Cover not available

In:Eye Tracking and Multidisciplinary Studies on Translation
Edited by Callum Walker and Federico M. Federici
[Benjamins Translation Library 143] 2018
► pp. 121–143

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 7
Problem solving in the translation of linguistic metaphors from Chinese into Portuguese

An empirical-experimental study

ORCiD logo with link
Published online: 16 October 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.143.07sch
Abstract
This empirical-experimental study investigates the cognitive effort in the problem solving process guiding decision making in the translation of linguistic metaphors in a journalistic text by twelve professional translators from Chinese into Portuguese. The tools for the collection of the data were retrospective verbal protocols, and the Translog II program (Carl 2012), which logs keystrokes, mouse, and eye movements connected to a Tobii T120 eye tracker. Questionnaires were also used. For the quantitative analysis, a linear mixed effects regression model (LMER) was applied to the data set to indirectly measure cognitive effort for linguistic metaphor translation. The dependent variable was total production time. The controversial predictors were type of expression (metaphorical or literal), and translation strategy. For the qualitative analysis, retrospective protocols were analyzed for subjects’ verbalization of problem solving decisions regarding the linguistic metaphor under study. For the analysis and discussion, quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated, whereby parameters are proposed in order to enable the measurement of the problem solving process for the translation of linguistic metaphors. The outcomes of this study demonstrate that (1) there is no expression type effect on total production time, and (2) the predictor translation strategy is relevant to production time, which was confirmed by the retrospective protocol. This study contributes to Chinese Portuguese Translation Process Research methodologies, as well as to a deeper understanding of the complexity of cognitive processes underlying the translation of metaphors from Chinese into Portuguese, which is anticipated to contribute significantly to the teaching of metaphor translation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Equipment and analysis tools
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Task execution settings
    • 3.4Data quality
    • 3.5Experimental text
    • 3.6Methodology of analysis
  • 4.Data analysis and discussion of results
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (47)
References
Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2000. In Others Words: A Course Book on Translation. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balling, Laura W. 2013. “Reading Authentic Texts: What Counts as Cognate?” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (3): 637–653.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balling, Laura W., and Michael Carl. 2014. “Production Time Across Languages and Tasks: A Large-scale Analysis using the CRITT Translation Process Database.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 239–268. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steven Walker. 2014. “lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4.” R package version 3.1.2. [URL] (accessed 14 April, 2018).
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Process of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore. 2016. “The CRITT and Translation Process Database.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 13–56. Heidelberg and New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Xiasojing. 2009. Chinese Metaphors in Political Discourse. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Muncie: Ball State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dagut, Menachem B. 1976. “Can Metaphor Be Translated?” Babel 12 (1): 21–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
da Silva, Igor Antonio Lourenco. 2012. (Des)compactação de Significados e Esforço Cognitivo no Processo Tradutório: um estudo da metáfora gramatical na construção do texto traduzido. PhD Thesis, Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2012.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpretation, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 25–56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2010. “Coordination of Reading and Writing Process in Translation.” In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone, 41–62. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed). 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Josephine M. Bogdanovich, Jeffrey R. Sykes, and Dale J. Barr. 1997. “Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language 37: 141–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. “The Psycholinguistic of Metaphor.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (2): 72–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, John R. 2006. “New Directions in Writing Theory.” In Handbook of Writing Research, ed. by Charles A. MacArthur, Steve Graham and Jill Fitzgerald, 28–40. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: an Eye-Tracking and Key-logging Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyönä, Jukka, Robert F. Lorch, and Mike Rink. 2003. “Eye Movements Measures to Study Global Text Processing.” In The Mind’s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, ed. by Ralph Radach, Jukka Hyönä, and Heiner Deubel, 313–334. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2008. “Vision Metaphors for the Intellect: Are They Really Cross-linguistic?” Atlantis 30 (1): 15–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inhoff, Albrecht Werner, Susan D. Lima, and Patrick J. Carroll. 1984. “Contextual Effects on Metaphor Comprehension in Reading.” Memory and Cognition 12 (6): 558–567.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1999. Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: Joensuu University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2014. “The Development and Current State of Translation Process Research.” In The Known Unknowns of Translation Studies, ed. by Elke Brems, Reyne Meylaerts and Luv van Doorslaer, 65–88. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Astrid. 2005. “Coping with Metaphor: A Cognitive Approach to Translating Metaphor.” Hermes 35: 183–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, X. 2011. “Minsheng qiu wen pan zhenggai yingdui molihua tiaozhan.” Yazhou Zhoukan – The International Chinese Newsweekly March 20: 22–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Just, Marcel C., and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: from Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87 (4): 329–354.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2009. “Metaphor, Culture and Discourse: the Pressure of Coherence.” In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 11–24. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Xingshan, Pingping Liu, and Keith Rayner. 2011. “Eye Movement Guidance in Chinese Reading: Is There a Preferred Viewing Location?” Vision Research 51 (10): 1146–1156.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, María Pilar. 1999. “La seguridad del traductor profesional en la traducción a una lengua extranjera.” In Probing the Process in Translation: methods and results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 121–134. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili. 1995. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and its Implications.” In Translation and Meaning 18 (3): 483–495.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martikainen, Kati. 2007. “What Can Translation Reveal of Metaphors? Translation Experiment on the Psychological Reality of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” In Text, Processes, and Corpora: Research Inspired by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, ed. by Riitta Jääskeläinen, Tiina Puurtinen, and Hilkka Stotesbury, 145–159. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Kirsten. 1982. “Metaphor and Translation.” Babel 28 (3): 140–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonald, Scott A., and Richard C. Shillcock. 2003. “Eye Movements Reveal the On-line Computation of Lexical Probabilities During Reading.” Psychological Science 14 (6): 648–652.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter A. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used word in discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Márcia, Igor AL da Silva, Adriana Pagano, Fabio Alves, Ana Luísa V. Leal, Derek F. Wong, Lidia S. Chao, and Paulo Quaresma. 2016. “Cohesive Relations in Text Comprehension and Production: An Exploratory Study Comparing Translation and Post-editing.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, 239–263. Heidelberg and New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharma, Deependra, and Pankaj Madan. 2014. “Influence of Drivers for Store Choice on Store Selection and Loyalty.” In Managing in Recovering Markets, ed. by S. Chatterjee, N. P. Singh, D. P. Goyal and N. Gupta, 343–350. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C. 2013. Cognitive Effort in Metaphor Translation: An Eye-Tracking and Key-logging Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2002. “Metaphoric Expressions in Translation Processes.” Across Language and Cultures 3 (1): 101–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, Raymond. 1981. “The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor Translation.” Poetics Today 2 (4): 73–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/2000. “A Methodology for Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 212–219. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wong, Sum & Qiliang Xu
2025. Mapping metaphor research in translation and interpreting studies: a bibliometric analysis from 1964 to 2023. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 61:4 ► pp. 597 ff. DOI logo
Sekino, Kyoko
2019. Revisão das micro- e macrounidades de tradução na abordagem processual e pragmática da pesquisa de tradução. Domínios de Lingu at gem 13:2 ► pp. 743 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue