Expertise And Explicitation in the Translation Process (Benjamins Translation Library : Est)

Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Benjamins Translation Library The Benjamins Translation Library aims to stimulate research and training in translation and interpreting studies. The Library provides a forum for a variety of approaches (which may sometimes be conflicting) in a socio-cultural, historical, theoretical, applied and pedagogical context. The Library includes scholarly works, reference works, post-graduate text books and readers in the English language.

EST Subseries The European Society for Translation Studies (EST) Subseries is a publication channel within the Library to optimize EST’s function as a forum for the translation and interpreting research community. It promotes new trends in research, gives more visibility to young scholars’ work, publicizes new research methods, makes available documents from EST, and reissues classical works in translation studies which do not exist in English or which are now out of print.

General editor Gideon Toury

Associate editor Miriam Shlesinger

Tel Aviv University

Bar Ilan University

Advisory board Marilyn Gaddis Rose

Alet Kruger

Mary Snell-Hornby

Binghamton University

UNISA

University of Vienna

Yves Gambier

José Lambert

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit

Turku University

Catholic University of Leuven

University of Joensuu

Daniel Gile

Franz Pöchhacker

Lawrence Venuti

Université Lumière Lyon 2

University of Vienna

Temple University

Ulrich Heid

Rosa Rabadán

Wolfram Wilss

University of Stuttgart

University of León

University of Saarbrücken

W. John Hutchins

Roda Roberts

Judith Woodsworth

University of East Anglia

University of Ottawa

Zuzana Jettmarová

Juan C. Sager

Mt. Saint Vincent University Halifax

Charles University of Prague

UMIST Manchester

Werner Koller Bergen University

Volume 64 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process by Birgitta Englund Dimitrova

Sue Ellen Wright Kent State University

Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Birgitta Englund Dimitrova Stockholm University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam
/
Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Birgitta Englund Dimitrova Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process / Birgitta Englund Dimitrova. p. cm. (Benjamins Translation Library, issn 0929–7316 ; v. 64) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Translating and interpreting. I. Title. II. Series. P306.E566 2005 418’.02--dc22 isbn 90 272 1670 3 (Hb; alk. paper)

2005050764

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

For my parents

Table of contents

List of tables, figures, and charts

xiii

List of abbreviations

xvii

Acknowledgements

xix

Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Translation as text (re)production 2.1 Theoretical context 9 2.2 Ability, competence and expertise in translation 10 2.2.1 Translation ability 10 2.2.2 Translator competence 12 2.2.3 Expertise in translation and other domains 16 2.3 Performing a translation task 19 2.3.1 Modelling the translation process as a text production process 19 2.3.2 Overall time: The phases of the task and process profiles 21 2.3.3 Planning the task 23 2.3.4 Writing the translated text 25 2.3.4.1 Strategies, automated processing and segmentation of the process 25 2.3.4.2 Segmenting in monolingual writing 29 2.3.4.3 Segmenting the writing process in translation 29 2.3.5 Revising the text 30 2.4 The text in the process 33 2.4.1 Explicitation in translation 33 2.4.1.1 Explicitation as a textual phenomenon 33 2.4.1.2 Discussion 38

1

9

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

2.5

2.4.2 Explicitness of cohesion 41 2.4.3 Translation norms 44 2.4.3.1 Norms in translation studies 44 2.4.3.2 Translation norms for different kinds of translations 46 2.4.3.3 Studying translation norms 48 2.4.4 Processing the text 51 2.4.4.1 Literal translation in the process 51 2.4.4.2 Automaticity and depth of processing 53 2.4.4.3 Processing implicit logical links 56 2.4.4.4 Translation norms and decisions in the translation process 59 Research design 60

Chapter 3 Methods and data 3.1 Methodological considerations 65 3.2 Concurrent verbalizations or think-aloud protocols (TAPs) 68 3.2.1 The theory and the method 68 3.2.2 The validity of the method 70 3.3 Computer logging of the writing process 75 3.4 The data for the study 76 3.4.1 Participants 76 3.4.2 Source text and translation brief 78 3.4.3 Procedure and data collection 79 3.4.3.1 Collecting the data 79 3.4.3.2 The think-aloud protocols and transcription conventions 80 3.4.3.3 ScriptLog logs 81 3.4.3.4 Other data 82 3.5 Coding and analyzing the data and reporting the results 82 Chapter 4 Performing the translation task 4.1 Overall research questions 85 4.2 Task performance: Temporal characteristics 85 4.2.1 Research questions, data and methods 85 4.2.2 Results 86

