Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:1 (2019) ► pp.55–78

Written alternative translation solutions in the translation process

A case study

ORCID logo | University of Malta
Alternative translation solutions (ATSs) are a core and abundant element of the translation process. Despite being a recurrent topic in translation process research (TPR), the majority of previous studies deal with verbal ATSs while written ATSs remain an underresearched aspect. This article focuses on written ATSs and their role in the translatorial decision-making process. Drawing mainly on research into translatorial decision-making and TPR, it investigates 188 written ATSs present in the first draft of a Maltese literary translation from French produced by an experienced translator. Various categorisation systems were created to analyse the textual data. The results indicate that written ATSs are a complex phenomenon worth exploring further as they seem to be a shared behaviour by many translators.
Keywords: written alternative translation solutions, decision-making, draft translation, literary translation, translation process research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Decisions in the translation process
    • 2.1The make-up of decisions
    • 2.2ATSs and the translation process
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The participant and data
    • 3.2Data analysis methodology
      • 3.2.1Written ATSs come in different shapes and sizes
      • 3.2.2Linguistic categories
        • a.Lexical
        • b.Syntactic
        • c.Morphological
        • d.Orthographic
        • e.Informativity
        • f.Other
      • 3.2.3Beyond the linguistic categories
        • a.Minor doubt
        • b.Accuracy of ST comprehension and rendering
        • c.TL rendering and consideration
        • d.Strategy
        • e.Preferences/poetics/ideology
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1Written ATSs come in different shapes and sizes
    • 4.2Distribution of written ATSs in D1
    • 4.3Linguistic categories
    • 4.4Beyond linguistic categories
      • a.more literal/less literal
      • b.explicitation
      • c.foreignisation/domestication
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The role of written ATSs
    • 5.2The structure of decisions: Accounting for written ATSs and postponed decisions
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00019.bor
References (43)
References
Angelone, Erik. 2010. “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem Solving in the Translation Task.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik, and Gregory M. Shreve. 2011. “Uncertainty Management, Metacognitive Bundling in Problem-solving and Translation Quality.” In Cognitive Explorations of Translation. Edited by S. O’Brien, 108–130. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Antunović, Goranka, and Nataša Pavlović. 2011. “Moving on, Moving back or Changing It Here and Now: Self-revision in Student Translation Processes from L2 and L3.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 213–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernofsky, Susan. 2013. “Translation and the Art of Revision.” In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means. Edited by E. Allen, and S. Bernofsky, 223–233. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, Claudine. 2016. A Literary Translation in the Making: An In-depth Investigation into the Process of a Literary Translation from French into Maltese. PhD Thesis, Aston University.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Decision-making and Alternative Translation Solutions in the Literary Translation Process: A Case Study.” Across Languages and Cultures 18 (2): 279–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 2000. “Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research.” In Intercultural Faultlines. Research models in Translation Studies I: Textual and cognitive aspects. Edited by M. Olohan, 29–42. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Corbin, Ruth M. 1980. “Decisions that Might Not Get Made.” In Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Edited by T. S. Wallsten, 47–67. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Edited by J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, and M. K. McBeath, 25–56. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation: Correlating Product and Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Janet. 1996. “Mapping the Process of Translation.” Meta 41 (1): 84–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “What Do Real Translators Do? Developing the Use of TAPs from Professional Translators.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jääskeläinen, 111–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 2010. “Translation Strategies and Tactics.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 11. Edited by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 412–418. 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. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil, and Jeremy Munday. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Severine. 2007. An Empirical Investigation into the Effects of Personality on the Performance of French to English Student Translators. PhD Thesis, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, S. 2018. “Do Translation Professionals Need to Tolerate Ambiguity to be Successful? A Study of the Links between Tolerance of Ambiguity, Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction.” In Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Jääskeläinen and I. Lacruz, 77–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2012. “Translation Psychology.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 31. Edited by Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, 191–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jennings, David, and Stuart Wattam. 1998. Decision Making: An Integrated Approach. London: Financial Times/Pitman.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing Processes. Translated by G. S. Koby, G. M. Shreve, K. Mischerikow, and S. Litzer. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André. 1992. Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian. 1994. “Discourse, Ideology and Translation.” In Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. Edited by R. de Beaugrande, A. Shunnaq, and M. Helmy Heliel, 23–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 2005. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2010. Revising and Editing for Translators. 2nd ed. St Jerome: Manchester.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orasanu, Judith, and Terry Connolly. 1995. “The Reinvention of Decision Making.” In Decision Making In Action: Models and Methods. Edited by G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok, 3–20. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
PACTE. 2008. “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: ‘Knowledge of Translation’ and ‘Efficacy of the Translation Process.” In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates. Edited by J. Kearns, 104–126. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Problems and Translation Competence.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies. Edited by C. Alvstad, A. Hild, and E. Tiselius, 317–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prassl, Friederike. 2010. “Translators’ Decision-making Processes in Research and Knowledge Integration.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research. Edited by S. Göpferich, F. Alves, and I. M. Mees, 57–81. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1992. “Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Edited by C. Dollerup, and A. Loddegaard, 279–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach.” Meta 48 (4): 481–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 2014. “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From Mental to Socio-cognitive Processes.” In Minding Translation, ed. by R. Muñoz, special issue of MonTI 11: 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Eric.-Emmanuel. 2001. Monsieur Ibrahim et les Fleurs du Coran. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
. 2014. Is-Sur Ibrahim u l-Fjuri fil-Koran [Monsieur Ibrahim et les Fleurs du Coran]. Translated by T. Aquilina. Rabat: Faraxa Publishing.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Ros, and Nicholas de Lange. 2006. “A Dialogue: on a Translator’s Interventions’. In The Translator as Writer. Edited by S. Bassnett and P. Bush, 9–19. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Shih, Claire Y. 2015. “Problem-solving and Decision-making in Translation Revision: Two Case Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 16 (1): 69–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2000. “Uncertainty in Translation Processes.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jääskeläinen, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1994. “A Framework for Decision-making in Translation.” Target 6 (2): 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Decision Making in Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Edited by M. A. Baker, 57–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar