Cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems

cognitive-strategies-for-the-resolution-of-translation-problems-olga-jeczmyk

Reblogged from the EU’s Terminology Coordination Unit blog, with permission from the author (incl. the images)

The objective of the papers is to draw a panorama of the study of cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems, as well as to draw the perspectives of the research.

We consider that translation strategies can be of internal support (cognitive type) and of external support (by the use of resources of documentation of all type), and we focus our interest on the first of these two types. Our interest is to analyse cognitive translation strategies employed in the resolution of translation problems in written translation.

At the beginning, researches in Translation Studies were based mostly on the product with a particular interest in the translated text as object of study. A few decades ago, investigations were redirected towards human translators, investigating the cognitive processes and the skills required to translate properly, proposing theoretical models and experimental research. However, there are still no rigorous empirical studies for cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems during the translation process.

In our communication, we will present how the concept of strategy in other disciplines and in Translation Studies has been analysed. Finally, we will draw the perspectives of the research.

  1. Analysis of the notion of strategy in disciplines related to Translation Studies

The notion of strategy has been studied in disciplines such as Cognitive psychology, Language didactics, Psycholinguistics and Pedagogy.

In general, we find a wide nomenclature and large terminological differences with regard to the denomination and classification of strategies:

cognitive-strategies-in-the-resolution-of-translation-problems-by-olga-jeczmyk

  • In Cognitive psychology there is a division of (1) strategies for problem resolution and (2) learning strategies. According to Mayer (1981) the used denomination is: heuristic methods and procedures.
  • In Language didactics there are problem-resolution strategies for second language learning. Oxford (1990) is the author who proposed the more complete definition and a classification. She defines strategies such as: “Strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to make easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferrable new situations.” (Oxford 1990: 8). The author proposes the following classification: (1) direct strategies (cognitive, memory and compensation) and (2) indirect strategies (metacognitive, affective and social), (Oxford 1990: 16-21). The definitions of strategies of others authors serve as a complement to Oxford’s proposals (1990). Strategies are called: techniques, mechanisms, processes, thoughts, actions, plans, operations, behaviours, steps, etc.
  • In Psycholinguistics there is no definition or no exclusive classification for strategies, this is why we find the same type of problem-resolution strategies for second language learning as in Language didactics.
  • In Pedagogy strategies are related to Cognitive psychology since this latter science also studies the processes of learning. There is a distinction between (1) teaching strategies and (2) learning strategies.

All the studied disciplines have a wide terminological nomenclature regarding the denomination of strategies: heuristic methods, procedures, ducts, thoughts, specific actions, behaviours, steps, techniques, decision-making processes, activities or mental operations, conscious and intentional activities, flexible and adaptive procedures, joint procedures of steps or skills, etc. Strategies vary based on the analysis of each author and discipline that are studied. It is important to highlight the distinction of: (1) problem-solving strategies; (2) learning strategies and (3) teaching strategies.

  1. Analysis of the notion of strategy in Translation Studies

From Honig and Kussmaul (1982) and, over the last three decades, the study of translation strategies has been acquiring greater importance thanks to several empirical studies, such as Krings (1986), Séguinot (1991) or Gregorio Cano (2014) among others. There are also authors like Hurtado Albir (1996, 2001 and 2015) with no empirical studies, but she makes a proposal of definition, denomination and classification of the notion of strategy with several examples in order to clarify the existing confusion around this concept.

2.1. Denominations

In Translation Studies there are different terminological denominations for the notion of strategy such as: heuristic methods, procedures, techniques of translation, translation strategies, principles of translation, standards, principles, mental process, mechanisms, etc. Despite the great information regarding translation and cognitive strategies employed in the resolution of translation problems there is a terminological confusion and some different classifications.

cognitive-strategies-in-the-resolution-of-translation-problems-terminology-confusion

2.2. Definitions

Krings (1986: 268) defines strategies as “potentially conscious plans for solving a translation problem” and he is based on the authors Færch and Kasper (1983). Séguinot (1991: 82) proposes the following definition “strategies is a term which has been used to refer to both conscious and unconscious procedures, to both overt tactics and mental processes”. Lörscher is based on Krings (1986) and Færch and Kasper (1983) but he has his own definition “a translation strategy is a potentially conscious procedure for the solution of a problem which an individual is faced with when translating a text segment from one language to another” (1991: 76).  In these three definitions we note that Krings (1986) talks about “potentially conscious plans” and Séguinot (1991) and Lörscher (1991) are using the term of “procedure” in order to define strategies.