65

85

Table of contents

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Initial planning of the task 89 4.3.1 Research questions, data and methods 89 4.3.2 Results 89 4.3.2.1 Time and approach 89 4.3.2.2 Task definition: verbalizations during the pre-writing phase 91 4.3.2.3 Correlation between task definition and amount of translation experience 93 Segmentation of the writing process 96 4.4.1 Hypotheses, data and method 96 4.4.2 Results 99 Revising – evaluating and making changes in the target text 106 4.5.1 Research questions 106 4.5.2 Task definition of revising 107 4.5.2.1 Data and methods 107 4.5.2.2 Goals and plans for revising as part of the writing phase 107 4.5.2.3 Goals and plans for the post-writing phase 110 4.5.3 Revisions from a product perspective 113 4.5.3.1 Data and method 113 4.5.3.2 Revisions during the writing phase 116 4.5.3.3 Revisions during the post-writing phase 120 4.5.4 Problem representations in revising 121 4.5.4.1 Data and methods 121 4.5.4.2 Problem representations for revisions during the writing phase 124 4.5.4.3 Problem representations for revisions during the post-writing phase 129 Summary and conclusions 134 4.6.1 Time, overall approach and distribution into phases 135 4.6.2 Initial planning 138 4.6.3 Text generation: Segmentation of the writing process 140 4.6.4 Revising 142 4.6.5 Norms in the process 149 4.6.6 Process profiles 151





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Chapter 5 Explicitation in the translation process 5.1 Research questions, data and methods 155 5.2 Russian and Swedish text connectives 158 5.2.1 Cohesion in Russian and Swedish 158 5.2.2 Implicit (asyndetic) additive coordination in Russian and Swedish 162 5.2.3 Implicit contrasts in Russian and Swedish 165 5.2.4 Expressing anteriority in Russian and Swedish and implicit temporal and causal linking 168 5.2.5 Textual characteristics of the Russian ST 170 5.3 Implicit additive links in the ST 172 5.3.1 The ST segments 172 5.3.2 Analysis of product data 174 5.3.3 Analysis of process data 176 5.3.3.1 Deciding to explicitate 177 5.3.3.2 Is the implicit additive link a problem in the translation process? 179 5.4 Implicit contrastive links in the ST 185 5.4.1 The ST segments 185 5.4.2 Analysis of product data 188 5.4.3 Analysis of process data 189 5.4.3.1 Non-problematic decisions 189 5.4.3.2 Problems in the process 191 5.4.4 No connective – no contrast expressed? 194 5.4.4.1 Repetitions, whims and happy coincidences 194 5.4.4.2 Contradicting the Tsar’s orders – semi-legal action? 199 5.5 Temporal and causal links 204 5.5.1 The ST segments 204 5.5.2 Analysis of product data 207 5.5.3 Analysis of process data 209 5.5.3.1 Non-problematic decisions 209 5.5.3.2 Problems in the process 211 5.5.3.3 Other cases of explicitation of implicit causal links 217 5.6 Summary and conclusions 219

155

Table of contents

Chapter 6 Summing up and discussing the implications 6.1 Summing up 229 6.2 Features of expertise in the translation process 230 6.2.1 Planning, text generation and revision 230 6.2.2 Literal and non-literal translation procedures in the process 232 6.2.3 Learning by doing 235 6.3 Explicitation – a universal in translation? 236 6.4 The validity and generalizability of the results 239 6.5 Implications for teaching translation 242

229

Appendix 1. The Russian source text

245

Appendix 2. English translation of the Russian source text

247

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants

249

Appendix 4. TT versions analyzed in Chapter 5

263

References

271

Index

287



List of tables, figures, and charts

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Studies presenting evidence of explicitation phenomena. The participants. Data collection sessions: number of occasions and location. Transcription conventions. Size of transcriptions, in number of characters, with and without spaces, and in number of words. Symbols and conventions in the ScriptLog excerpts. Time spent on the task and its phases and subphases, individual level (minutes). Time spent on the task and distribution into phases, group level (minutes). Time spent on the task and distribution into phases, subgroup level (minutes). Relative distribution of time spent on different phases, individual level. Categories of verbalizations during the pre-writing phase: mean number and relative proportion, group level. Categories of verbalizations during the pre-writing phase: mean number and relative proportion, subgroup level. Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, individual level. Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, group level. Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, subgroup level. Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, individual level. Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, group level.

                

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

. . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. .

. .

Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, subgroup level. Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first and second 50% of segments, individual level. Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first and second 50% of segments, group level. Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first and second 50% of segments, subgroup level. Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, writing phase, individual level. Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, group level. Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, subgroup level. Revisions in the writing phase (categories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Syntactic revisions in the writing phase (categories and subcategories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Revisions in the post-writing phase (categories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Syntactic revisions in the post-writing phase (categories and subcategories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), group level. Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), subgroup level. Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the post-writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), group level. Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the postwriting phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), subgroup level. Asyndetic coordination in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level. Asyndetic coordination in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level.

          

 

 

 

List of tables, figures, and charts

. . . . . . .

Length of pause immediately preceding first writing of translation of implicit additive link (ScriptLog data, individual level). Implicit contrasts in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level. Implicit contrasts in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level. Overview of participants’ translations of key words of sentences B7 and B8. Translations of polulegal’no. Implicit temporal and causal links in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level. Implicit temporal and causal links in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level.

