Introduction to Translation and Interpreting Studies E-Book
34,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
A unique and balanced combination of translation and interpreting studies, edited and written by leading voices in the fields
In Introduction to Translation and Interpreting Studies, accomplished scholars Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter have brought together a detailed and comprehensive introductory-level textbook covering the essential aspects of translation and interpreting studies. Through chapters authored by leading voices in the field, this book covers topics of theoretical and conceptual relevance—such as the history of the development of the field and methods for understanding gender, society, and culture as aspects of the role of the interpreter—as well as critical topics in the application of theory to real world practice.
Beginning with an authoritative treatment of the theoretical developments that have defined the field since the early 1970s, this textbook first describes the influential work of such figures as Jakobson, Holmes, and Toury, thus ensuring students develop a thorough understanding of the history and theoretical underpinnings of the fields of translation and interpreting studies. The text then begins to introduce grounded discussions of interpreting in specialized fields such as legal and healthcare interpreting and sign language translation. Learning is reinforced throughout the text through pedagogical features including reflection questions, highlighted key words, further readings, and chapter objectives. Instructors will also have access to companion website with PowerPoint slides and multiple-choice questions to support classroom application.
Truly a unique work in translation and interpreting studies, this essential new textbook offers:
- A thorough introduction to the fields of translation and interpreting with discussion of applications to interdisciplinary topics
- Explorations of translation machines and technology, including their history and recent trends
- Practical discussions of culture, gender, and society in the context of translation and interpreting studies, as well as training and pedagogical issues in translation and interpreting
- A concise examination of translation process research and methods, including the mental processes and actions that people take while translating
- Complementary web materials including PowerPoint slides and practice questions
Ideal for advanced undergraduate and graduate students in programs in such as linguistics, language studies, and communications, or for those who plan to work in translation and/or interpreting, Introduction to Translation and Interpreting Studies will earn a place in the libraries of anyone interested in a reader-friendly translation and interpreting resource.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 881
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Introduction to Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by
Aline Ferreira
John W. Schwieter
Copyright © 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
Paperback ISBN: 9781119685272; ePub ISBN: 9781119685326; ePDF ISBN: 9781119685296
Cover image: © John Lund/Getty Images
Cover design by Wiley
Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
Contents
Cover
Title page
Copyright
About the Editors
About the Contributors
About the Companion Website
Chapter 1: The Birth and Development of Translation and Interpreting Studies
Chapter 2: Key Concepts and Theoretical Approaches
Chapter 3: Interpreting
Chapter 4: Specialized Practices in Interpreting Settings
Chapter 5: Specialized Practices in Translation Settings
Chapter 6: Specialized Written Texts
Chapter 7: Machines and Technology
Chapter 8: Signed Language Interpreting and Translation
Chapter 9: Culture, Power, and Professionalism
Chapter 10: Training and Pedagogy
Chapter 11: Translation Process Research and Methods
Glossary
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Figures
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Different areas of research...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 Memsource cloud editor...
Figure 7.2 Graphical representation of...
Figure 7.3 Cycle of language and...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Positioning for optimal...
Figure 8.2 The ASL sign CHILD...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Two translation process...
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Translation competencies and...
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Signed language interpreters
Guide
Cover
Title page
Copyright
Table of Contents
About the Editors
About the Contributors
About the Companion Website
Begin Reading
Glossary
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
About the Editors
Aline Ferreira is an associate professor of linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she is also director of the Bilingualism, Translation, and Cognition Laboratory and director of the Latin American and Iberian Studies Program. She is associate editor of Ampersand: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Sciences and Bilingualism and some of her books include The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (2017, Wiley Blackwell), The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science (2014, Cambridge Scholars), Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries Into Translation and Interpreting (2015, John Benjamins), and The Routledge Handbook of Translation, Interpreting, and Bilingualism (forthcoming, Routledge). She has also published studies in journals and books such as Translation and Interpreting Studies; Translation, Cognition and Behavior; Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics; Cognitive Control and Consequences of Multilingualism (John Benjamins); Reading and Writing; The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Linguistics (Routledge); The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology (2022); and The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting and Cognition (forthcoming); among others.
John W. Schwieter is a professor of Spanish and linguistics and cross-appointed in psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada, where he is also the director of the Language Acquisition, Multilingualism, and Cognition Laboratory and Bilingualism Matters @ Laurier. His research interests include psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches to multilingualism and language acquisition; translation, interpreting, and cognition; and second language teaching and learning. He is executive editor of the Bilingual Processing and Acquisition book series (John Benjamins), editor-in-chief of Ampersand: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Sciences and Bilingualism (Elsevier), and co-editor of the Cambridge Elements in Second Language Acquisition series (CUP). Some of his books include The Routledge Handbook of Translation, Interpreting, and Bilingualism (forthcoming, Routledge); The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language (2022, CUP); Introducing Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Approaches (2021, CUP); and The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (2017, Wiley Blackwell). His research has appeared in journals such as Acta Psychologica; Behavioral Sciences;Bilingualism: Language and Cognition; Biological Psychology; Cerebral Cortex; Frontiers in Psychology; Intercultural Education; International Journal of Bilingualism; International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism; International Journal of Psychophysiology; Languages; Language Learning;Lingüistica Antverpiensia; Neuropsychologia; Psychophysiology; and Translation, Cognition, and Behavior, among others.
About the Contributors
Contributing to this textbook is an international team of scholars from Belgium, Canada, England, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, and the United States.
Jo Anna Burn is a senior lecturer in the School of Languages at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, where she is program leader of the translation and interpreting team. She specializes in teaching legal interpreting and has published a number of research articles and book chapters on self and peer reflections to enhance student interpreter learning, the innovative use of audiovisual technology in the interpreting classroom, community translation in New Zealand, and the difficulties posed by lawyers’ questions to interpreters in court settings.
