators with extensive experience in the translation market; no students were involved in this experiment. The methods of data collection were key-logging and eye-tracking performed with state-of-the art tools commonly used in Translation Process Research (see also Pavlović and Jensen 2009, de Lima Fonseca 2015, Hunzkier Heeb 2016).
Regularities have been discovered which shed more light on how the direction of translation affects the work of translators and revisers and enable a better understanding of translation directionality to challenge the popular myths which may mislead both translation practitioners and researchers.
References:
de Lima, F., Norma B. (2015). Directionality in translation: Investigating prototypical patterns in editing procedures. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 7(1), pp. 111–125.
Hunzkier Heeb, A. (2016). Professional translators’ self-concepts and directionality. Indications from translation process research. The Journal of Specialised Translation (25), pp. 74–88.
Pavlović, N. (2008). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice. Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation research projects 1 (pp. 79–96) Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Pavlović, N., Jensen, K. (2009). Eye tracking translation directionality. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation research projects 2 (pp. 93–109). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Whyatt, B., Kościuczuk, T. (2013). Translation into a non-native language. The double life of the native-speakership axiom. mTm. A Translation Journal. Special Issue: Translation in an age of austerity, pp. 60–79.Presented by Tomasz Kościuczuk
6th IATIS Conference, 3-6 July 2018, Hong Kong Baptist University
Presentation: Directionality meets reality: Reassessing and reembedding a thorny issue in translation studies
Bogusława Whyatt, Marcin Turski, Tomasz Kościuczuk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
In today’s globalized reality translation has become a tangible vehicle for interaction and cultural mobility irrespective of the direction in which it is carried out. Still the view that professional translators should translate into their native language remains a powerful axiom supported by theorists (Pokorn 2005) and major players on the translation market, and continues to be a thorny issue in professional translation practice (Pavlović 2007, Whyatt and Kosciuczuk 2013). Yet, the tacit assumption that direct (L1) translation is either easier or superior than inverse (L2) translation has not been empirically validated to a satisfactory degree (Ferreira and Schwieter 2017). In this presentation we report on a research project in which 30 professional translators translated two short texts (a film review and a product description) into their native (Polish) and foreign language (English). The process data were collected in an experimental set-up by three independent tools: key-logging, eye-tracking and screen-capture to provide a comprehensive insight into the cognitive effort invested in producing a target language text, and to assess whether directionality has any impact on the translation process. To further investigate whether directionality has a significant effect on the product, we asked experienced target language proof-readers to correct/copyedit the translated texts. We tacitly conclude that directionality is not an issue for professional translators and is very much text type dependent. The study provides convincing evidence that directionality in translation as a form of mediated multilingual communication needs to be reassessed and reembeded in cognitive translation studies.
Bionotes:
Bogusława Whyatt is an associate professor at Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland and the head of Department of Psycholinguistic Studies and Translation Studies. Her research interests focus on cognitive translation process and expertise development. Currently she is the principal investigator in the EDiT (Effects of Directionality in Translation) research project funded by the National Science Centre Poland (grant Nº DEC - 2015/17/B/HS6/03944). She runs MA seminars in translation studies, supervises PhD dissertations, and is an experienced translator trainer and a freelance translator. Her recent publications include a chapter in The Handbook of Translation and Cognition.
Tomasz Kościuczuk is a PhD student at Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland and currently works on his dissertation devoted to cognitive effort in direct and inverse translation. He is a co-investigator in the EDiT research project funded by the National Science Centre Poland. Professionally, he is a freelance written translator.
Marcin Turski holds a PhD in American literature but his professional career is in translation and interpreting training at Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland. He is a co-investigater in the EDiT research project funded by the National Science Centre Poland. He has also worked as a freelance translator and interpreter at an international level. Among others, he has interpreted for the UNO and EU institutions.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
Translation research – translation training, 24-26 May 2018, PPCU Budapest
Presentation: Directionality in translation process research and translator training
Bogusława Whyatt, Tomasz Kościuczuk, Marcin Turski
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
Although some interesting findings concerning directionality, that is the impact of the direction in which the translation proceeds (into L1 or L2), have been reported by Translation Process Research (TPR), the question how these findings have contributed to the more efficient training of the future translators is not easy to answer (Ferreira and Schwieter 2017, Pavlović 2010, Pavlović and Jensen 2009). In this presentation we want to report on the EDiT project which was designed to investigate the effect of the direction of translation on the process of decision-making visible in the translator’s performance, and on the translation as the final product. Thirty professional translators performed a series of experimental tasks: verbal fluency tests, text copying tasks, and translated four short texts – two from English (their L2) into Polish (their L1) and a comparable pair of texts in the opposite direction. The process data were collected in an unobtrusive way by a key-logging programme, an eye-tracker and a screen capture software allowing for a comprehensive insight into the cognitive effort made by the translators when working in both directions. A comparative analysis of the L1 and L2 translation process shows that both directions vary in their cognitive demands and the difference is reflected in the translator’s performance. In the second stage of the project all translated texts are proof-read by experienced proof-readers (native speakers of the target language). Their corrections are analyzed and conclusions drawn as to whether the cognitive effort in L1 and L2 translation correlates with the quality of translated texts. The results can be used to model the process of L1 and L2 translation. The model can be applied in training future translators, especially those who are native speakers of minor languages, and will translate into their L2 (most frequently English) as such translations are in high demand.
References:
Ferreira, Aline and John Schwieter 2017. “Directionality in Translation”. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition ed. by Schwieter, John and Aline Ferreira. 90-105. Oxon: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pavlović, Natasha. 2010. “What Were They Thinking?! Students’ Decision Making in L1 and L2 Translation Processes”. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies 44: 63-87.
Pavlović, Natasha, and Kristian Jensen. 2009. Eyetracking Translation Directionality. In Translation Research Projects 2, ed. by Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko, 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
20th Translation Conference, 22-23.03.2018, Department of Translation and Interpreting, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Presentation: Directionality in Translation
Bogusława Whyatt, Marcin Turski, Tomasz Kościuczuk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Abstract
The paper indicates that the still prevalent axiom (the old habit, which dies hard) that professional translators should translate only into their native language (L1) is: old-fashioned, impractical, grounded in empirically unsupported beliefs, and prescriptive. As to the last quality, it assumes that it is always easier to understand a text than to produce its translation (regardless of how specialized a text is) and that comprehension is always easier in L1 and production is always easier in L1. These assumptions are questioned in the course of the project called Effects of Directionality in Translation Process and Product, financed by Poland’s National Centre for Science.
Co-participants of the conference included e.g. Agnieszka Walter-Drop, Director General, DG LING, European Parliament; Alexandra Panagakou, Director, DG SCIC, European Commission; Alison Graves, DG TRAD European Parliament; Marcin Kotwicki, Head of Quality Assurance, DGT European Commission.
Presented by Marcin Turski
Konferencja Norma a Uzus III, 11-12.01.2018, Wydział Neofililogii, UAM, Poznań
Presentation: Tłumaczenie na język obcy w badaniach eksperymentalnych
Bogusława Whyatt, Tomasz Kościuczuk, Marcin Turski
Wydział Anglistyki, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza
Abstrakt
Powszechnie uznaje się, że teksty powinny być tłumaczone wyłącznie przez tych tłumaczy, którzy są rodzimymi użytkownikami języka docelowego, ponieważ tłumaczenie w odwrotnym kierunku nie może przynieść zadowalającego efektu. Przekonanie to jest od dawna powielane w wielu podręcznikach dla tłumaczy i cieszy się popularnością zarówno wśród nauczycieli przekładu, jak i samych tłumaczy. Dotychczas rzadko jednak było przedmiotem zainteresowania badaczy. Projekt EDiT (Wpływ kierunku na proces tłumaczenia) realizowany na Wydziale Anglistyki UAM ze środków Narodowego Centrum Nauki ma na celu scharakteryzowanie procesu przekładu w zależności od kierunku. Nasza prezentacja przybliży to zagadnienie w oparciu o dane uzyskane przy użyciu okulografu i key-loggera. Omawiając wyniki wstępne projektu, poruszymy kwestię normy i uzusu wobec tłumaczeń na język obcy oraz znaczenia badań eksperymentalnych nad procesem przekładu dla głębszego zrozumienia roli tłumacza jako eksperta w komunikacji międzykulturowej.
Presented by Tomasz Kościuczuk & Bogusława Whyatt
2017
Translation and Interpreting in Transition 3, 13-14 July 2017, Ghent University
Poster: Incorporating proof-readers to understand the effects of directionality on translation process
Bogusława Whyatt, Marcin Turski, Tomasz Kościuczuk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
With the still prevalent axiom that professional translators should translate only into their native language, the question of how the direction of translation, either forward (into the translator’s L1) or inverse (into the translator’s L2) influences the translation process has remained under researched. Although several studies reported on the discrepancy between market demands concerning inverse translation and the stigma of inferiority (Pokorn, 2005; Pavlović 2007; Whyatt & Kosciuczuk, 2013), very few studies (Pavlović & Jensen, 2009; Ferreira, 2014) have investigated the impact of directionality on the translation process. Can corrections made by proof-readers help us understand the difference between the process of forward and inverse translation?
