Cover not available
Part of
Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and events
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Séverine Hubscher-Davidson and Ulf Norberg
[Benjamins Current Topics 77] 2015
► pp. 7–20

Models of what processes?

Toury (1995; 2012) distinguishes between cognitive translation acts on the one hand, and sociological translation events on the other; a translation act is embedded in a translation event, and both acts and events are seen as processes. He also explains three senses of ‘translation problem,’ which relate to different notions of the processes involved in the translation act. The present chapter analyzes and develops these ideas. It distinguishes between what are here labeled virtual, reverse-engineered, and actual processes of translation acts or events, which correlate with Toury’s three senses of ‘translation problem.’ A few examples are given of models of each kind of process, both classical and more recent ones. Also discussed is the extent to which the various models are predictive and hence testable. To designate the translation process at the historical and cultural level, alongside the mental act and the situational event, the term ‘translation practice’ is suggested.
Keywords: translation act, translation event, translation model, translation practice, translation process
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.77.02che
References (34)
Bly, Robert. 1984. “The Eight Stages of Translation.” In Translation. Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. by William Frawley, 67–89. Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène. 2005. “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “A Computational Cognitive Model of Human Translation Processes.” In Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research, ed. by Sivaji Bandyopadhyay, Sudip K. Naskar, and Asif Ekbal, 110–128. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2008. “On Explanation.” In Beyond Descriptive Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Schlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 363–379. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2009. “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study TransComp.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans. 1995. Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1999. Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2011. “Tracking Translators’ Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Translog.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Francis R. 2011. Poetry Translating as Expert Action: Processes, Priorities and Networks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija, and Kaisa Koskinen (eds). 2010. Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press. [URL].Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2008. Translating Institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. “Innovative Subtitling. A Reception Study.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 187–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul. 2007. Verstehen und Übersetzen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Culture Bumps. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Levý, Jiří. 1967. “Translation as a Decision Process.” In To Honor Roman Jakobson. Janua Linguarum Series Major 33, 1171–1182. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1989. “Models of the Translation Process: Claim and Reality.” Target 1 (1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1969. “Science of Translating.” Language 45 (3): 483–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Nordman, Lieselott. 2009. Lagöversättning som process och produkt. Helsingfors: Nordica, Helsingfors universitet.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation — Consequences of Automation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Morena Azbel. 2005. “How Do You Do it Anyway?” A Longitudinal Study of Three Translator Students Translating from Russian into Swedish. Stockholm: Stockholm University. [URL].Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone. 2011. “Sight Translation and Speech Disfluency: Performance Analysis as a Window to Cognitive Translation Processes.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 2002. “What’s the Problem with ‘Translation Problem’?” In Translation and Meaning 6, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, and Marcel Thelen, 57–71. Maastricht: Hogeschool Zuyd, Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting.Google Scholar
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies — and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Michaela, and Alexandra Fukari (eds). 2007. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Hirvonen, Maija
2024. Shared cognition in the translation process: Information processing and meaning production as interactive accomplishments. Translation Studies ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2021. Micro Units and the First Translational Response Universal. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Chistova, Elena Viktorovna
2019. MULTI-CHANNEL NATURE AND MULTIMODALITY OF PERCEPTION IN A SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETER’S COGNITIVE ACTIVITY. Philology. Theory & Practice 12:9 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2017. Translation Process Research. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.