Ineke H. M. Crezee is New Zealand’s first full professor of translation and interpreting at Auckland University of Technology. In 2020, she was made an officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to translator and interpreter education over the past 30 years. She is a practicing translator, interpreter, and educator. Her book Introduction to Healthcare for Interpreters and Translators (2013, John Benjamins) was followed by iterations aimed at interpreters and translators working with Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and Arabic as their working languages, while a Turkish adaptation is forthcoming. She has published widely on health interpreting and interpreter education.
Carlos Fortea holds a PhD in German philology and has been a literary translator of more than 140 published titles. He has won the Ángel Crespo Translation Prize for the biography Kafka, originally written by Reiner Stach. He was dean of the Faculty of Translation and Documentation at the University of Salamanca (2004–2012) and president of the ACE-Traductores, the translators guild of the Asociación Colegial de Escritores (2013–2019). Since 2016, he has been the coordinator of the degree in translation and interpreting at the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain, and since 2019, he has been a member of Institutional Relations of the ACE. He is also a member of the Institute of Translators of the Complutense University.
Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo is a professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Rutgers University, United States, where he directs the graduate and undergraduate program in Spanish – English translation and interpreting. He holds a PhD in translation and interpreting studies from the University of Granada, Spain. He is author of Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations: Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies (2017, John Benjamins) and Translation and Web Localization (2013, Routledge). His papers have appeared in the top-tier journals in translation studies such as Target; Meta; Perspectives; Lingüistica Antverpiensia; Translation and Interpreting Studies; Jostrans; Monti; and Translation, Cognition, and Behaviour. He has been the co-editor of the Journal of Internationalization and Localization and is a member of editorial boards of Meta, JIAL, and Sendebar, and the advisory board of Jostrans.
Kirsten Malmkjær is emeritus professor of translation studies at the University of Leicester, UK. She is especially interested in translation theory, which she has pursued throughout her academic career along with work on the translations into English of Hans Christian Andersen’s stories. In addition to teaching at Leicester, she has taught at the universities of Birmingham, Cambridge, and Middlesex. Recent publications include the Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics (2018, Routledge); the collection of articles, KeyCultural Texts in Translation, co-edited with Adriana Serban and Fransiska Louwagie (2018, John Benjamins); Translation and Creativity (2020, Routledge), and The Cambridge Handbook of Translation (2022, CUP). Introducing Translation (CUP) is forthcoming. With Sabine Braun, she co-edits Cambridge Elements in Translation and Interpreting.
Christopher D. Mellinger is an associate professor in the Department of Languages and Culture Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He holds a PhD in translation studies from Kent State University and certificates in Spanish-English interpreting and Spanish translation/localization management from Wake Forest University. He is the co-editor of the journal Translation and Interpreting Studies. He is the co-author with Thomas A. Hanson of Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies (2017, Routledge), co-editor with Brian Baer of Translating Texts: An Introductory Coursebook on Translation and Text Formation (Routledge), and editor of The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting and Cognition (forthcoming). He has co-edited special issues on community interpreting, translation, and technology (2018, Translation and Interpreting Studies) and on translation process research (2015, Translation & Interpreting).
María Reimóndez is a Galician feminist queer translator and interpreter, writer, and scholar. She holds a PhD in translation and interpreting, specializing in the translation of feminist postcolonial anglophone literature into Galician. Reimóndez has been a guest lecturer and speaker in different universities and countries, including Hofstra and Colgate University in New York, University of Warsaw in Poland, University of Madras in Tamil Nadu, University of Bologna in Italy, Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 in France, and University of the Philippines Diliman in the Philippines, to mention a few. Her academic work focuses on issues related to feminist and postcolonial translation and interpreting, language hegemony, feminist and queer literature, and Galician cultural studies. She is also the founder of the feminist decolonial organisation Implicadas no Desenvolvemento and the Asociación Galega de Profesionais da Tradución e da Interpretación and has worked extensively with movements both in Galicia and in the global South. Her award-winning fiction has been widely read and translated.
Jesús Torres-del-Rey is a senior lecturer at the Department of Translation and Interpreting, University of Salamanca, Spain, where he teaches several undergraduate and postgraduate modules in translation technology, localization, and project and terminology management, and has had ample experience in managing extensive translation work experience projects with students and alumni. For over a decade now, he has also taught and coordinated online and face-to-face web and software localization as well as web accessibility modules at postgraduate level at the Instituto Superior de Estudios Lingüísticos y Traducción (ISTRAD), in Seville, Spain, some of them with official certificates granted by distance-learning universities. Coordinator of the Cod.eX Research Group since its inception, his main research activities and publications over the past years have involved the accessibility of multilingual digital products, the localization of dynamic websites, localization standards, and localizer training.
Sonia Vandepitte is a senior full professor in the Department of Translation, Interpreting, and Communication at Ghent University, Belgium, where she is director of the Master of Translation program and head of the English section. She teaches English writing skills, translation studies, and translation into and from Dutch and has experience with coaching student translation companies. Her publications cover topics such as metonymic expressions in translation, translation competences, international translation training projects, and translation and post-editing processes. She is involved in eye-tracking research into reading, translation, and post-editing processes of translation problem solving. She coordinates the European Master of Translation working group on translation into L2 and investigates peer feedback and other collaborative forms of learning in translation training.