Jääskeläinen (1993: 116) proposes her own definition for strategies: “a set of (loosely formulated) rules or principles which a translator uses to reach the goals determined by the translating situation in the most effective way”. The author focuses on “guidelines” or “principles” used by the translator not on “procedures”.

Lachat Leal (2003: 344) defines strategies as “el proceso mental que permite al traductor alcanzar la representación del texto traducido a partir de la representación del texto original“. So the author uses the term “process”.

Gregorio Cano (2014: 82) proposes the term “mechanisms” affirming that “la estrategia de traducción es aquel mecanismo que el traductor ha de poner en marcha para resolver un problema de traducción determinado”.

As noted in some of the analysed studies, in many cases, the notion of strategy is confused with the notions of technique and method. This is due to the lack of a general consensus that serves as a reference point for authors and other studies. Hurtado Albir (1996, 2001) aims to put order in this terminological confusion and to clearly define the differences between method, strategy and technique proposing the following definitions:

amparohurtado

2.3. Classifications

Not all the authors we studied propose a classification of the notion of strategy. Only Krings (1986), Lörscher (1991) and Jääskeläinen (1993) do so.

Krings (1986) classifies strategies in five categories with one subcategory as (1) comprehension strategies, (2) recovery strategies (with the subcategory of semantically related resources), (3) monitoring strategies, (4) decision-making strategies and, finally, (5) reduction strategies.

Lörscher (1991) distinguishes two phases in the translation process: (1) strategic and (2) non-strategic phase.

On the other hand, Jääskeläinen talks about (1) global and (2) local strategies.

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) and Hurtado Albir (1996, 2001 and 2015) make a proposal based on their own experience.

2.4. Empirical studies carried out

There are some limitations in experimental design in several of the authors who have done empirical studies such as:

  • The selection of small and hardly representative samples
  • The limitations to the use of the TAPs as the technique of data collection since they do not give access to unconscious processes and create artificial situations.
  • The use of inadequate data collection instruments.

On the other hand, problem-solving strategies still need to be analysed.

  1. Research perspectives

We believe that the results of a more detailed research on cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems will lead to a best practice for professional translation and for a better training for translators. In this sense, there are two types of research challenges:

  • Progress in conceptual clarification, clearly distinguishing the notion of strategy of other related notions and establishing links with research in related disciplines.
  • Carrying out experimental-empiric research by using large and representative samples of professional translators and translation students with technical and varied instruments (recordings of the translator process, questionnaires, interviews, etc.); this will allow collecting reliable data on cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems and for the acquisition process.

This research will allow us to clarify cognitive strategies for the resolution of translation problems.

key-words

To read the paper, please click on: Estrategias cognitivas para la resolución de problemas de traducción.


olga-jeczmyk-author

Olga Jeczmyk

Communication and Terminology Trainee, Translator, Interpreter, Proofreader and Social Media Manager. Olga holds a degree in Translation and Interpreting from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, she is specialized in Economics and Legal Translation with “FR” as her B language and “EN” as her C language. She spent her Erasmus in Paris and Rome. She received her Masters in Linguistic and Cultural Mediation from the Università La Sapienza in Rome and concluded a simultaneous interpreting internship in the FAO. She currently studies Translation Studies and Intercultural Studies at the Universitat Autònoma in Barcelona as PhD candidate. She analyses the cognitive strategies in the resolution of translation problems in writing translation. She speaks Polish, Spanish, Catalan, English, French and Italian. You can read her blog at www.20000lenguas.com and follow her on Twitter at @OlgaJeNo.

Bibliography:

