Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes

Abstract

that permits insights into the diversity and complexity of translation practice, aspects that cannot really be reconstructed in a laboratory setting.While the specific theoretical foundations of the individual articles in this volume might differ and range from situated cognition and ergonomics to practice theory, they all nonetheless agree on the situatedness of translation, interpreting and related processes, one of the main assumptions of our research. Of particular interest are the processes at the workplace, the actions of those involvedas embedded in a specific environmentand how such workplaces develop over time, i.e., the process dimension of translation work. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to begin with an overview of the notion of the translation/interpreting process in Translation Studies before moving on to introduce and discuss those elements of workplace research that are of relevance for this Special Issue and for contemporary translation studies research. The derivation and diversification of translation process researchInterest in TPR has continued to grow since the first pioneering works emerged in the 1980s (e.g., Gerloff 1986;Krings 1986;Lörscher 1987). The study of translation as a process complements research that focuses on source/target text relationships or the cultural and literary systems of which they form part. TPR applies empirically sound cognitive science approaches to observe and describe translation processes in order to identify patterns in the behaviour of translators/interpreters under different conditions and draw inferences on their cognitive processes. Theories and models initially from the cognitive sciences, cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics in particular are used to describe and explain the connections in this behaviour and obtain a better understanding of translation processes (e.g., Risku 2010;Muñoz 2010a;Martín 2013). TPR looks at factors related to people, tasks and (work) settings, studying, for example, whether bilingual laypersons translate differently to advanced translation students (Hansen 2003); whether and how creativity shows itself in the translation process (Kußmaul 2000;Bayer-Hohenwarter 2009); how contextual information influences translation (Rydning and Lachaud 2010); how reading and writing processes are distributed during translation (Dragsted 2010); or the special challenges faced in sight translation (Shreve, Lacruz, and Angelone 2010).Substantial parts of translation/interpreting processes take place in the brain or, in the case of translation, on the screen and are therefore difficult to observe with the naked eye. Thus, TPR uses various data collection methods (e.g., introspection, EEG measurement, think-aloud protocols, retrospective self-reflection, screen recording, keystroke logging, pupillometry and eye tracking), often in combination, to increase the reliability of the results (cf. triangulation; Alves 2003; Lachaud 2011). In the case of interpreting, separating the process from the

Transitioning from Interdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity in Applied Translation Studies: Towards Transdisciplinary Action Research in Translators’ Workplaces

“…Against this background, it would seem reasonable that the essentially interdisciplinary research into translation that is being done should itself be conducted at least partly in situ. The gradual emergence of a situated 4EA framework over the last 20 years has witnessed cognitive translatology and other applied branches of translation studies slowly going out into "the field" (Risku, Rogl and Milošević 2019) to explore workplace-based translation processes and practices, though the phenomenon is not yet as widespread as it might and should be. In addition to the socio-cognitive approach adopted within the above-mentioned theoretical frameworks, Risku, Rogl and Milošević (2020) add sociological and ergonomic layers to their taxonomy of approaches and theoretical frameworks in which translation-oriented workplace research is taking place.…”

“…However, it is only quite recently that workplace-based, organization-oriented translation research has gained impetus in applied translation studies, with approaches ranging from the cognitive and socio-cognitive (e.g. Risku, Rogl and Milošević 2019) to the sociological (e.g. Buzelin 2007;Olohan 2017) and ergonomic (e.g.…”

Käännöstiede ja sen menetelmät

“…Viime aikojen sosiokognitiivinen suuntaus, joka näkee kognition kehollisena ja tilannesidonnaisena, tarkastelee käännösprosessin tutkimuksessa "laajennettua kääntämistä" (engl. extended translation) ottaen huomioon kääntäjien teknologisen ja sosiaalisen työskentely-ympäristön, myös ergonomian (Risku, Rogl & Milosevic 2017). Teknologian kehityksen myötä omiksi ja kasvaviksi alueiksi ovat muodostuneet av-kääntämisen tutkimus ja käännösteknologia.…”

Sociological approaches to translation technology

“…Artefacts used for administrative purposes included physical job lists, files, purchase orders, checklists and electronic databases and file archives, with archival needs met by various backup and storage systems. Risku and colleagues have continued to attend to the materially mediated processes and situated cognition of translation (Risku and Windhager 2013;Risku 2016;Risku, Rogl, and Milosevic 2017).…”