Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page291

Verbalreportshaveacontroversialhistoryinpsychology,spanningthewhole

rangefromunconditionalacceptancebystructuraliststototalrejectionby

behaviourists.Contemporaryassessmentstendtobelessextreme,maintaining

thatwhenelicitedwithcareandanalysedwithanawarenessoftheirlimitations,

verbalreportsproviderichandusefuldata(EricssonandSimon1984/1993),

andthinkingaloudisthusroutinelyusedtostudywriting(HayesandFlower

1980;BereiterandScardamalia1987)andexpertise(Chietal.1988).

Inpsychology,themostcontroversialquestioniswhetherverbalreportdata

provideaccesstomentalprocessesortothe(intermediate)productsofthese

processes(alsoknownas‘mentalcontent’;NisbettandWilson1977).The

answerdependslargelyonthedefinitionof‘process’:ifmentalprocessesare

definedasneuralactivities,theyareobviouslyinaccessibleviaanymethodof

verbalreporting.Bycontrast,EricssonandSimon(1984)viewhumanthought

processesasinformationprocessing.Accordingtotheirtheoryofverbalization,

thepartofinformationprocessingwhichtakesplaceinworkingmemory,i.e.

whichisatthefocusofconsciousattention,isaccessibletoverbalization.

However,makingadistinctionbetweenmentalprocessesandmentalcontent–

thelatterincluding,forexample,priorexperiences,focusofattentionatany

givenmoment,attitudes,emotionsandplans(NisbettandWilson1977)–may

belessrelevanttotranslationresearch.Verbalizationsproducedinthecourseof

atranslationprocessprovideadditionalinformationabouttheotherwisehidden

stagebetweenthesourcetextandthetargettext.Whetherthesedatareflect

mentalprocessesormentalcontentmaybeofmarginalimportanceatthisstage

fortranslationresearch.

Nevertheless,TAPshavetheirlimitations.Onesuchlimitationistheinevitable

incompletenessofthedata.Becauseonlythatwhichisconsciouslyattendedto

canbeverbalized,TAPscanprovidenomorethananincompleteaccountof

theprocessinginvolvedinanycognitivetask.Thisrulesout,forexample,

processeswhichhavebecomeautomatizedduetoextensivepracticewitha

task.Ontheotherhand,somementalprocesseswhichtakeplaceatthe

unconsciouslevelmaynotbeofdirectinteresttotranslationresearchers(for

example,basicperceptualprocesses).Translatingalsotendstoraiseintothe

levelofawarenesscertainphenomena,suchasnuancesofmeaning,which

requirelittleornoconsciousattentionineverydaylanguageuse.Audioor

videotapeswhichrecordtheeventprovidesupplementaryobservationaldata,

suchasintonationpatterns,pausesand,inthecaseofvideotapes,eye

movements,gesturesandfacialexpressions.Observationaldatacanalso

providecluesaboutwhatmightbegoingonattheunconsciouslevel.Inthecase

oftranslation,thewrittenendproductisanadditionalsourceofinformation.In

addition,researchsoftwaresuchasTransloghasbeendesignedtologthe

translator’skeyboardactivitiesduringthetranslationprocess.

Thinkingaloudmayalsointerferewiththeprocessunderinvestigation.Onthe

basisofanextensivesurveyofresearchevidence,EricssonandSimon

(1984:78–107)arguethatverbalreportingdoesnotchangethecourseorthe

structureofthoughtprocesses.However,intheabsenceofathorough

methodologicalsurveyoftheeffectsofverbalizationontranslationprocesses,it

isdifficulttodeterminewhetherasimilardegreeofoptimismcanbejustified

withintranslationstudies.Indeed,Jakobsen’s(2003)findingsindicatethatin

additiontoslowingdowntheprocess,thinkingaloudmayaffectsegmentation

andforceprofessionaltranslatorstoworkwithsmallerchunksoftext,which

canresultinlesscoherenttargettexts(seealsoUNITOFTRANSLATION).

Insum,althoughthinkaloudprotocolscannotunravelallthemysteriesof

translation,theydoprovideaccesstovaluableinformationaboutthenatureof

translating.Othermethodsofacquiringsimilarinformationincludeinterviews,

questionnairesandjointtranslatingordialogueprotocols(translatorsworkingin

pairsorsmallgroups);see,forexample,House(1988)andMatrat(1995).

Collectingconvergingevidencefromdifferentsources,alsoknownas

‘triangulation’(seebelow),islikelytoyieldthemostcompleteandreliable

pictureofthecontentsofthetranslator’smind.