      

Figures . . .

Model of the writing process. Methods in research into the translation process. Christian’s (PR) writing of sentence A2.

  

Charts . . . . . . . .

Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, group level. Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, subgroup level. Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, group level. Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, subgroup level. Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the writing phase: proportions, group level. Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the writing phase: proportions, subgroup level. Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the postwriting phase: proportions, group level. Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the postwriting phase: proportions, subgroup level.

       



List of abbreviations

L1 L2 LS LTM PR STM SL ST TA TAPs TL TS TT

first language second language language student Long Term Memory professional translator Short Term Memory source language source text think-aloud think-aloud-protocols target language translation student target text

Acknowledgements

This study has been financed by grants from the Swedish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Swedish Research Council and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary foundation. I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to discuss parts of this study with colleagues in various departments and networks and in this way to receive feedback from representatives of many disciplines. Thanks to: the Centre for Research on Bilingualism at Stockholm University and Professor Kenneth Hyltenstam; the Stockholm-Uppsala Research program “Translation and Interpreting – a Meeting between Languages and Cultures” with its project leaders Professor Lennart Elmevik, Professor Brynja Svane and Professor Erling Wande and all its participants; Ewa Turczynska-Foks for transcribing the think-aloud data; the research network EXPERTISE, initiated by Antin Fougner Rydning from Oslo University, and its participants from the start Riita Jääskeläinen, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, Kerstin Jonasson, Paul Kussmaul, Beate Trandem, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit; the research network TRAPROS (Translation Process Research in Sweden) with its members Alexander Künzli, Ulf Norberg and Morena Azbel Schmidt; Sven Gustavsson and Cecilia Alvstad for comments on earlier versions; two anonymous reviewers for very valuable suggestions; Katherine Stuart for improving my English. My special thanks go to Alexander Künzli, for his meticulous reading of various versions of the text, and for important insights into the methodology, theory, and other aspects of research. I would also like to thank my colleagues at TÖI, the Institute for Interpretation and Translation Studies at Stockholm University, and its director Dr Gunnar Lemhagen, for giving me extraordinary possibilities to implement and thus validate the results from this study in the various courses and translator training programs offered by TÖI. A very special word of thanks goes to each of the nine participants in this study – their participation made it possible. Last but not least, I want to thank my family, Minko, Nikolaj and Anton, who are always there for me.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Translation has always been important in the history of written language and has played a decisive role in the historical development of many languages and literatures. Still, it is probably no exaggeration to say that it has never been more widespread and significant as a communicative activity than in today’s information society, and there is no reason to believe that its importance will diminish. In new and old types of communication media, texts of various kinds are written and/or spoken, and quite often translated, by man or machine, in spoken or written form, to be made available to new readers in various forms: printed and published, on a screen, on paper, etc. All kinds of texts are translated: serious and not-so-serious literature, language for specific purposes for specialists and for the general public, spoken and written texts, well-written texts and texts of poor quality. Translation is a vital part of international trade and co-operation and absolutely necessary for international organizations, such as the UN and the EU. The steady growth in the number of texts being translated is leading to a growing professionalization of the job of translator, as well as its diversification into specialities, such as subtitler, localizer, etc. An increasing number of people are engaged as professionals in such work, and together with the expansion of university education in most countries, this has resulted in the establishment internationally of a large number of translator training programs of various length and character. In this context, a central issue is the translator’s professional knowledge and competence. Although very often other professional categories are also involved and influence the final shape of the text, such as specialists and terminologists, editors, revisers and publishers, the person who translates a text obviously plays an important role in the whole process of producing the translated text. The translator produces a target text (TT) on the basis of a source text (ST), and the translator’s competence in various areas, as well as previous experience in translation, will have a decisive influence on the translation process and its outcome, the TT. The present study focuses on the issue of what characterizes the translation process of individuals with different



Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

amounts of experience in translation, and how professional experience, and possibly expertise, is reflected in this process. Translation is a language processing and text production task involving two different languages: the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). It is cognitively complex, since it involves understanding texts in the SL, sometimes of a highly specialized nature, and producing on the basis of the ST, a text in the TL that can be accepted as a (translated) text in the TL linguistic community. This means of course that translating requires linguistic competence in both the SL and the TL, and frequently some competence in various other areas, such as law, medicine or technology, depending on the subject matter treated in the text. It also means that translating as a communicative act is influenced by socio-culturally determined views and conceptions, concerning both what texts can and should look like, and what translated texts can and should look like. These aspects of translation have been studied already for quite some time within translation studies, drawing upon analyses of both translated texts and other types of data. A fundamental theoretical concept here is translation norm (Toury 1980, 1995; Chesterman 1997). Despite the growing professionalization of translation, it is still a professional area with fuzzy boundaries and a variety of possible entries apart from the ”obvious” option of completing a translator training program of longer or shorter duration. It is not uncommon that people without specific translator training are engaged to perform translation tasks. Indeed, this is the way into the profession for many translators. In many countries, specific translator training programs have been set up only recently, or are still in the process of being set up, but texts have nevertheless been translated and published widely for a long time in those countries as well. These texts are translated by people with knowledge of the source and target languages, but with considerable differences in experience in translation. Taking languages at university, spending time abroad for study or work, or growing up and studying in a bilingual environment – these are all possible backgrounds for active and future translators, but by no means constitute an exhaustive enumeration. Against this background, it is highly relevant to study how different people translate: professional translators with experience and a firm standing in their profession on the one hand; and students with only limited experience in translation on the other. My interest is in studying what individuals with varying amounts of experience in translation actually do when they are asked to translate a given ST. Translation is an important part of both the literary practices and everyday life of most communities, especially those with small (from an international

Chapter 1. Introduction

point of view) standard languages. A fundamental assumption in this study is therefore that not only translators with professional experience, but almost everyone with some degree of knowledge of more than one language will normally have some idea what to do, if they are asked to translate between their languages. This of course does not mean that they all have exactly the same idea of what to do, nor the same concept of translation. Translating means producing a text. The translated text is tangible evidence of the translation process that precedes it and leads to it, and the text has long been the main object of study in translation studies. A study with a focus on the translation process and how the task is performed will have more validity if it also takes into account the product of the process, the translated text. The present study grew out of an initial interest in textual patterns found in translated texts, in particular the differences in this respect between different translators. It was preceded by a study of translation length (Englund Dimitrova 1994), which found variations in the length of different TTs, relative to their ST, depending upon who the translator was. This suggests the existence of personal styles of translating (cf. Baker 2000). At the same time, textual analyses showed similarities in the application of certain translation procedures, including explicitation (see further below, and Section 2.4.1), among different translators working from Russian into Swedish (Englund Dimitrova 1993). This study is based on data from participants with different amounts of experience in translation: professional translators, translation students and language students. When studying professional translators and students in a combined process and text analysis, the researcher encounters a paradox with respect to evidence from previous research. Text-based studies of translation as a rule have taken the output of professional translators as their object of study, probably because such studies are mostly based on published texts, which are generally, per definitionem, translated by professional translators. Although we find in the literature various statements regarding the characteristics of students’ translated texts, there actually seem to be few studies that systematically compare texts translated by professionals and by students, especially translations of the same ST, produced under the same conditions. The few such studies seem to be mostly combined product and process studies, and the students studied in comparison with professional translators are usually translation students (for example Dancette 1995, 1997; Jonasson 1997, 1998a, b; Künzli 2003). Process studies, on the other hand, have more often been done with students as participants, perhaps for the same reason as the text-based studies, namely the availability of data, since researchers have tended to recruit subjects among





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

their own students. Thus, the first large process studies (Krings 1986a; Lörscher 1991) were based on data from language students only. Some assumptions in the earlier literature regarding the professional translator’s process are actually hypothetical conclusions based on the study of students’ translation processes. The focus of this study is on the translation process and the performance of the translation task. In this process, as a communicative and language processing event, the starting point is the ST and the individual translator’s comprehension of it, and of the concrete task of translating it. Different aspects of the translation process have been studied within translation studies, mainly since the middle of the 1980s. A major reason for the upsurge in this line of research has been the introduction into studies of translation of the research method usually referred to as think-aloud or think-aloud protocols (TA or TAPs, respectively). Examples of large such studies are Krings (1986a, 1986b, 1988, 2001), Lörscher (1991, 1993) Jääskeläinen (1999) and Dancette (1995). The TAPs method derives from cognitive psychology (cf. Ericsson and Simon 1984/1993). Process studies of translation will be further presented and discussed in Section 2.3 and Chapter 3 below. The process and the task performance will be approached from a theoretical framework taken from research on expertise in various cognitive domains (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993) and more specifically from research on writing. The task of translating is generally supposed to result in a written text and it is therefore assumed here that it can be modelled as a writing task. Suggested models of the writing process (Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey 1987; Hayes 1996) propose that the monolingual writing process has three main components, planning, text generation and revision. These processes are postulated here for translation as well. It will be shown that a translation task is characterized by all three processes throughout, but with differences in their distribution and relative importance. At the individual level, these differences are partly a consequence of previous experience in translation, and partly due to differences in individual process profiles. The process of planning concerns both the task as a whole and its component parts. In translation, the first phase of task performance is mainly the reading of the ST and initial planning. For this phase, an analysis of the TAPs will give evidence of which aspects are focused on and thus how the task is planned. In monolingual writing, text generation is characterized by the production of quite small segments or chunks below sentence level (Kaufer, Hayes, & Flower 1986). The process of text generation in a translation task is constrained by the fact that the TT is supposed to be modelled on another text, the ST. The segmentation of the writing process will be analyzed, since this gives

