Cover not available
Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp.225–248

Developing and validating involvement in translation scale and its relationship with translation ability

 | Quchan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Quchan, Iran
The concept of involvement has not been touched by professionals in Translation Studies. The present study aimed to develop and validate a scale of involvement in translation and to examine its relationship with students’ translation ability. In so doing, altogether, a pool of 20 translation teachers and 120 translation students participated in the study. Initially, the researcher tried to elicit the most commonalities from translation teachers regarding students’ involvement in translation. Then, the reliability and validity of the designed scale were determined by means of Cronbach’ Alpha, Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The validated scale was named Involvement in Translation Scale, including four underlying constructs. Finally, the results confirmed that there was a large, positive correlation between students’ scores on involvement in translation and their translation ability [r = .72, n = 40, p < .05]. Translation students are suggested to focus on those aspects of their translation that foster their immersion in translation practice.
Keywords: involvement, motivation, translation ability, translation practice
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Interdisciplinary approaches to Translation Studies
    • 2.2Research methods of mental processes in translation
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The qualitative phase
    • 3.2The quantitative phase
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Factors gathered from interviews
    • 4.2Validation process
      • 4.2.1Phase I
      • 4.2.2Phase II
    • 4.3The relationship between ITS and translation ability
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 3 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.18015.mod
References (44)
References
Baker, M. 1992. In other words: A course book on translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basile, E. 2005. Responding to the enigmatic address of the other: A psychoanalytical approach to the translator’s labor. New Voices in Translation Studies 11, 12–30.Google Scholar
Biel, L., & Engberg, J. 2013. Research models and methods in legal translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 121, 1–11.Google Scholar
Cayirdag, N. 2011. Attribution and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 96–100). Cambridge: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy: Advances in discourse processes (pp. 35–53). Norwood/ New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. 2000. Memetics and translation studies. Synapse 51, 1–17.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1992. Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletins, 112 (1), 155–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delisle, J., & Woodsworth, J. 1995. Translators through history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, UNESCO Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farhadi, H., Jafarpur, A. & Birjandi, P. 1994. Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT.Google Scholar
Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. 2012. Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian non–English major university students. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 311, 197–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D. 2001. Getting started in interpreting research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Hypotheses and research questions in empirical TS research. Retrieved November 17, 2017 from: [URL]
Göpferich, S. 2010. Data documentation and data accessibility in translation process research. The Translator 16 (1), 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 2002. Think-aloud protocol studies into translation. An annotated bibliography. Target 14 (1), 107–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Think-aloud protocols. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encylopedia of translation studies (pp. 290–293). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, M. 2009. Meaning-oriented translation assessment. In C. V. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies (pp. 123–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, P. & Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1995. Think-aloud protocol analysis in translation studies. TTR 8 (1), 177–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, S. 2008. Translation. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 474–489). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LeCompete, M. & Preissle, J. 1993. Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z. & Noels, K. 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 545–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. 2008. Text parameters in translation: Transitivity and institutional cultures. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 470–482). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mees, I., Fabio, A. & Susanne, G. 2010. Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Mirzaee, M. 1997. Intermediate reading comprehension. Rahnama Publication: Tehran.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. 1998. Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Munday, J. 2016. Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (4nd ed.). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, M. R. 2012. Cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches. In M. C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (pp. 241–256). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2011. Cognitive explorations of translation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
PACTE 2003. Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta 50 (2), 609–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision making. Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2), 207–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallant, J. 2005. SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Quinney, A. 2004. Translation as transference: A psychoanalytic solution to a translation problem. The Translator 10 (1), 109–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sanchez, M. T. 2017. The pragmatics of translator training in the 21th century. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 5 (2), 81–85.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1993. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & Hildyard, S. (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, G. 1992. A rationale for descriptive translation studies. Dispositio, 71, 23–39.Google Scholar
Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N. 2008. Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 581, 357–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, M. 2007. Why European translators should want to de-westernize translation studies. Paper presented at the 5th European Society for Translation Studies Congress, Slovenia.
Venuti, L. 1995. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yashima, T. 2002. Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 861, 54–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ghasemi, Afsaneh
2024. Perceived Language Proficiency and Autonomous Motivation as Predictors to Perceived Communicative Competence in English . Journal of Contemporary Language Research 3:3 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Modarresi, Ghasem & Behzad Nezakatgoo
2024. Delving into Conception of Community of the Immigration: The Association Between Imagined Communities and Learner Engagement in Writing Tasks. In Silencing Refugees’ Voices in Educational Practices, ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 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.