  • Bachman, L.F. (1990). “Communicative Language Ability”, en L. F. Bachman, Fundamental Considerations in language Testing, Oxford University Press (“Habilidad lingüística comunicativa”), en M. Llobera et al., Competencia comunicativa. Documentos básicos en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras, Madrid, Edelsa, 1995, pp. 105-127.
  • Beltrán, J. (1993). “Estrategias de aprendizaje”. En Beltrán, J. y Genovard, C., (eds.) Psicología de la instrucción I. Variables y procesos básicos, Madrid, Síntesis.
  • Canale, M. (1983). “From Communicative Competence to communicative language pedagogy”, en J.C. Richards y R.W. Schmidts (eds.), Language and Communication, Londres, Longman (“De la competencia comunicativa a la pedagogía comunicativa del lenguaje, en M. Llobera et al., Competencia comunicativa. Documentos básicos en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras, Madrid, Edelsa, 1995, pp. 63-81.
  • Chesterman, A. (1998). “Communication Strategies, Learning Strategies & Translation Strategies” en K. Malmkjaer (eds.), Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. Jerome Publishing, pp. 135-144.
  • Corpas Arellano, M. D. (2000). La mujer y las estrategias de aprendizaje en la adquisición de la lengua inglesa. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada, 4 (1).
  • Gregorio Cano, A. (2014). Estudio empírico-descriptivo del desarrollo de la competencia estratégica en la formación de traductores. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Granada.
  • Hurtado Albir, A. (1996). “La cuestión del método traductor. Método, estrategia y técnica de traducción”. Sendebar, 7, pp. 39-57.
  • – (2001). Traducción y traductología. Introducción a la traductología. Madrid, Cátedra.
  • – (2015). Aprender a traducir del francés al español. Competencias y tareas para la iniciación a la traducción. Castellón/Madrid, Universitat Jaume I/ Edelsa.
  • Königs, F. G. (1987). “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen”, Die Neueren Sprachen, 86, pp. 162-185.
  • Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. Jouse and S- Blum-Kulka, Tübingen, Gunter Narr.
  • Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Jääskeläinen, R. (1993). “Investigating Translation Strategies”, en S. Tirkkonen-Condit y J. Laffling (eds.), Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research, Studies in Languages, Joensuu, Faculty of Arts.
  • – (2010). Looking for a working definition of “translation strategies.” New approches in Translation Process Research. Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, Dinamarca, pp. 375–387.
  • Leal Lachat, C. (2003). Estrategias y problemas de traducción. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Granada.
  • C. (Coord.) (1994). Estrategias de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Formación del profesorado y aplicación en la escuela. Barcelona: Graó.
  • Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
  • – (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2(2), pp. 18–22.
  • – (2003). “Language Learning Styles and Strategies: an Overview”. Learning Styles & Strategies/Oxford, GALA, 2003, pp. 1–25.
  • PACTE (2000). Acquiring translation competence: hypotheses and methodological problems of a research project”. En Beeby, A., Ensinger, D. & Presas, M. (eds.), Investigating translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • – (2001). “La competencia traductora y su adquisición”. Quaderns. Revista de traducció, 6, pp. 39–45.
  • – (2003). “Building a translation competence model”. En Alves F. (ed.). Triangulating translation: perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. P. 36-60.
  • Pastor Cesteros, S. (2004). Aprendizaje de segundas lenguas. Lingüística aplicada a la enseñanza de idiomas. Publicaciones Universidad de Alicante.
  • Séguinot, C. (1991). A Study Of Student Translation Strategies. en Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (eds.) (1991), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tubinga. Gunter Narr, pp.79-88.
  • Valle Arias, A., Barca Lozano, A., González Cabanach, R. y Núñez Pérez, J. C. (1999). “Las estrategias de aprendizaje. Revisión teórica y conceptual,” en Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología. Vol. 31, nº 3, pp. 425–461.
  • Venuti, L. (2005). Strategies of Translation, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, Londres – Nueva York, Routledge.
  • Vinay, J.P. and Darbelnet J. (1958/1969). Stylistique compare du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.

Book review: Deconstructing Traditional Notions in Translation Studies

Reblogged from the ATA’s Spanish Language Division blog with permission by the author, incl. the image

In order to set the context of what translation is, I will quote the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) description of translation performance:

Translation is the process of transferring text from one language into another. It is a complex skill requiring several abilities.

The term “translation” is normally reserved for written renditions of written materials. Translation is thereby distinct from interpretation, which produces a spoken equivalent in another language. While translation and interpretation skills overlap to some degree, the following applies only to document-to-document renderings.

A successful translation is one that conveys the explicit and implicit meaning of the source language into the target language as fully and accurately as possible. From the standpoint of the user, the translation must also meet the prescribed specifications and deadlines.

Competence in two languages is necessary but not sufficient for any translation task. Though the translator must be able to (1) read and comprehend the source language and (2) write comprehensibly in the target language, the translator must also be able to (3) choose the equivalent expression in the target language that both fully conveys and best matches the meaning intended in the source language (referred to as congruity judgment).