Chapter 1. Introduction

indirect evidence of the size of the chunks that are processed as a whole. In this respect, we may expect to find clear differences between subjects, correlating with previous experience in translation. Processes of revision involve the evaluation of the text written so far, finding and diagnosing problems and fixing them. This is an important aspect of monolingual writing, and certainly of a translation task as well. These processes will be studied in a number of analyses: the task definition as verbalized by the subjects, the types of revisions made, and the aspects focused on in the revising phase. These analyses are presented in Chapter 4. The process leads to a text and the study will link the process with the product by also studying one concrete textual aspect, and its realization in the process. This will be done by focusing on a phenomenon which is in translation studies usually labelled explicitation, and which could be loosely defined as a technique or strategy by which the translator makes such information explicit in the TT, which is only implicit in the ST; or to denote the resulting structure in the TT of using such a technique or strategy. Explicitation is sometimes claimed to be a universal tendency or universal of translation (Blum-Kulka 1986; Chesterman 1997: 71; Laviosa-Braithwaite 1998; Toury 1980: 60), thus occurring irrespective of the given SL and TL. Different taxonomies and explanations for this have been proposed (see further Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2). Why study explicitation? The reasons are several. The fact that it has been claimed to be a universal feature in translation already suggests its central nature and status in relation to translation. Results gained on the basis of empirical data from a certain language pair can therefore be expected to be generalizable to translation between other language pairs, or form the basis of hypotheses that can be tested on other language pairs, or under other task conditions. Explanations that have been proposed so far are hypotheses derived from comparative textual analyses. They often concern aspects of the communicative situation in translation and of the translation process, without, however, actually analyzing any data that would elucidate the process aspects. The present study purports to start filling this lacuna. It has further been suggested that explicitation can be a function of the translator’s amount of translation experience (see Section 2.4.2). However, there is no agreement in the literature on whether explicitation is typical of the TTs of experienced professional translators or, on the contrary, of TTs produced by inexperienced or mediocre translators. So far, such proposals seem to be based on fragmentary data and anecdotal evidence, but the issue of a possible relationship between the translator’s experience and the frequency of explicitations in the TT seems to be an interesting research question in





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

its own right. Translating, from a process perspective, means producing or writing a text on the basis of another text, the ST. Now, if explicitation involves saying explicitly what is only implicit in the ST, it has a bearing on fundamental questions for translation, such as what is translation, what is, from the translator’s point of view, equivalence, what is the permissible degree of translator freedom, etc. The answers to these questions might conceivably differ between different translators. Thus, the study combines analyses of the overall aspects of task performance, a macro-perspective; with an investigation of certain explicitations from a textual and process perspective, a micro-perspective. The data are taken from translation from Russian into Swedish. An underlying assumption is that the overall aspects of task performance are not language specific per se, and that the results will therefore be generalizable to other language pairs. As for explicitation, the claim of its universal nature, if indeed well-founded, also means that the results from analyzing Russian-Swedish translation will be generalizable to translation between other language pairs as well. Naturally, generalizability requires a certain level of abstraction, since the exact linguistic structure of explicitations, as well as their contexts of occurrence, must be assumed to depend on the specific language pair. From a theoretical point of view, studies of the translation process contribute to the body of knowledge on how the human mind functions in performing a very complex cognitive task that involves comprehension in one language, production in another language, text production, use of aids, and problem-solving and decision-making. Studying the translation process of subjects with different amounts of experience can be expected to contribute to the body of knowledge on translation and have important implications for the training of translators, and for the professional practice of translation (Fraser 1996b; Tirkkonen-Condit 2002). By studying how varying amounts of experience of translation correlate to aspects of the process and the product, I also hope to be able to shed some light on the concept of expertise in translation. But the study will also problematize the concept of expertise in translation, by highlighting some specifics of experience in translation. In this way, it will be of relevance to the general body of knowledge on expertise in various domains. The study employs a variety of methods for data collection and analysis. The most important data are: (a) introspective data in the form of concurrent verbalizations, which are transcribed into TAPs; and (b) computer logging of the process of writing down the TT (see further Chapter 3). These empirical data for the study were obtained in the following way. A text in Russian, describing the life of a Ukrainian artist and poet, was given to nine persons with

