Cover not available
Part of
Translation in Transition: Human and machine intelligence
Edited by Isabel Lacruz
[American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XX] 2023
► pp. 257–281

Chapter 12
The Monitor Model and its misconceptions

A clarification

| Kent State University
Horizontal (automatic) and vertical (control) processes have been observed and reported for a long time in translation production. Schaeffer and Carl’s Monitor Model integrates these two processes into one framework, assuming that priming mechanisms underlie horizontal/automatic processes, while vertical/monitoring processes implement consciously accessible control mechanisms. The Monitor Model has been criticized in various ways and several misconceptions have accumulated over the past years. In this chapter, I update the Monitor Model with additional evidence and argue that it is compatible with an enactivist approach to cognition. I address several misconceptions related to the Monitor Model.
Keywords: Translation Process Research, Monitor Model, computationalism, enactivism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.TPR and the Monitor Model
  • 3.The translation automaton
  • 4.Misconceptions of the Monitor Model
    • 4.1Translation and priming
    • 4.2Translation as a dynamic process
    • 4.3Comprehension, transfer, and production
    • 4.4Default translation
    • 4.5Concurrent processing
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xx.12car
References (69)
References
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale. (2009). “Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data.” In Process Research into Translation Competence, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, and Riitta Jääskeläinen, Special Issue of Across Languages and Cultures 10(2): 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Adele Abrahamsen. 2002. Connectionism and the mind: parallel processing, dynamics, and evolution in networks. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 2009. The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition 2(1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. A Computational Cognitive Model of Human Translation Processes. Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research. ed. by Bandyopadhyay, Sivaji, Sudip Kumar Naskar, and Asif Ekbal, 110–128. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Michael Carl; Andrew Tonge; Isabel Lacruz. (2019). A Systems Theory Perspective on the Translation Process In: Translation, Cognition & Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2021a. “A Radical Embodied Perspective on the Translation Process.” In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, 389–406. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2021b). “Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation.” In Explorations in empirical translation process research, ed. by Michael Carl, 113–140. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2021c). “Micro Units and the First Translational Response Universal.” In Explorations in empirical translation process research, ed. by Michael Carl, 233–257. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “An enactivist-posthumanist perspective on the translation process.” In Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies, ed. by Sandra Halverson, and Álvaro Marín García, 179–190. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2011. “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2): 155–168.Google Scholar
Chemero, Anthony. 2010. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Czulo, Oliver, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Alexandre Diniz da Costa, and Debanjana Kar. 2019. “Designing a Frame-Semantic Machine Translation Evaluation Metric.” In Proceedings of the Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology Workshop (HiT-IT 2019), 28–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Robert. 1989. Meaning and Mental Representation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
de Groot, Annette. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches.” In Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 25–56. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 2013. Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques, Paul Bennett, Valerio Allegranza, Frank Van Eynde, Lee Humphreys, Paul Schmidt, and Erich Steiner. 1991. “The Eurotra linguistic specifications: An overview.” Machine Translation 6: 103–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, Chelsea, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2013. “Examining English–German Translation Ambiguity Using Primed Translation Recognition.” Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 16 (2): 442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles (1982) 2006. “Frame Semantics.” In Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, edited by Dirk Geeraerts, 373–400. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan. 2021. “Cross-language structural priming in recurrent neural network language models.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 43: 664–665.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun. 2017. Enactivist Interventions Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Adolfo M. 2019. The Neurocognition of Translation and Interpreting. Benjamins Translation Library 147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Adolfo M., and Ricardo Muñoz. 2020. “Translation, neurosciences and cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by Arnt Jakobsen, and Fabio Alves, 239–259. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra Louise. 2015. “Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms: the case of ‘literal translation.” Translation Spaces 4 (2): 310 – 340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Default translation’: a construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies.” Translation, Cognition and Behavior. 2 (2): 187 – 210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Translation, linguistic commitment and cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by Arnt Jakobsen, and Fabio Alves, 478–500. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Jean Nitzke, and Katharina Oster. 2017. “Predicting cognate translation.” In Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting 7 , ed. by Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Čulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 3–22. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Sarah Bernolet, Sofie Schoonbaert, Sara Speybroeck, and Dieter Vanderelst, D. 2008. “Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue.” Journal of Memory and Language 58 (2): 214–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp. 2004. “Is Syntax Separate or Shared between Languages? Cross-linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals.” Psychological Science 15(6): 409–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutto, Daniel D., and Erik Myin. 2013. Radicalizing Enactivism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Evolving Enactivism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2016. Cognitive efficiency in translation. In Reembedding Translation Process Research, Benjamins Translation Library 128 , ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 149–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2017. “Translation Process Research.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 19–49. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Königs, Frank G. 1987. “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” Die Neueren Sprachen 86 (2): 162–185.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. (Volume 291.) Tübingen: Narr-Verlag.Google Scholar