OverviewofTAPstudies

TAPstudiesoftranslationofferaprimeexampleoftheinterdisciplinarynature

oftranslation

Page292

research.Datacollectionmethodsoriginatefrompsychology,whilethemethods

usedtodescribeandanalyseTAPdatacomefrompsycholinguistics,translation

studiesandcognitiveandsocialpsychology,amongotherdisciplines.Because

methodsofanalysisareusuallymodified,eventailormade,todescribea

particularbodyofdata,TAPstudiesrepresentsuchawidespectrumof

researchtraditionsthatinsteadofformingaclearlyuniformapproachwithin

translationstudies,manyofthemseemtosharenomorethanthebasic

methodologyofelicitingdata.

Thus,forinstance,thesourceandtargetlanguageshavevaried,ashasthe

DIRECTIONALITY.Usuallysubjectshaveproducedawrittentranslationofa

writtensourcetext,exceptinLörscher’sstudy(1991)inwhichforeignlanguage

studentsproducedanoraltranslationofawrittentext.Thesourcetextshave

representeddifferenttexttypes,rangingfromtravelbrochurestopoliticalsatire

andfrompopularizedsciencetogovernmentdocuments.POETRYtranslation

(Jones2006)andBIBLEtranslationhavealsobeenstudiedwithTAPs.Access

toreferencematerialhassometimesbeenallowed,sometimesdeniedwiththe

purposeofelicitingricherinferencingstrategies.Subjects,inturn,have

representedvariouslevelsoflinguisticandtranslationalcompetenceandhave

included,forexample,foreignlanguagelearners,translationstudents,competent

bilingualsandprofessionaltranslators.Thetranslationprocessesoflanguage

learnerscanbedismissedasnotbeingrepresentativeofprofessionaltranslation;

ontheotherhand,itisnecessarytohavecontrolgroupsforcomparison,

otherwiseitwouldbeimpossibletodeterminewhatconstitutesprofessional

behaviourintranslation.

Notsurprisingly,suchamultiplicityofapproachescreatesproblems.Comparing

theresultsandusingthecomparisonsasabasisforgeneralizationsbecomes

highlycomplicated.Yetcombiningevidencefromseveralstudiesisextremely

important,becausesubjectpopulationshaveingeneralbeenrathersmall

(rangingfromonetotwelveinmostcases).Ontheotherhand,thevariation

withinTAPstudieshascertainadvantages;differentstudiesshedlighton

differentaspectsofdifferentkindsoftranslationprocesses,thusillustratingthe

complexityoftranslationalphenomenaandtheneedforfurtherresearch.

Indeed,thefindingsofTAPstudiesclearlydemonstratethatthereisnosingle

monolithictranslationprocess.Thenatureoftheprocessvariesconsiderably

dependingonseveralfactors,includingtypeoftext,typeoftaskandtypeof

translator.

Limitationsofresearchmethodologyaside,theevidencewhichhasgradually

becomeavailablefromTAPstudieshasgivenrisetosomeintriguinghypotheses

forfurtherresearch.Inadditiontosomepredictableresults,forinstancethat

languagelearnersfocusonlexicaltransfer(Krings1986;Lörscher1993)

whereasprofessionaltranslatorsfocusonstyleandtheneedsofthetarget

audience(Jääskeläinen1999;TirkkonenCondit1990),TAPstudieshave

offeredafewsurprises.Forexample,itwasassumedinitiallythatprofessional

translators’processingwouldbehighlyautomatizedandwouldcontainfew

problemsandlittleconsciousdecisionmaking(Börsch1986;Krings1986).

Séguinot’scasestudy(1989)ofaCanadiangovernmenttranslatorsupported

thishypothesis.However,furtherresearchhasdemonstratedthatprofessional

translatorsoftenidentifymoreproblemsandspendmoretimeandresourceson

solvingthemthanlanguagelearners(Jääskeläinen1999;Krings1988;Rothe

Neves2003).Onthebasisofthesefindings,theautomaticityhypothesiscanbe

refined:languagelearnersareunawareofpotentialproblemsintranslation,while

increasingcompetenceleadstoaheightenedawarenessofproblemsinthecase

ofprofessionaltranslators(JääskeläinenandTirkkonenCondit1991).

Furthermore,professionaltranslatorsareabletoshiftbetweenautomatized

processinginroutinetasks(asinSéguinot1989)andconsciousprocessingin

novelsituations(Jääskeläinen1999;Krings1988;Laukkanen1993).

Sincethe1990s,increasingattentionhasbeenpaidtotheroleofaffective

factorssuchasattitudeandmotivationintranslationprocesses(Fraser1993;

Kuβmaul1991;Laukkanen1997).Preliminaryresultssuggestthatapositive

attitudeandhighlevelofmotivationformpartofprofessionalcompetenceand

mayevencontributetoenhancingtheQUALITYoftranslation.Thesefindings

aresupportedbypsychologicalresearchonexpertise,whereitishypothesized

thatthedecisivefactorinthedevelopmentofexpertisemaynotbegiftedness