Chapter 1. Introduction

different amounts of experience in translating – professional translators, translation students and language students at university – to translate into their first language (L1), Swedish. The ST contains several text segments with implicit logical links which can potentially (but need not) be explicitated in translating into Swedish. The participants performed their task with concurrent introspection, and wrote their TT on a computer which recorded and time-coded all their keystrokes. An important aspect of the study is that different research methods and data are combined, concurrent verbalization and computer logging of the writing process, which is referred to as ‘triangulation of data’ (cf. Alves 2003; see further Chapter 3). These methods yield a large amount of data (see Chapter 3). Thus, similarly to other process-oriented studies in translation, the number of participants is limited and only one ST is translated. For a process-oriented study, however, the ST is quite long at 438 words. Furthermore, the range of experience categories represented among the participants (professional translators with many years of experience, professional translators with few years of experience, translation students and language students) is unusually wide and this is the first time such a wide range of experience has been included in a single study. However, the study and the different analyses made must be seen first and foremost as case studies, with an exploratory character and with a hypothesis-generating function. To sum up, the purposes of this study are threefold: 1. To investigate aspects of the process of performing a translation task among participants with different amounts of experience in translating; 2. To investigate explicitation as a translation phenomenon, from both a process and a product perspective, more specifically in translation from Russian into Swedish; 3. To develop and test new research methods. The plan of this book is as follows. Chapter 2 gives the theoretical background. Chapter 3 discusses methodological aspects of the study of translation and introduces the data for the study. Chapter 4 describes and analyses aspects of the task performance of the nine participants. Chapter 5 presents the analysis of the selected text passages in the ST, the contrastive analysis, and an analysis of the TTs and the processes leading to them. Chapter 6 presents the overall conclusions.



Chapter 2

Translation as text (re)production

. Theoretical context The theoretical context of this study comprises several disciplines. It is first and foremost grounded in translation studies, more specifically studies of the translation process with think-aloud-protocols and the study of translation norms. An important source of inspiration is also the expertise paradigm within cognitive psychology, including research on (monolingual) writing and text production. The discipline of translation studies has been growing steadily since the 1950s–60s, and with more recent accelerated growth, both as an academic discipline with research, and as a professional area for which various new training programs have been set up. The last decades have seen the publication of a considerable number of readers and textbooks that introduce the study of translation as a discipline and its central texts, concepts and models (e.g., Chesterman 1989; Fawcett 1997; Gentzler 1993/2001; Hermans 1999; Koller 1979/1992; Munday 2001; Nord 1997; Venuti 2000). The present study makes use of a descriptive perspective (cf. Holmes 1972; Toury 1995), and is focused on the translation process of the translator. Translated texts, especially if they are published, are seldom the work of one person only, the translator, although many studies on translation do not explicitly acknowledge this fact (cf. however, Alvstad 2003; Lindqvist 2002; Hemmungs Wirtén 1998). Depending on the type of text, various other people and professionals are involved in the process: (other translators as) revisers, proof readers, editors (cf. Mossop 2001), publishers, etc. In this sense, “the translator” as usually studied in translation studies is a hypothetical construct (Toury 1995: 183), a textual entity deduced from decisions actually made by several people. The present study, however, focuses specifically upon the person who translates and on his/her translation process. In this process, the person translating has a text, the ST as the point of departure. Translating means producing a text in the TL while reproducing (features of) this ST, hence the title of this chapter. This should not be understood as a fully-fledged



Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

definition of translation or translating, nor as evaluating translation as a “secondary”, “derived” or “inferior” activity, in comparison with monolingual text production. This chapter introduces the theoretical background to the study. Section 2.2 looks at the abilities and competencies on which various types and uses of translation are based; more specifically, the similarities and differences between people with differing amounts of experience in translation will be discussed. More general cognitive differences between novices and experts in various domains are also considered. Section 2.3 discusses the translation process and proposes to model it as a writing task with three major cognitive processes: planning, text generation and revision. Section 2.4 takes up the textual perspective and discusses the translation procedure of explicitation, and its potential dependence on socio-cultural constraints, as well as aspects of its processing. Section 2.5 summarizes the research questions of the study. Some aspects of contrastive linguistics (Russian–Swedish) will also be drawn into the study as background for the analysis. These will be introduced in Chapter 5.

. Ability, competence and expertise in translation .. Translation ability A fundamental assumption of this study is that a person with knowledge of the source and target languages has a basic translation ability. This means that he/she is able to perform the task of translating from one language into the other, naturally subject to the constraints posed by the extent of the individual’s knowledge of the respective languages, most notably L2 (cf. Toury 1984: 190). Of course the TT will not necessarily be of high quality (whatever standards of quality are applied), nor will it always be correct in all respects. This basic ability to translate is normally a consequence of knowing more than one language. Children who grow up with more than one language are able, at an early age, to produce utterances that are in some sense a translation of a previous utterance in their other language, if there is a sufficient degree of functional overlap in the individual’s L1 and L2 competence (Harris & Sherwood 1978). Thus, Malakoff and Hakuta (1991) and Malakoff (1992) show that bilingual school children at ages 9–12 usually have a good translation ability, both in translating separate words and coherent texts in writing. Translation ability draws upon abilities which are concomitant with competence in L1: a metalinguistic ability to analyze and compare the meaning of

