Cover not available

Article published In: Developments in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Kairong Xiao and Sandra L. Halverson
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2] 2021
► pp. 356–377

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Dialogue interpreting, self-revision in translation and post-editing

Literalization in the self-revision process of novice and experienced biomedical translators

ORCiD logo with link | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
Published online: 22 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00082.val
Abstract
This paper explores decision-making in translation focusing on the self-revision process of novice and experienced translators of biomedical content in the English to European Portuguese language pair. Adopting process- and product-oriented methods, an experiment was designed to study thirty translations of a 244-word instructional text about a medical device intended for health professionals. The data elicited from fifteen novice translators and fifteen experienced translators included keylogging and screen-recording data. These data were triangulated and analyzed to describe the translation solutions in the interim and final versions in response to problematic translation units and to test if, during the self-revision process, novice and experienced translators tend to proceed from more literal versions to less literal ones, or vice versa, in biomedical translation. Contrary to expectations, the analysis points towards a literalization phenomenon in the translators’ processes. The data also indicates that the tendency to proceed from less literal versions to more literal ones is more pronounced in novice translators than in experienced translators. The findings reported here shed new light on the self-revision processes of novice and experienced translators and their relationship with prevailing translation norms, and enable us to better understand the practices in place in professional biomedical translation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and research objectives
  • 2.Literal translation hypothesis
  • 3.Methods and materials
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Translation task and elicitation material
    • 3.3Data collection methods
    • 3.4Methodology for data analysis
      • 3.4.1Identification of problematic translation units in the process data
      • 3.4.2Classification of the interim versions and target texts
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.1Novice translators
    • 4.2Experienced translators
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Alves, F., & Vale, D. C. (2011). On drafting and revision in translation: a corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition, 1(1), 105–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balling, L. W., Hvelplund, K. T., & Sjørup, A. C. (2014). Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta, 59(2), 234–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, C. (2017). Decision-making and alternative translation solutions in the literary translation process: A case study. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(2), 279–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. The Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. 21–27 May 2012, Istanbul, Turkey, 2–6.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, M., & Dragsted, B. (2012). Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. TC3: Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition, 2(1), 127–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (2011). Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 23–35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Memes of translation (Revised). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. (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 diss.). Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen.
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B., & Tiselius, E. (2014). Retrospection in interpreting and translation: explaining the process? MonTI. Monografías de traducción e interpretación, 11, 177–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
European Parliament, C. of the E. U. (2007). Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, Series L 169, 21–55. Retrieved from [URL]
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005). A corpus-based study of loan words in original and translated texts. In P. Danielsson & M. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings from the corpus linguistics 2005 conference series 1 (pp. 1–19).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gambier, Y. (2016). Translation strategies and tactics. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies online (pp. 412–418). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göpferich, S. (2010a). Data documentation and data accessibility in translation process research. The Translator, 16(1), 93–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). The translation of instructive texts from a cognitive perspective: novices and professionals compared. In S. Göpferich, F. Alves, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), New approaches in translation process research (pp. 5–55). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L. (2015). Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms. Translation Spaces. A Multidisciplinary, Multimedia, and Multilingual Journal of Translation, 4(2), 310–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermans, T. (1999). Translation and normativity. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation and norms (pp. 50–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, B. (2020). How are translation norms negotiated? Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 32(1), 83–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivir, V. (1981). Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. In I. Even-Zohar & G. Toury (Eds.), Theory of translation and intercultural relations [Poetics Today 2:4] (pp. 51–59). Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotze, H. (2021). Translation, language contact and cognition. In F. Alves & A. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 113–131). Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krings, H.-P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and editing for translators (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Revision. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies online. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Revising and editing for translators. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plońska, D. (2014). Strategies of translation. Psychology of Language and Communication, 18(1), 67–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Płońska, D. (2016). Problems of literality in French-Polish translations of a newspaper article. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 279–291). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, A. (2017). A typology of translation solutions (draft). Retrieved November 1, 2017, from [URL]
Robert, I. (2008). Translation revision procedures: An explorative study. In P. Boulogne (Ed.), Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. Retrieved from [URL]
Robert, I., Ureel, J. J. J., Remael, A., & Rigouts Terryn, A. (2017). Conceptualizing translation revision competence: a pilot study on the ‘fairness and tolerance’ attitudinal component. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 18(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research methodologies in translation studies. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M. (2013). Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 81, 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In U. Germann, M. Carl, S. O’Brien, P. Koehn, G. Sanchis-Trilles, F. Casacuberta, & R. Hill (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation (HaCaT) (pp. 29–37). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Balling, L. W., & Carl, M. (2016). Word translation entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 183–210). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serbina, T., Hintzen, S., Niemietz, P., & Neumann, S. (2017). Changes of word class during translation-Insights from a combined analysis of corpus, keystroke logging and eye-tracking data. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling oftranslation and interpreting (pp. 177–208). Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2), 405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., Mäkisalo, J., & Immonen, S. (2008). The translation process – interplay between literal rendering and a search for sense. Across Languages and Cultures, 9(1), 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valdez, S. (2019). Perceived and observed translational norms in biomedical translation in the contemporary Portuguese translation market: a quantitative and qualitative product- and process-oriented study. Phd diss., University of Lisbon and Ghent. Retrieved from [URL]
WHO. (2021). Medical device – Full definition. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from [URL]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Hegrenæs, Claudia Förster & Sandra Louise Halverson
2025. What characterizes default translations? Exploring the default translation hypothesis. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zimányi, Krisztina
2025. Towards a Pedagogical Framework for Developing Problem-Solving Competence Through Tiered Reflective Practice in Introductory Translation Courses at an Undergraduate Programme in Mexico. In Multilingual Education Yearbook 2025 [Multilingual Education Yearbook, ], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Valdez, Susana
2022. On the reception of biomedical translation: comparing and contrasting health professionals’ evaluation of translation options and expectations about the safe use of medical devices in Portuguese. The Translator 28:4 ► pp. 538 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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