|Title:||Defining phases of the translation process : revision as a case in point|
|Authors :||Massey, Gary|
Hunziker Heeb, Andrea
|Conference details:||2. Sektionentagung der Gesellschaft für angewandte Linguistik e.V., Aachen, Germany, September 19–20, 2013|
|License (according to publishing contract) :||Licence according to publishing contract|
|Type of review:||Not specified|
|Subjects :||Revision; Translation; Self-revision; Workplace|
|Subject (DDC) :||418.02: Translating and interpreting|
|Abstract:||Krings’ (1986) description of translation in terms of three phases (Vorlauf, Hauptlauf, Nachlauf) has provided a framework for considering the process both from an external perspective, as part of a system (e.g. Schubert 2009), and internally, as a cognitive activity (e.g. Englund Dimitrova 2005; Göpferich 2008). In the latter case, comparisons have been made between translators assumed to have different levels of competence, and evidence has been found to support the claim that professionals differ from students in every phase of the process (e.g. how quickly they orient themselves to a translation task, how smoothly they produce target text, and how much they revise; see Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2013). Empirical translation studies has been at the forefront of applying new technology in attempts to gain richer descriptions of the internal or cognitive process. For example, the duration of activities during, before, and after target text production can be monitored with non-invasive techniques such as screen recording, keylogging, and eye tracking. Because of the measurement precision provided by such technology, the definitions of these phases, and indeed their usefulness as theoretical constructs, can be called into question. In this paper, we highlight the problematic nature of these constructs by focusing on revision activities in translation processes. In doing so, we also address the question of what a draft translation is, especially in the context of professional translation involving TM and/or MT support. The data is drawn from the corpus of our longitudinal Capturing Translation Processes (CTP) project, in which translators with various levels of experience have been monitored while translating in the controlled setting of our usability lab or at their usual workplaces. Analyses of keylogging and screen recording data reveal that revisions are actually a more prominent feature of what has been termed the drafting phase than of the post-drafting phase. Since many of the processes in our corpus reveal relatively few substantial changes in the post-drafting phase, such self-revision may be less important in the cognitive translation process than sometimes suggested. This in turn has potential implications for the revision-based “controlling influences” (Schubert 2009) of the external translation process.|
|Organisational Unit:||Institute of Translation and Interpreting (IUED)|
|Publication type:||Conference Other|
|Appears in Collections:||Publikationen Angewandte Linguistik|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.