Bogusława Whyatt is an associate professor and head of the Department of Psycholinguistic Studies at the Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland. Her research interests focus on the translation process, expertise development, and the interface between bilingualism and translation. She was a principal investigator in two large-scale research projects funded by the National Science Centre Poland – the ParaTrans project, which investigated the process of translating and paraphrasing, and the EDiT project devoted to the impact of directionality on translation processes and end products. Her recent publications include articles in The Interpreter and Translator Trainer and Translation, Cognition & Behavior. She is an experienced translator trainer, MA and PhD supervisor, and freelance translator. She is a member of the TREC network and Consortium for Translation Education Research and an external associate of the MC2 Lab.
Lori A. Whynot is a professor of interpreting and the director of the American Sign Language and Interpreting Education Program at Northeastern University in the United States. She holds a PhD in linguistics from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. She is author of Understanding International Sign (2016, Gallaudet University Press) and publications on interpreting mentorship, linguistic features of the contact sign system, International Sign, and collaborative works on sign language translation and multilingual interpreting. She is a certified interpreter in the United States (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf ) and Australia (National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters), holds legal and health care interpreting certifications, and is a member of the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. A self-described “practisearcher,” she maintains her community and conference interpreting practice and teaches research, interpreting skills, and topics in sign language linguistics. She is committed to promoting professional development to shape interpreting and influence social justice alongside Deaf individuals through teaching, interpreting practice, and research.
About the Companion Website
This book is accompanied by companion website which includes a number of resources created by the editors for instructors that you will find helpful.
www.wiley.com/go/ferreira/translation
The instructor website includes the following resources:
Answers
PowerPoint Slides
MCQs
Please note that the resources in the instructor website are password protected and can only be accessed by instructors who register with the site.
1 The Birth and Development of Translation and Interpreting Studies
Aline Ferreira John W. Schwieter
Objectives
Present a historical overview on the development of translation and interpreting studies (TIS).
Discuss
translation
and
interpreting
as tasks and the challenges that professionals commonly face when performing these tasks.
Review tools and methodologies that have been used in TIS.
Outline key approaches to teaching translation and interpreting, literary translation, and the role of translation and interpreting in culture and society.
1.1 Introduction
As humans, we have been communicating since our existence. In the context of this communication, translating and interpreting have co-existed. Today, translating and interpreting are widely popular and seem to form part of societies across the globe – even in countries where the large majority of the population knows only one language. Before we begin our discussion of the historical development of the fields, it is important to clarify that translation and interpretation are different activities – even though they have some overlap. Unfortunately, the two have been used interchangeably by some individuals, probably due to their similarities. As a task, translation is defined here as the process in which a written text in the source language is converted in written form into a target language. On the other hand, interpreting is the process in which a person hears language input or sees signed language in a source language and converts it either simultaneously or consecutively. If the message is interpreted simultaneously, this implies that an interpreter must deliver the target message while another individual is producing language. If the message is interpreted consecutively, the interpreter will convey the message after a segment is provided by the speaker, who will pause until the interpreter finishes the previous segment.
Reflection Question
As you can imagine, it takes some coordination between a speaker and an interpreter who is consecutively interpreting because the speaker must remember to pause and allow the interpreter to perform their task. Do you think there are better places within sentences for a speaker to pause?
According to Steiner (1975), a person performs a translation every time that they receive a message from another person – without its needing to be in another language. Steiner argued that translation processes are involved in speaking-listening and writing-reading and that a similar line of thought applies to interpreting. Therefore, both translation and interpreting are as old as language (and humans) itself. Tiselius (2010) reminds us that “Cicero in ancient Rome spoke highly of his interpreter and the services the interpreter did for him. In the Ottoman empire interpreters were called dragoman and their role was not just interpreting but also acting as guides, go-betweens, and door-openers to the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire also had sworn court interpreters” (para. 2). In ancient times, commercial transactions in small villages needed one person who would be in charge of converting a message from a source language into a target language. The first bilingual texts were found by the 18th century bce.
As per translation, according to Soltero Godoy (1995), its origins are as confusing as everything else that involves the origins of humankind, although we tend to agree that, before translation, interpreting was already being performed. Therefore, academics have different perceptions on the development of its history. Mounin (1965), for instance, follows the history of thought and literature, in which he discusses translation in the Middle Ages, renaissance, classicism, and romanticism, until a more recent panoramic perspective from his time. Of course, translation and interpreting have changed considerably since then. According to Panov (1958/1960), the first attempt to mechanize translation was done by Russian Troyanskii in 1933, in which he intended to build a machine for “the selection and printing of words while translating from one language into another or into several others simultaneously” (p. 3). However, Troyanskii’s work was not published in English, and consequently, it did not gain attention outside Russia. American scientist Warren Weaver’s first suggestions on the use of computers for translating natural languages were presented in 1947 and 1949 (see Hutchins and Lovtskii 2000 for a review).
Both translation and intrepretation have changed considerably since researchers started to use computers for translating natural language. Many attractive options, due to their speed and cost, are available at reasonable prices. Machine translation (MT) has received criticism from academics who claim that it produces low-quality target texts. However, advances in technology have been quickly developing, following the rapid development of globalization. More people have access to instantaneous translation in their smartphones to solve daily language issues, such as understanding a manual, ordering food at a restaurant, online shopping, etc. The same devices are used for interpreting, in which a person gives verbal input and software interprets it into the target language – oral and/or written – which is sufficient to communicate in a non-professional settings, such as talking to a street vender who does not speak your language.
Reflection Question
Why do you think that the disciplines of translation and interpreting followed different historical developments?