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

different linguistic expressions and to switch to another mode of expression in order to express “the same thing” in other words (Lörscher 1991: 45; Paradis 1989; Toury 1984: 189), or to paraphrase it (Hewson & Martin 1991: 27ff.; Malakoff & Hakuta 1991: 150ff.). These are aspects of semantic competence, which can be defined as: a) The awareness of hyponymy, antonymy, converseness and possibly other systemic relationships between lexical items [. . .] b) The ability to avoid the use of specific lexical items by means of circumlocution and paraphrasing c) The ability to recognize degrees of paraphrastic equivalence (Blum-Kulka and Levenston 1983: 120) A condition for interlingual translation ability is thus some degree of bilingualism in the individual. A central topic in the research on cognitive aspects of bilingualism with relevance for translation is how the bilingual individual stores and processes his/her languages (for overviews, see Heredia & McLaughlin 1992; Paradis 1989; Romaine 1989). A distinction in storage proposed early on was between individuals with compound, coordinate and subordinate bilingualism (Weinreich 1953; Ervin & Osgood 1954), depending on the acquisition history of their L1 and L2. More recent research gives partially contrary evidence on the issue of storage: Altarriba (1992) and Kroll and Sholl (1992) thus find, in experiments with translation, that the bilingual individual stores linguistically independent concepts in a common conceptual store, with connections to two separate, language-dependent lexical systems; whereas de Groot (1993) concludes that the representation of the two languages is of a mixed type, so that concrete concepts tend to be stored in a common system, whereas abstract concepts are stored in separate systems. Kroll (1993) finds that translation from L1 to L2 is conceptually mediated, whereas translation into L1 is lexically mediated. The processing of the bilingual’s languages requires switching between them (Paradis 1989) or activation/deactivation of their respective systems (Green 1986). There is evidence that although translation ability normally is a concomitant of bilingualism in the individual, it can be lost or impaired in certain forms of aphasia, even if linguistic competence in the two languages remains intact (Albert & Obler 1978), which indicates a loss of control of these processes.1 When translation is used as a language teaching and testing method, this is done under the implicit assumption that all learners do in fact have translation ability. In most research within the field of bilingualism, the exact nature of the ability to translate has been taken more or less for granted, as shown for in-





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

stance by the frequent use of translation tests in experiments studying other aspects of bilingualism. Those translation tasks almost invariably consist in translating either isolated words or separate sentences, not coherent texts. This makes it difficult to generalize these results to the translation of texts, which is the main focus of interest when studying communicative professional translation. Furthermore, the number of studies so far is limited and based upon small sets of data (cf. Snodgrass 1993). The sometimes contradictory results may also be attributable to differences in the experimental tasks administered (cf. Heredia & McLaughlin 1992). Harris and Sherwood (1978) saw translation ability as coextensive with bilingualism. This has been interpreted as a claim that further development of the linguistic competence in the two languages in a bilingual also leads to further development of the ability to translate, and that increased linguistic competence in the two languages will automatically lead to an improved competence in translating between them. This view is often shared by laymen, but in translation studies, it has been convincingly refuted by, among others, Toury (e.g. 1984; 1995), Lörscher (1991), and Shreve (1997). The present study postulates that a basic translation ability is a necessary condition, but no guarantee, for further development of a (professional) competence as a translator, and possibly expertise in translation. .. Translator competence Translation ability, in the sense discussed above, is thus not learnt as such. An individual can develop this ability: by practicing it, by receiving different kinds of feedback on his/her translations from the environment, by being made aware of the translations of others and their qualities, etc. This can be, but need not be, within the framework of formal learning. The competence necessary for a professional translator, alternatively the competence that characterizes or can be assumed to characterize a professional translator, has been given various denominations in the literature; an overview is found in Orozco and Hurtado Albir (2002). In this study, I will use the term translator competence, to reflect my view that it is a professional competence. Professional translators usually translate texts for a certain communicative purpose (or Skopos in the terms of Reiss and Vermeer [1984]; cf. also Nord [1997]). This requires a general competence in the SL and the TL, combined with knowledge of the SL and TL cultures. It furthermore requires a more specific competence in the pragmatic, text-linguistic and stylistic aspects of the two languages. What this entails has been succinctly formulated by Pym;

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

he considers the ability to generate different translation variants from one ST segment to be central in translator competence (cf. also Shreve 1997: 125): [. . .] this competence may minimally be defined as the union of two skills [...]: – The ability to generate a target-text series of more than one viable term (target text1 , target text2 . . .target textn ) for a source text. – The ability to select only one target text from this series, quickly and with justified confidence, and to propose this target text as a replacement of a source text for a specified purpose and reader. (Pym 1992: 281)

