Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:2 (2019) ► pp.187–210

‘Default’ translation

A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies

| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Investigating translation and interpreting from the perspective of a non-computational theory of cognition requires continuing development of the requisite theoretical constructs. As part of the ongoing elaboration of this alternative approach, this paper proposes the construct of ‘default translation’ as a specific phase of translation production. This phase is characterized by rapid, relatively uninterrupted production and in this paper the kinds of knowledge accessed in this phase are outlined. The proposal is that default translation involves primarily bilingual linguistic knowledge (including communication norms), metalinguistic knowledge, and a specific understanding of the translation/interpreting task. The paper suggests a means of identifying the phase in process data. Finally, the construct is positioned relative to the idea of ‘literal translation’ and a proposal for terminological use is given in the concluding remarks.
Keywords: default translation, literal translation, cognitive translation and interpreting studies
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory remarks and rationale
  • 2.Default translation: The knowledge base and key processing properties
    • 2.1Bilingual knowledge in cognitive networks
      • 2.1.1Types of knowledge
      • 2.1.2Network change over time
    • 2.2Task conception
  • 3.Empirical investigations
  • 4.‘Default’ or ‘literal’ translation
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00023.hal
References (72)
References
Balling, Laura, Kristian T. Hvelplund, and Annette C. Sjørup. 2014. “Evidence of Parallel Processing during Translation.” Meta 59 (2): 234–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bangelore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm. 2016. “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 211–238. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Roger. 1991. Translation and Translating. Theory and Practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly, and Martin J. Pickering. 2017. “An Experimental Approach to Linguistic Representation.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 401: e282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc and Wouter Duyck. 2010. “Is it Time to Leave Behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of Bilingual Language Processing after Fifteen Years of Service?” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (3): 359–371. 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, and Martin Kay. 2011. “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4): 952–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Mortiz J. Schaeffer. 2018. “The Development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method.” Translation, Cognition and Behavior 1 (1): 168–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz J. Schaeffer. 2017a. “Models of the Translation Process.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. S. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 50–70. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Why Translation is Difficult: A Corpus-based Study of Non-literality in Post-editing and From-scratch Translation. Hermes 561: 43–57.Google Scholar
. 2017c. “Measuring Translation Literality.” In Translation in Transition. Between Cognition, Computing, and Technology. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 81–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. An Introduction. New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Anette M. B. 1993. “Word-type Effects in Bilingual Processing Tasks. Support for a Mixed Representational System.” In The Bilingual Lexicon. Edited by R. Schreuder and B. Weltens, 27–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992a. “Bilingual Lexical Representation: A Closer Look at Conceptual Representations.” In Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Edited by R. Frost and L. Katz, 389–412. Amsterdam: North Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992b. “Determinants of Word Translation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18 (5): 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2010. “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Unchartered Territory.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation. Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems. An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: CBS.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 2013. “Bilingualism. A Short Introduction.” In The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Edited by F. Grosjean and P. Li, 5–25. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2018. Metalinguistic Knowledge/Awareness/Ability and Translation: Some Questions. Hermes 571: 11–28.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Developing a Cognitive-semantic Model: Magnetism, Gravitational Pull, and Questions of Data and Method.” In Empirical Translation Studies. New Methods and Theoretical Traditions. Edited by G. de Sutter, M.-A. Lefer and I. Delaere, 9–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015b. “The Status of Contrastive Data in Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures. 16 (2), 163–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” Cognitive linguistics and translation: advances in some theoretical models and applications. Edited by A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxe, 33–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and Method.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone, 349–369. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Translations as Institutional Facts. An Ontology for ‘Assumed Translation’”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Edited by A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni, 343–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. 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): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, and Stella Neumann. 2016. “Dynamic Pause Assessment of Keystroke Logged Data for the Detection of Complexity in Translation and Monolingual Text Production.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity, 98–103.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T. 2017. “Four Fundamental Types of Reading during Translation.” In Translation in Transition. Between Cognition, Computing, and Technology. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2016. “Are Gaze Shifts a Key to a Translator’s Text Segmentation?” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 149–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian T. Hvelplund Jensen. 2008. “Eye Movement Behaviour Across Four Different Types of Reading Tasks.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