2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes. (Volume 5). Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, Minna. 2015. “On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research.” Translation and Interpreting 7(1), 47–58. [URL]
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone. 2012. “Average pause ratio as an indicator of cognitive effort in post-editing: A case study.” AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice. WPTP 2012: 21–30.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. “An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Science 10, l–40. [URL]
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen, Gunter Narr, 1991.Google Scholar
Marín, Álvaro García. 2017. Theoretical Hedging: The Scope of Knowledge in Translation Process Research. PhD Dissertation. Kent, OH: Kent State University. [URL]
. 2019. “The opportunities of epistemic pluralism for Cognitive Translation Studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2 (2): 165–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín de León, Celia. 2017. “Mental Representations.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 106–127. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Ana María Rojo López. 2018. “Meaning.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture, ed. by Sue-Ann Harding, and Ovidi Carbonell i Cortés, 61–78. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Ricardo. 2016. “Of minds and men – computers and translators.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2), 351–381.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Looking Toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 555–573. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Ricardo and Martín de León, Celia (2020). Translation and cognitive science. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output.” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, Haruka, Devin Gilbert, and Samar Almazroei. 2021. “Rendering Entropy Data and ST-Based Information Into a Rich Discourse on Translation: Investigating Relationships between MT Output and Human Translation.” In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, 141–163. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereplyotchik, David. 2016. Psychosyntax: the nature of grammar and its place in the mind. (Volume 129). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1973. “Meaning and Reference.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (19): 699–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl. 2020. “Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by Arnt Jacobsen and Fabio Alves, 478–499. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas. 2020. “Reframing translational norm theory trough 4EA cognition.” Translation, Cognition and Behavior 3(1): 122–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rolla, Giovanni, and Huffermann, Jeferson. 2021. “Converging enactivisms: radical enactivism meets linguistic bodies.” Adaptive Behavior 30 (4): 345–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan Jr, Kevin J., and Shaun Gallagher. 2020. “Between ecological psychology and enactivism: Is there resonance?” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund, Laura Winther Balling, and Michael Carl. 2016. “Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation.” In New Directions in Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 183–210. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT) of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. by Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn, Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Casacuberta, Robin Hill, and Sharon O’Brien, 29–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl. 2017. “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-editing.” Proceedings of MT Summit XVI 1: 18–22.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Katharina Oster, Jean Nitzke, Anke Tardel, Anne-Kathrin Gros, Silke Gutermuth, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, and Michael Carl. 2018. “Cross-linguistic (Dis)similarities in Translation: Process and Product.” Paper presented at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2013, 2015. “Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8(2): 169–190. reprinted in Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and Events, ed. by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Séverine Hubscher-Davidson and Ulf Norberg. [Benjamins Current Topics, 77]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbina, Tatiana. 2015. “A Construction Grammar Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts: A Corpus-Based Study”. PhD thesis. RWTH Aachen University.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50(2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gompel, Roger. 2013. Sentence processing. London and New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wei, Yuxiang. 2021. “Entropy and eye movement: A micro-analysis of information processing in activity units during the translation process.” Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, 165–202. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Kairong, and Ricardo Muñoz Martín. 2020. “Cognitive Translation Studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies 19. Available [URL] [accessed 25 April 2021].
Yang, Zhihong, and Defeng Li. 2021. “Translation competence revisited: Toward a pedagogical model of translation competence.” In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies: New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ed. by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Sanjun Sun, and Defeng Li, 109–138. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Michael, Carl
2023. Embodiment in Cognitive Translation Studies . In Human Translation and Natural Language Processing Towards a New Consensus? , DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.