1.2 Translation and Interpreting as Tasks
1.2.1 Translation
In the professional environment, automatization has changed the way translators work. Toral Ruiz et al. (2018) explained that MT has been widely used to assist professional human translators because it helps translator productivity compared with translation from scratch, including technical documents and news. Post-editing is the most common workflow for this type of documents in which phrase- and rule-based machine translations (PBMT and RBMT) are more acceptable as they preserve the meaning of the original, which might not be the case for texts that are more creative in nature. The authors investigated whether MT can be useful in assisting professional translation of literary text in terms of temporal, technical, and cognitive effort. Six professional translators translated fragments of 10 sentences from a novel in three conditions: from scratch, post-editing the translation produced by the PBMT system, and post-editing that was generated by neural machine translation (NMT), a relatively new technology in which datasets of translated sentences are used to simulate a model that can then translate between any two languages. Keystrokes, time of task completion, total of pauses, and pause duration were analyzed. Results showed that in terms of time of completion, both PBMT and NMT led to substantial increases in productivity compared with translation from scratch. Also, translation output by NMT engines were better than those from corresponding PBMT systems. There was a reduction in the number of keystrokes in NMT context comparison with PBMT. NMT and to a lesser extend PBMT led to a reduction in pauses compared with translation from scratch.
1.2.2 Interpreting
In interpreting settings, communication technologies have had a modest impact on the way professional interpreters have been conducting interpretating. Fantinouli (2018) explain that there are two major technological breakthroughs that have impacted interpreting settings. The first one started in the early 1920s with the introduction of wired systems for speech transmission, leading to the rise of simultaneous interpreting (SI). A patent was “filed by IBM and its adoption at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in the former Soviet Union and at the International Labor Conference” (p. 2). Although chuchotage (when an interpreter stands or sits alongside a small target audience and whispers a simultaneous interpretating of what is being said) was probably long being practiced, introduction of interpretating equipment is relatively new.
The second breakthrough was the Internet. Interpreters could have access to resources that facilitate their learning through a repository of material available from any place, making their preparation faster and more accurate. A third breakthrough is ongoing: advances in technologies and functionalities in the workplace. Creation of electronic glossaries allow an increase in the quality of the interpretating performance. Remote interpreting has allowed real-time interpretation from any place in the world through phone calls and videoconferences. Machine interpreting (MI), or automatic speech translation, translates the spoken input from one language into another through powerful software. Although MI had been criticized by many due to the poor quality in the past, improvements in terms of technology have been promising, and it ambitiously has situated itself as the future replacement for human interpreters. Automatic speech recognition technologies are based on neural networks, and they have reached unprecedented quality. Fantinouli (2018) explained that there are issues with MI at both technical and communicative levels. For instance, the speed and flexibility of speech recognition, along with noise tolerance and speaker independence, increase the number of errors produced in the interpretation. In terms of communication, MI is still unable to translate all information that is not explicitly coded verbally (e.g., speaker’s attitude). Since Fantinouli’s paper was published, new technologies have surged (e.g., Auto Mode, and Simul Mode), and there is no reason to believe that these technologies will cease to develop even further, providing an even better output in the next years.
1.3 Early Stages and Ethical Issues in Translation and Interpreting Studies
Research on translation and interpreting studies (TIS) has developed at a relatively fast pace, mostly due to borrowing from other fields with longer, established histories. Tymoczko (2005) presented a review on the development of the field through an analysis of particular linguistics facets, descriptive historical studies, and think-aloud protocols (TAPs). However, since Tymockzo’s paper was published, we have witnessed an increase in the number of translation programs, leading to more empirically tested studies and to a broader discussion on the role of translation in our society. According to Tymockzo, early studies on translation “centered on linguistic aspects of translation, exploring the nature of translation in relation to language and linguistics” (p. 1083) and “tended to delimit or establish the boundaries of the linguistic aspects of the task of the translator” (p. 1084). She explained that translation research projects have been “obscured by the prescriptive packaging of the results” (p. 1084), which is associated with the pedagogical orientations of those involved in a particular research group. More recently, translation studies have become more internationalized, going beyond Eurocentric perspectives.
Gile (2009) explained that both reflection and research about translation “probably started with introspection by practitioners before it was taken up by theologians, philosophers and other thinkers and then by linguists” (p. 3), and the same can be said about interpreting. Translation and interpreting are social activities necessary to communication, and, because of this, researchers from other fields have always been puzzled by these very complex activities. As with translation, discussions on interpreting started with questions about its nature. However, these reflections became more practically focused in which professional and training issues were contemplated, as Gile (2009) explained. Let’s consider interpreting research. At first, research on interpreting addressed conference interpreting, and it was organized by conference interpreters. Danica Seleskovitch played a main role in the field and her interpretive theory of translation in which translation is not understood as a task about words or language but rather about a message. The theory emerged in the 1970s at a time when translation was viewed as simply a linguistic task of transforming one language into another. Seleskovitch’s influential theory, which many believe was elaborated even before TIS became fields in their own right, viewed translation as a triangular process that involves first translating a language to sense and then from sense to the other language. Sense, in this case, refers to the intended meaning behind the language in addition to other background knowledge (e.g., situational, verbal).
Gile (2009) explained that the initial direction of the field excluded psychological research, linguistics, psycholinguistics, and research on written translation, and it “relied mostly on introspection and on persuasion by illustration from the interpreters’ daily practice and from the interpreting classroom” (p. 2). Translation, on the other hand, was developing from within academia. In the 1990s, studies on interpreting began aiming for a change of paradigm, mostly due to a wider interest in different aspects of interpreting. Interpreting also started to incorporate more scientific, empirically based studies as influenced by fields such as cognitive psychology and neurolinguistics. Translation and interpreting scholars started to co-organize conferences and editorial boards. In the 2000s, interpreting research became more open to disciplines other than cognitive sciences and started to focus on public services. However, interpreting research has developed much slower than translation research, as its community is smaller, with fewer journals and many theoretical models that still need further empirical testing. Improvements in research designs are also still needed, especially if researchers are interested in testing the models that had been previously described. However, a small research community may be more resistant to changes and academic developments. As Gile (2009) explained, “criticism, however necessary as a quality assurance mechanism, can be perceived by fellow researchers as a lack of support if not as unfriendly, and is therefore often self-inhibited” (p. 6).