John, Bonnie E. 1996. “Typist: A Theory of Performance in Skilled Typing. Human-Computer Interaction 11 (4): 321–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Nan, and Kenneth I. Forster. 2001. “Cross-language Priming Asymmetries in Lexical Decision and Episodic Recognition.” Journal of Memory and Language 441: 32–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone. 2012. “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Congitve Effort in Post-editing: A Case Study.” In Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice. Edited by S. O’Brien, M. Simard and L. Specia, 21–30. Stroudsburg, PA: AMTA.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. “Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language. Edited by H.-J. Schmid, 39–56. Washington, DC: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1989/1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vols. 1–21. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Macizo Soria, Pedro, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina. 2006. “Reading for Understanding and Reading for Translation: Do They Involve the Same Processes?” Cognition 991: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2017. “Does Translation Involve Structural Priming?” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (8): 1575–1589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2011. “Translation Universals.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Edited by K. Malmkjær and K. Windel, 83–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marin García, Álvaro. 2017. Theoretical Hedging: The Scope of Knowledge in Translation Process Research. PhD dissertation. Kent State University.Google Scholar
Martín de León, Celia. 2010. “Metaphorical Models of Translation. Transfer vs. Imitation and Action. In Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors. Edited by J. St. André, 75–108. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2017. “Looking toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 555–572. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “Of Minds and Men—Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. ‘Processes of what Models? On the Cognitive Indivisibility of Translation Acts and Events’. Translation Spaces 5 (1): 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de León. 2018. “ Fascinatin’ Rhythm—and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes.” Hermes 571: 1–19.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo and José Mª. Cardona Guerra. 2018. “Translating in Fits and Starts. Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Presas Corbella, Marisa, and Celia Martín de León. 2014. “The Role of Implicit Theories in the Non-Expert Translation Process.” In Minding Translation. Edited by R. Muñoz, 273–302. MonTI, special issue 1. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman. 1960. Word & Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenqvist, Simon. 2015. Developing Pause Thresholds for Keystroke Logging Analysis. B. A. thesis. University of Umeå, Sweden. Available at [URL]
Ruiz Navarro, Carmen, Natalia Paredes Jiménez, Pedro Macizo Soria, and Mª. Teresa Bajo Molina. 2008. “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica 128 (3): 490–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz. 2013. The Ideal Literal Translation Hypothesis: The role of shared representations during translation. PhD dissertation. University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2017a. “Language Processing and Translation.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo and S. Hofmann, 117–154. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl. 2017b. “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-editing.” Proceedings of MT Summit XVI, Vol. 11: 18–22.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Shared Representations and the Translation Process. A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. 8 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle 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 J., Kevin Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kristen Malmkjær. 2017. “Reading for Translation.” In Translation in Transition. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen and B. Mesa, 18–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonbaert, Sophie, Walter Duyck, Marc Brysbaert, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2009. “Semantic and Translation Priming from a First Language to a Second and Back: Making sense of the findings.” Memory and Cognition 37 (5): 569–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence. 2011. Embodied Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Isabel Lacruz. 2017. “Aspects of a Cognitive model of Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 127–143. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Christine Schaeffner, Joseph H. Danks, and Jennifer Griffin. 1993. “Is there a special kind of “reading” for translation? An empirical investigation of reading in the translation process.” Target 5 (1): 21–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Gary F., and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 21st edition. Dallas: SIL International. Online version at [URL]
St. André, James. 2010. Thinking through Translation with Metaphors. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Timarová, Šárka, Barbara Dragsted, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2011. “Time Lag in Translation and Interpreting: A methodological exploration.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Edited by C. Alvstad, A. Hild and E. Tiselius, 121–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Western Metaphorical Discourses Implicit in Translation Studies”. In Thinking through Translation with Metaphors, edited by James St. André, 109–143. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Vandevoorde, Lore, and Els Lefever. 2018. “Keen on cognates or afraid of false friends. Cognate ratios in translated and non-translated Dutch”. Paper presented at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Verhagen, Véronique, Maria Mos, Ad Backus, and Joost Schilperoord. 2018. “Predictive Language Processing Revealing Usage-based Variation.” Language and Cognition 101: 329–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Jacob, Gunnar, Moritz Jonas Schaeffer, Katharina Oster & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2024. The psycholinguistics of shining-through effects in translation: cross-linguistic structural priming or serial lexical co-activation?. Applied Psycholinguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2023. Chapter 12. The Monitor Model and its misconceptions. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2023. Empirical translation process research. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:2 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo
Deilen, Silvana, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Michael Carl
2023. Cognitive aspects of compound translation: Insights into the relation between implicitation and cognitive effort from a translation process perspective. Ampersand 11 ► pp. 100156 ff. DOI logo
Shreve, Gregory M.
2023. Chapter 2. The strange attractions of translation. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Alves, Fabio & Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
2022. The Translation Process. In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Heilmann, Arndt, Jonas Freiwald, Stella Neumann & Zoë Miljanović
2022. Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
García, Álvaro Marín
2021. Bridging the epistemological gap. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Joseph V. Casillas
2021. Literal is not always easier. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.