A weakness in any of these three abilities will influence performance adversely and have a negative impact on the utility of the product. Therefore, all three abilities must be considered when assessing translation skills.

Various non‑linguistic factors have an impact on performance, such as the time allotted to deliver the product, and familiarity with both the subject matter and the socio‑cultural aspects of the source and target languages. Given previous knowledge of these factors or appropriate training, an individual with limited skills may in certain instances be able to produce renditions of various texts that might be useful for specific purposes. On the other hand, an otherwise skilled translator who lacks subject matter knowledge or who is unfamiliar with certain socio-cultural aspects will often provide an erroneous translation.

“ILR Skill Level Descriptions for Translation Performance,” Preface, Interagency Language Roundtable, http://www.govtilr.org/Skills/AdoptedILRTranslationGuidelines.htm.

On page 2, Moros says “all theory affects practice, and all practices produce theory” and indicates that it is almost impossible for historians to work in an unbiased manner. I will call this implicit bias.

As translators, we are constantly developing theories whether we realize it or not. The decisions we make today are often the same as the ones we made yesterday and the ones we will make tomorrow. Whether or not we go to the trouble to write them down so we can share them with others in a theoretical framework is another matter, but as we discuss our edits we often find we did in fact have reasons for translating the way we did! That is called theory. I have seen this in listserv discussions many times… Translators are practitioners who in fact produce theory.

Implicit bias: When I studied to be a teacher in Argentina, the Social Studies professor required that we study history from two books with opposite perspectives to make sure we were exposed to two opposite biases! As translators, we are expected to shed our implicit bias when we approach a translation and read the material we translate with the implicit bias of the author. That takes special skill. Then we must consider the implicit biases of our readers and the words that will speak to them, so that we can communicate our message to them in the proper way. Can a machine do that?

In order to translate without implicit bias, we must become visible. We must be able to ask questions. We make choices and generate thoughts on how to handle problems. We cannot develop theories about how to translate a text or develop a style sheet for an organization without consulting with our clients. This is how humans are different from machines.

Today, according to Moros, translators are trained in a mechanistic way, reminiscent of Taylorism. Taylor coined the phrase “task management.” This is assembly-line work theory, which has been applied to factory work. Taylor proposed that workers get paid by the piece (does this remind you of being paid by the word?). The unions were able to convince Congress that this “efficiency” was not effective and should not apply in government-run factories (page 24).

What are some of the problems with this piece-rate system? According to Moros, the piece-rate system is hurting translation rates. In a large translation project, for example, a company would ask a translator to provide a discount, yet charge the end client the same rate for every word. However, the translator is the one paying for the translation tool!  Translation quality suffers and so does the pay. (page 26) In my opinion, this generally also assumes the work will be done faster. The ILR description of translation quoted above says, “Various non‑linguistic factors have an impact on performance, such as the time allotted to deliver the product.”

Another problem with the Taylorist perspective on translation is viewing translators as interchangeable. For example, at times translators are required to interact with a translation memory program that a large organization has created; such organization put a document together ignoring sections that may or may not match the document in question. This trains translators to simply not be concerned with the quality of their work, since it is not a priority for the people who they interact with directly. In any event, this model is simply not one that can be applied many times.

Moros proposes some alternatives to Taylorist translation training, starting on page 61. He recommends that translators become visible, understanding that they are creating truth and knowledge, and that they understand the concepts of meaning, transfer of meaning, text, author, authorship responsibility, ideology, and colonialism.

Moros reminds us that reading is contextual, and understanding varies depending on the context. Therefore, translators must take responsibility for their text as authors of the translated text. In this process of becoming authors of the translated text, every decision must be justified. In an ideal world, translators must be able to communicate with the requester of the translation and, whenever possible, with the author. It is essential to know the purpose of the translation and who the readers will be in order to translate the document properly.

However, as Moros reminds us, the Toledo Translation School, in its second period, did things right. King Alfonso X of Castile, called the Wise, directed that translation would be done in groups. This is reminiscent of the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM International) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) translation standards, which include the role of a bilingual editor (another equally qualified translator), not doing a back translation, but as part of the quality improvement process.

These are just some highlights of what Moros shares in Deconstructing Traditional Notions in Translation Studies: Two exemplary cases that challenge thinking regarding translation history and teaching translation, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing (2011-05-17). The full book is worth the read! The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is 978-3-8443-9565-5. Happy reading!