Pym (2001) proposed a discussion on ethics in translation studies. He mentioned that the focus on ethics was part of a general social trend, although many scholars were not enthused to discuss ethics in the field. In that same year, Chesterman (2001) wrote about ethics in translation practices. He explained that the models of translation ethics were based on ideas of representation, service, communication, and norms, although these models might be incompatible and have different ranges of application. He suggested that there is a fifth possible model, which is “ethics of professional commitment.” Chesterman’s study showed that professional decision-making processes were then taken into account in translation research and likely helped raise awareness about these critical experimental issues. It is safe to say that these dialogues have helped researchers rethink how they collect data.
When discussing ethics in interpreting research, Tiselius (2019) explained some of the issues with data collection that researchers deal with, although this discussion is usually avoided and treated like an “elephant in the room” by many academics. She explained that while having an individual act both as the researchers and participant in an experiment can be helpful in the sense that they usually have a deep pre-understanding of the field, there are person factors that complicate things. For instance, they may also gather data from colleagues and “in some cases, in fact, the researcher’s access to data may be granted only thanks to his or her collegial relationship with the research participants” (Tiselius 2019, p. 748; see also Bendazzoli 2016). In other words, the findings that may be reported may be drawn from a context of conflict of interest.
According to Tiselius (2019), “interpreters who carry out research on other interpreters do so on their peers, whether or not they know them well” (p. 749). She illustrates this in three different cases: experimental research on SI, an observational study on health care interpreting, and an interview study with deaf interpreters. As per the first case, Tiselius identifies inconsistencies in collecting data for research on interpreting. These issues are also shared with research on translation. For instance, active interpreters are not always willing to participate in experiments for a lower remuneration, and they may feel insecure about their performance under experimental conditions. Furthermore, they might be afraid of being identified as a participant once the study is concluded, and participants would have to trust that the research will grant anonymity. After all, “the interpreting world is small” (p. 752). The second case discussed by Tiselius addressed the challenges of families with little to no proficiency in the majority language and analyzed the communication between medical staff and patients’ families when the interpreters were present and when they were not. Interpreters represent a significant cost, and “there is a reluctance to book them in advance for fear of having to pay them in case they show up and the family is not present” (p. 756). And there is no way to find a last-minute interpreter. Tiselius explained the importance of taking into account personal moral values and interpreting ethics in order to benefit patients.
In the third case, Tiselius (2019) analyzed deaf students’ experience when taking an interpreting class along with hearing students. In-depth interviews with deaf sign language interpreters were conducted. The interviews were conducted using interpreting between the sign language and spoken English, but that was not interpreters’ first language combination. The interviews were then transcribed, but the transcriber’s first language was neither English nor sign language. She showed concerns with the confounding variables in this study and with respecting what the interviewees said and the meaning of what was said. Although Tiselius and other researchers show concerns about the current status of the experimental designs in TIS, most of the studies include too many confounding variables. It sounds controversial to discuss the lack of academic norms in the academic literature if editors and reviewers chose to publish papers which do not comply with any scientific academic standards, making generalizations when the sample size is too small, or (mis)comprehending and (mis)using concepts from other disciplines that do have a lot to offer younger fields such as TIS.
According to Baker and Pérez-González (2011), as language-based activities, both translation and interpreting are often seen as falling within the remit of applied linguistics on which TIS has drawn to formulate their own trajectories. In fact, James Holmes presented a paper titled “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” at the Congress of Applied Linguistics in 1972, later published as Holmes (1975). Translation studies, as an independent field, has grown to a point that we have different schools and trends in the discipline, such as linguistic, psycholinguistics, socio-logical, literary, and philosophical. However, translation studies has benefited immensely from other fields, such as psychology and psycholinguistics, especially in terms of research design and testing.
1.4 Developmental Influences from Related Disciplines
1.4.1 Psychology
The influence of psychology on TIS is striking, especially when researchers examine problem-solving abilities in translation. There is also an intricate link between a translator’s emotions and their translation products that is undeniable. Rojo presented a review on the role of creativity (Rojo 2017a) and emotions (Rojo 2017b), noting that “many of the translation problems are of an open-ended kind, with no predetermined solution” (p. 354), which goes along with the view of translation as a constant process of evaluating and producing alternatives. Baker (1996) stated that creativity is an important justification for conducting corpus-based research. According to her, “one of the main reasons we want to study the patterning of any kind of language or text production, including translation, is that patterns are the backdrop against which creativity can take shape: norms enable the creative use of language” (p. 179).
Shen and Fang (2019) stated that the translation process is based on experience and cognition, and that translators must understand the meaning of the original text and map it onto the target language. Furthermore, that the translation process involves translator’s understanding of various meanings of the source text, and it also represents a complex cross-language and cross-cultural creative activity. According to the authors, “translators are members of the cultural system and have the nature and status of the cultural subject” (p. 914), having, therefore, their own subjectivity while attempting to meet the cultural needs embedded in the target language. In this sense, translators should maintain subjectivity and translate source texts in a way that is acceptable to the public.