In this presentation we report on the preliminary results of the EDiT project in which we compare cognitive effort in forward and inverse translation. Professional translators were asked to produce two forward translations of short texts (into Polish - their L1) and two inverse translations of texts of the same type and level of complexity (into English – their L2). Their translation process was recorded by the key-logging software (Translog II), screen-capture (Morae) and an eye-tracker (EyeLink 1000 Plus). The target texts were subsequently proof-read by 4 experienced proof-readers (2 native speakers of English and 2 native speakers of Polish) who inserted their corrections using the Microsoft Word ‘track changes function’ to make them visible. We analysed data sets from 10 professional translators to answer the following questions: 1) Is translating into L1 cognitively less demanding than translating into L2? 2) Is the total task time distributed differently into orientation, drafting and revision depending on the direction of translation? 3) What is the nature of corrections made by proof-readers in L1 and L2 target texts? 4) Were the decisions made by the translators, which were later corrected by proof-readers, automatic (no pausing) or pre-meditated (preceded by pausing) depending on the direction of the translation process? The data analysis included the following measures: task duration, text production speed, text elimination, number and duration of long pauses, time spent on consultation of on-line resources, fixation duration and fixation count.
We explain the findings in line with the current knowledge concerning the use of bilingual memory, language asymmetry and cognitive effort in translation as a cross language task. The results also contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between directionality and translation expertise in professional practice. Analyzing the changes introduced by proof-readers is very informative in assessing the effects of directionality on the translation process and product. We believe that the present understanding of the translation process as involving only the translator should be expanded to provide a more ecologically valid account of other participants such as proof-readers and editors who contribute to the quality of translation as an end product. More insight into how professional translators handle both languages in the process of producing a translated text is also relevant for translation training programs which should prepare students for translating into and out of their native language.
References
Ferreira, Aline. 2014. “Analyzing recursiveness patterns and retrospective protocols of professional translators in L1 and L2 translation tasks.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 9 no. 1: 109-127.
Pavlović, Natasha. 2007. “Directionality in translation and interpreting practice: Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia.” Forum, no. 2: 77-99.
Pavlović, Natasha and Kristian Jensen. 2009. “Eye tracking translation directionality.” In Translation Research Projects 2, edited by Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko, 93-109. Tarragona, Spain: Intercultural Studies Group.
Pokorn, Nike. 2005. Challenging the traditional axioms: Translation into a non-mother tongue. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Saldanha, Gabriela and Sharon O’Brien. 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. New York: Routledge.
Whyatt, Boguslawa and Tomasz Kosciuczuk. 2013. “Translation into a non-native language: The double life of the native-speakership axiom.” mTm, A Translation Journal, 5: 60-79.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt & Marcin Turski
Points of View in Translation and Interpreting, 22-23.06.2017, Katedra do Badań nad Przekładem i Komunikacją Międzykulturową Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków
Presentation: Old habits die hard: Towards understanding the inverse translation process
Bogusława Whyatt, Marcin Turski, Tomasz Kościuczuk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Abstract
In this presentation we would like to argue that the still prevalent axiom that professional translators should translate only into their native language (L1) is grounded in empirically unsupported beliefs. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why L2 users are applauded for using their L2 to communicate and to write in and why professional translators who translate into their L2 are made to feel as if they were doing something improper. What is more, the belief undermines the complex nature of translation expertise which is well supported by cognitively oriented translation process research (TPR). Although several studies have confirmed the dissonance between market demands concerning inverse translation and the stigma of inferiority (Pokorn 2005, Pavlović 2007,Whyatt & Kosciuczuk 2013), very few studies (Pavlović and Jensen 2009, Ferreira 2014, Fonseca 2015) have investigated the impact of directionality on the translation process in professional translators. In effect, it seems that by holding forward translation (into one’s L1) in much higher esteem that inverse translation (into one’s L2), we advocate something we do not understand. The empirical void around the inverse translation process has inspired us to design a research project in which we investigate the cognitive Effects of Directionality in the Translation process and product (the EDiT project). By using state-of-the-art data collection tools, which include key-logging, screen recording and eye-tracking data (Saldanha & O’Brien 2014), we examine how translators deal with different demands imposed by directionality when producing a translation. We also report on how their target texts are evaluated by proof-readers who are native speakers of the target language, and who contribute to quality assurance of the translated texts. The results of the pilot study in which professional translators produced two forward and two inverse translations can be explained in line with current psycholinguistic knowledge and can be informative for training future translators.
Presented by Bogusława Whyatt
Conference panels and thematic sessions organized within the EDiT project to disseminate the findings and research methodology used in the project
Translation research – translation training, 24-26 May 2018, PPCU Budapest
Panel: Translating languages of limited diffusion – state of the art and perspectives organized and convened by Bogusława Whyatt and Natasa Pavlović (University of Zagreb)
Young Linguists Meeting in Poznań, 23-25 November 2018, Faculty of English, UAM
Thematic session: From exploration to explanation in Translation Studies: Research methods and new technologies, convened by prof. Bogusława Whyatt (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), with special guests: prof. Kristian T. Hvelplund (University of Copenhagen, Denmark), prof. Natasa Pavlović (University of Zagreb, Croatia)