Ulvydiene (2013) looked at culture-specific items involved in translation. Translators must be aware of different cultural patterns and how their own different cultural backgrounds influence their behavior in translation. Ulvydiene presented different techniques that were applied in translations of different cross-cultural advertisements by using a discursive semiotic approach, meaning that the application of semiotics in advertising was analyzed while looking for cultural patterns that underlie language. The author found that the translator should be sensitive to the losses and gains of cultural elements while translating advertisements. Furthermore, a better understanding of the advertisement idea was observed when the translators understood semiotics and how different elements work together as a message-conveying piece of discourse. Signs, their meaning, and their intertextual relationships in persuasive advertisements must be examined further to gain a better understanding of their significance when one translates into another language.
The impact of the translator’s emotional intelligence on their translation quality was investigated by Varzande and Jadidi (2015). A trait emotional intelligence questionnaire was used to gather information on participants’ emotional intelligence. Participants translated a paragraph from Orwell’s 1984 novel. Results showed that translation quality was affected by participants’ academic experience, and no significant relationship was found between their emotional intelligence and product quality. Lack of previous research on the topic does not allow us to make comparisons, although other studies, with a more homogeneous sample, would help us to better understand the role of emotional intelligence in translation.
Reflection Question
Other than emotional intelligence, what aspects do you think would be relevant to investigate in translation studies?
1.4.2 Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Neuroscience
1.4.2.1 Word Translation
Researchers in psycholinguistics have shown interest in TIS. Schwieter and Ferreira (2014) carried out a study investigating the mental processes that underlie translation at the word level. They compared the semantic relatedness effect (translation facilitation or interference) when participants translated individual words from their third language (L3) into their first language (L1) and from their L1 into their L3. Sixty English (L1) language learners of French (L2) and Spanish (L3) performed two Stroop word-translation tasks – one in each translation direction. We refer to translation into the L1 as direct translation, while translating from the L1 into a non-L1 is called inverse translation.
The Stroop effect refers to the difference in reaction time between congruent and incongruent stimuli. Participants in Schwieter and Ferreira’s (2014) study verbalized into a microphone the translation equivalent of the words that were displayed in the center of the screen. However, accompanying these words were other words and pictures that served as distractors. The results showed that translation speed and accuracy was dependent on the direction of translation and whether they were presented in same semantic categories, such as “cat, dog, cow” versus belonging to different categories, such as “airplane, carrot, house”. Specifically, there was no support for a semantic relatedness effect in L1 word translation, but there was support for it in L3 word translation. Participants were only able to benefit from the relatedness of distracters when the words being translated were in restricted semantic categories. Furthermore, L1 word translation was slower in the context of distracter pictures, but L3 word translation was slower in the context of distracter words. In all, the study demonstrated that translating words into the L1 may be a conceptually mediated procedure and therefore is susceptible to conceptual (i.e., pictures) distracters. On the other hand, translating words into the L3 may be lexically mediated and more vulnerable to influences of lexical (i.e., word) distracters. The study also provided supported for the revised hierarchical model (Kroll and Stewart 1994). The model represents the architecture of word-to-concept mapping in the bilingual memory. The model argues that L1 words are more strongly mapped onto the concepts they represent than are L2 words and that at low L2 proficiency levels, L2 words must first be associated with their L1 translation equivalent before accessing their concept.
1.4.2.2 Reading and Sight Translation
Chang (2009) conducted a study to investigate whether the task of translating or interpreting individual words into an L2 is more cognitively demanding than into an L1. Physiological and neurological measures were collected using eye tracking and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test the applicability of both methods to translation and interpreting tasks. In the first experiment, five female novice interpreters with L1 Mandarin and L2 English completed a typing task to explore whether the language of input and type of task would have an effect on other variables. The participants were asked to sight interpret one short story from English into Mandarin and one short story from Mandarin into English. The fMRI revealed higher brain activity when carrying out interpreting from L1 into L2 compared with the reverse direction.
In Chang’s (2009) second experiment, eight L1 Spanish speakers with L2 English participated in six tasks: reading Spanish, reading English, typing Spanish, typing English, translating from English into Spanish, and translating from Spanish into English. An eye-tracking device measured pupil diameter, number of fixations, task time, fixation frequency, blink frequency, and fixation duration. The results suggested that the tasks were more demanding when reading and sight translating into the L2. Although the participants in the first experiment produced written sight interpretation and participants in the second experiment produced verbal sight interpretations, the fMRI and eye-tracking results indicate similar asymmetries exist when comparing L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 directions. The study is a clear example of how research methods from neighboring disciplines such as psycholinguistics and cognitive neuroscience can help to develop more robust empirical measures.
Reflection Question
How is reading different from sight translation?
1.4.2.3 Memory and Brain
As early as 1890, William James, whom many consider the “father of American psychology,” presented a distinction between what he called primary and secondary memory. He argued that primary memory is related to the information that occupy the stream of thought, while secondary memory is related to the knowledge of events that belong to former states of mind. The construct of memory has been studied at length within interpreting studies. For decades, it has been pointed out that working memory is one of the most important aspects of SI, as perhaps first noted by Walter Keiser at the International Association of Conference Interpreters in Paris in 1965. A few years later, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed a model in which short-term memory, or primary, active memory, is responsible for retaining information temporarily until it is transferred to a more stable long-term memory store.
The term working memory has often been used interchangeably with short-termmemory; however, working memory refers to the entire framework of processes that are responsible for temporarily storing and manipulating information – it works as a memory buffer that maintains information while it is being processed. Short-term memory is only one component of this framework. Today perhaps the most accepted model explaining working memory is Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974). Their explanation of working memory is based on three components: two temporary storage systems and one system for controlling attention called the central executive. One of the temporary storage systems is used for holding speech-based information (called the phonological loop), and the other storage system is responsible for holding visual and spatial information (called the visuospatial sketchpad). The central executive is responsible for ensuring that working memory resources are executed and used according to the goals of the task at hand. Working memory has a limited capacity, meaning that it restricts the types of tasks that humans can process concurrently. To read more about working memory and its relationship to language, see Schwieter and Wen (2022), which includes a special introduction by Baddeley.
Early studies on memory have investigated performance of novice and professional interpreters. For instance, Gerver (1974) investigated the effect of noisy listening conditions on the performance of 12 professional simultaneous interpreters. Participants were asked to shadow and perform a simultaneous interpretation from French into English at three signal-to-noise ratios. Results showed that noise negatively affected the memory storage of texts that were shadowed and interpreted. There were also more errors when interpreting than when shadowing at lower signal-to-noise ratios.
Lambert (1989) conducted a study on interpreting and lateralization. In language science, brain lateralization refers to whether there is a left- or right-hemisphere tendency to do various things with language – including translating and interpreting. In Lambert’s study, beginning and professional interpreters were asked to shadow a 12-minute speech which they heard through headphones in French and English. These custom-made headphones included a dial which enabled the experimenter to restrict the recorded material to the left, right, or both ears. When comparing the three input conditions, the results showed that participants made fewer errors when the message was presented in one ear compared with both ears simultaneously. Specifically, when shadowing in an L2, participants are free to process “the incoming information through either or both ears. However, there is a suggestion that when shadowing in one’s L1, subjects process incoming speech better through the right ear” (p. 156).
Reflection Question
The role of working memory when translating is different than when interpreting. Why do you think this is the case?
Christoffels et al. (2006) conducted a study to compare working memory and language skills among simultaneous interpreters, bilingual university students, and Dutch teachers of English. The participants performed several experiments, including a word retrieval task in which pictures were presented separately in English and Dutch on a computer screen, and participants had to name the pictures as quickly as possible. In a word translation task, 72 words in English and 72 words in Dutch were presented separately, and participants orally translated them from Dutch into English and from English into Dutch. In a speaking span task, 42 words were selected in English and Dutch. The words were presented in sets of two, three, four, and five words, and participants were asked to silently read and remember the words. After each set was completed, participants had to produce a sentence for each of the words in the set that they recalled. In a memory task, sentences were presented on a computer screen, and participants tried to remember the last word of each sentence. Finally, a lexical decision task was given in which participants needed to determine whether words presented on the screen were real English word or nonwords. The results showed that interpreters outperformed university students in speed, accuracy, and working memory capacity. Interpreters also performed better than English teachers but only on the memory task. Overall, the findings suggest that performance may be determined more by proficiency than by cognitive resources. Furthermore, they also suggested that the superior working memory skills of the professional interpreters may be related to several task components of SI because interpreters develop a simultaneity of comprehension and production processes to manage two languages, which is also potentially related to increased cognitive control.
Another study asking whether interpreters have better working memory than non-interpreter bilingual individuals was carried out by Signorelli et al. (2012). Three groups of younger interpreters, older interpreters, and non-interpreters performed a reading span task, a nonword repetition task, an order- and category-cued recall task, and a task measuring articulation rate. Results showed that interpreters outperformed non-interpreters on the reading span and nonword repetition tasks but not on cued recall or articulation rates. These findings suggest that interpreters are able to more efficiently manipulate information in their working memory and process sub-lexical (i.e., sound) representations compared with non-interpreters, although according to Signorelli et al. (2012), they appear no different in terms of the temporary retention of words and their meanings.
In a study by Nour et al. (2020), the researchers compared working memory capacity among interpreting students (mean age, 22 years), translation students (mean age, 23 years), and professional interpreters (mean age, 52 years) using reading span and digit span tasks. Considering that working memory has a time limitation and interpreting involves immediacy, the study aimed to determine whether interpreting training and years of experience in interpreting would affect working memory differently than training in translation. The participants were first tested at the beginning of their one-year training program in either translation or interpreting and were again tested at the conclusion of the program. Nour et al. (2020) found an improvement in terms of training for working memory, but there were no significant differences between student translators and student interpreters. Critically, professional interpreters outperformed translation students on working memory but were no different than interpreting students. The authors explained that professional experience is necessary to see any effects of interpreting on memory and that the accumulation of interpreting experience helps to maintain working memory capacity at its optimal level rather than declining due to natural aging effects. Other studies have also shown that years of experience with interpreting can have a positive impact on memory components across the life span (Henrard and Van Daele 2017; Chmiel 2018).
1.4.3 Bilingualism
A construct of interest in research in bilingualism and L2 acquisition is language dominance, which is the relative command individuals have over their two languages. Language dominance has also been of interest in translation studies, for instance, to investigate translation directionality. Directionality refers to the analysis of direct and inverse translation. Ferreira et al. (2021) studied the effects of language dominance on translation performance. In the study, 12 English native-speaking professional translators and 20 Spanish native-speaking professional translators completed a language background questionnaire, which collected in-depth information about their place of birth, self-ratings of dominance in both languages, education background, age of immigration, age of initial exposure to the L2, and so on. Following the questionnaire, the participants then translated a text from English into Spanish and a similar text from Spanish into English. After both translations, the participants were given a retrospective protocol interview about their translation decisions that specifically asked about their perception of the tasks, such as information about the level of difficulty, anxiety, and satisfaction with the product. While the participants were translating the texts, Ferreira et al. (2021) measured eye movements and keystrokes as ways of gathering information about the cognitive effort involved in each translation direction. The eye-tracking device recorded pupil dilation and saccades (i.e., extremely quick movement of both eyes to a point of fixation in the same direction), and Translog software, a program that records and studies human reading and writing processes on a computer, measured mouse events and keystrokes.
Ferreira et al. (2021) conducted statistical models on each of the dependent variables (mouse, keypress, fixation index, saccade index, gaze duration, and gaze index). A backwards model selection process with an initial model was used to allow the critical predictor (direction of translation) to interact with the variables age, gender, and dominance. The findings pointed to several individual differences related to their unique language experiences and showed that dominance levels interact differently with translation direction and performance. First, translators a spent longer time in inverse translation than direct translation, but this difference was not statistically significant. There was a correlation between translation direction and the number of eye fixations, particularly in the inverse translation direction. Translators’ age and gender were also correlated with fixations such that older translators and female translators had fewer fixations than younger translators, and female translators had fewer fixations than male translators. Individual differences within and across groups modulate the effects of cognitive effort and appear to be sensitive to translation direction. Although these statistical analyses using multifactorial mixed-effects modeling are common in psychology, they are only now gaining popularity in TIS.
1.5 Research Methods
Allport et al. (1972) conducted a study among translators to see whether they could attend to and repeat back continuous speech at the same time as taking in complex, unrelated visual scenes or while sight reading piano music. Results showed that divided attention was very good, and there was little or no effect of the dual task on the accuracy of speech shadowing. Shadowing refers to a paced, word-for-word repetition task in which the immediate vocalization of what is heard through a set of headphones is repeated aloud in the same language. In this sense, “evidence of simultaneous processing of stimuli varying along different attributes or ‘dimensions’ within the same sense mode” (p. 233). It has been said that if two similar, simple tasks are often practiced, they can be performed well together. If the two similar, complex tasks are new, they cannot be performed at the same time. Following this assumption, if a translator must verbalize every step of the process while producing the target text, overall, they might face an overload and not be able to perform either task as to the same degree as they would performing them separately. Hansen (2005) states that “bilingual translators can find that they cannot keep the two languages apart, especially not under stress” (p. 513), suggesting that a bilingual individual’s two languages can never feel completely “turned off.”
Reflection Question
If you speak a second language, do you sometimes feel that the two languages are competing in your mind? If you don’t speak a second language, ask someone who does.
1.5.1 Think-Aloud Protocols
One of the most commonly used tools since the 1980s is the think-aloud protocol, or concomitant protocols, used as a qualitative research method in which a participant reflectively talks about their mental processes or decisions used during translation. A concurrent TAP is collected while the participant is carrying out the task, and the consecutive TAP (also called retrospection) is collected after the participant finishes completed the task. Ferreira’s (2013) study analyzed consecutive protocols from a cohort of eight professional translators who translated two texts on related topics from their L2 English into L1 Portuguese and from L1 Portuguese into L2 English. Following this, they translated two other texts that were on different topics, again in both translation directions. Results showed that when translating non-related texts, the access to the concepts and the lexical production were more limited in the L1-to-L2 translation (i.e., inverse translation) compared with L2-to-L1 translation (i.e., direct translation).
Ferreira’s (2013) study was influenced by Jakobsen’s (2003) study, in which he looked at the effects of TAPs on translation time (i.e., the total time spent to complete a translation task), revision, and segmentation. Segmentation refers to the process of breaking a source text into smaller translation units. Translation students and professional translators performed two translations from Danish into English and two from English into Danish. For each direction, one translation was performed while thinking aloud was recorded and the other without. The results showed that when participants think aloud while translating, there is about a 25% decrease in their speed. However, no significant effects on their revisions were found. In terms of segmentation, thinking aloud led to processing the source texts in smaller segments. Therefore, although TAPs have been used to obtain insight into translation processes, the fact that they increase the amount of cognitive load has been a topic of criticism. For more information, Hansen (2005) provides an overview of TAPs and retrospective protocols and participants’ ability to conduct two tasks at the same time.
As per interpreting, retrospective protocols have been used to analyze skill variation and expertise. For instance, Tiselius and Jenset (2011) asked participants with no, little, or a lot of interpreting experience to interpret a speech and perform retrospection immediately after completing the task. The researchers then analyzed the reported processing problems, instances of monitoring, and strategies used. The findings showed that the degree of experience influenced the strategies used by interpreters. Their retrospection also suggested that their experience also led to different types of problems identified during the interpretation. In a second experiment, Tiselius and Jensen compared ratings of the interpreting products produced by the same participants as in the first study and found a difference in the rated quality of interpretations performed by participants with no interpreting experience and the other two groups with some degree of experience. These differences consisted of distinct preferences of strategies and perceived problems. The authors argued that monitoring, strategies, and processing problems appear to correlate with experience in interpreting. Another study by Bartłomiejczyk (2006) focused only on advanced interpreting students and identified 21 different strategies during SI that are dependent on whether the interpretation is direct or inverse. It is clear that there are a number of factors, including both experience and interpreting direction, that interact with the strategies used by interpreters.
Reflection Question
What do you think are some of the pros and cons of using TAPs?
1.5.2 Corpora
The translation product (i.e., the end translation that is produced) has also been analyzed by those interested in using corpus linguistics. In linguistics, a corpora refers to a large collection or database of language data consisting of organized sets of texts and structures. For instance, Alves et al. (2010) used annotated corpora, in addition to key logging, eye tracking, and retrospective verbalizations, to identify translation units that may lead to increased levels of cognitive effort during translation. Two participants translated a text from L1 German into L2 English. Keystrokes were logged using Translog, and eye movements were recorded using an eye tracker. Grammatical shifts and the process of (de)metaphorization in translation were analyzed. The authors explained that (de)metaphorization is the process of (un)packing linguistic information based on the grammatical metaphor concept “whereby a set of agnate (related) forms is present in the language having different mappings between the semantic and the grammatical categories” (Halliday and Matthiessen 1999, p. 7). The higher the metaphorical strength, the more implicit are the relations between participants and processes within a context.