Since performing a translation task normally involves producing a written text in the TL, a competence in writing is an important part of translator competence. It may be seen either as a specific kind of writing competence, or as an extension of a general competence in writing and its application in a specific writing situation, where the text production is heavily constrained by the structure and contents of another text, the ST. Very often, translation tasks also require a knowledge of some specific subject matter or domain, or otherwise the competence to use aids of various kinds (dictionaries, encyclopedia, term banks, the Internet, specialized texts, parallel texts, etc.) in order to gain the necessary knowledge, both of the subject matter and of its typical linguistic patterns (terminology and text structures). Today, professional translators generally work with computers, using word processing and often also other, more translation-specific software, and thus need to have competence in handling these. For further discussion of the translator’s professional tasks and various aspects of training programs for translators, see for example Dollerup and Appel (1996), Dollerup and Lindegaard (1994), Dollerup and Loddegaard (1992), Fleischmann, Kutz and Schmitt (1997), Gile (1995), Hung (2002), Kiraly (1995, 2000), Kussmaul (1995), Wilss (1996a; 1996b). Translator competence is usually seen as a combination of various competences or sub-competences, and the professional translator is generally assumed to have gone through a developmental process affecting all these competences. Cao (1996) proposes a multicomponential model of what she labels translation proficiency, built on Bachman’s (1991) model of communicative language ability. Translation proficiency consists of three components or sets of variables: Translational Language Competence, consisting of four groups of subcompetencies; Translational Knowledge Structures, accounting for subject matter knowledge; and Translation Strategic Competence, involving a processing and synthesizing ability, necessary to integrate the two other components in the translation process (Cao 1996: 328). Orozco and Hurtado Albir (2002) propose a model of six interrelated subcompetences: communicative





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

competence in two languages, extra-linguistic competence, transfer competence, instrumental competence, psycho-physiological competence and strategic competence (2002: 376). Shreve (1997) subsumes what he terms translation competence under the more general concept of communicative competence (Hymes 1967), assuming that professional translators have cognitive skills that they share with other bilinguals, but that in addition, other cognitive structures have been added (Shreve 1997: 124). Professional translation is “a form of constructed translation that can be acquired by only undergoing certain kinds of deliberately sought out communicative experiences” (Shreve 1997: 125). The internalization of translation norms and conventions is an integral part of the translator’s competence (Toury 1980; 1984; 1995). Translators thus are able to write TTs that are characterized by “[w]ellformedness as a translated utterance” (Toury 1984: 191; emphasis in the original), since the TTs as texts are normgoverned (see further below Section 2.4.3.1). It is therefore not sufficient to state that the translator has to be able to compose texts in accordance with TL pragmatic and stylistic conventions, since observing such constraints is only one way of translating. One aspect explicitly addressed or discussed in several process-oriented studies on translation is how translator competence actually manifests itself in the process of translating. The following are a few results from studies, mainly using think-aloud methodology. A very thorough description of process studies from 1982 to 1992 is given in Krings (2001: 66–163). For other overviews of process studies, see Fraser (1996b), Jääskeläinen (1999; 2002), Kussmaul (1998), Künzli (2003), Norberg (2003) and Tirkkonen-Condit (2002). In several studies, professional translators have been shown to have a high degree of consciousness regarding textual features, global strategies and the communicative purpose of the translated text. Thus, professional translators verbalize in their think-aloud protocols global strategies, translation principles and personal theories of translation to a greater extent than students and non-professionals (Jääskeläinen 1999; Künzli 2003; Tirkkonen-Condit 1997). There is further in the data from professionals a higher degree of concordance between the verbalized global strategies and the textual microstrategies applied, whereas students are less consistent in this respect (Künzli 2003). As can be expected, professional translators show more confidence and certainty in their verbalizations than students (Künzli 2003; Norberg 2003; Tirkkonen-Condit 1997; cf. also Tirkkonen-Condit 2000 on uncertainty management in the processes of professional translators). Furthermore, professional translators have, in comparison with students, a higher degree of TL pragmatic and stylistic awareness, as well as an awareness of the purpose of the translation

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

(Fraser 1996a; Jonasson 1998b; Künzli 2000; 2001a; Lörscher 1993; Séguinot 1989; Tirkkonen-Condit 1992).2 They also use textual knowledge and world knowledge to a greater extent in their translation processes than do nonprofessionals/laymen, who tend to rely more on the ST linguistic surface features (Jääskeläinen 1999: 242; Tirkkonen-Condit 1992). Künzli (2001b) finds that professional translators use a wider variety of different kinds of aids in the process in comparison with translator students. Only some of the studies mentioned relate the analysis of the process to specific features of the TT or to its quality. Fraser (1996a) finds that different translators tend to use different textual strategies for translating the same cultural concepts for example, even for the same translation brief. Jonasson (1998a) and Englund Dimitrova (2001) find that the professional’s process of translating proper names is characterized by problem-solving and conscious deliberation, whereas students tend to make decisions in this area automatically, transferring proper names in their ST form. The quality of the translated text is not always found to be higher in the professionals’ translations, or in the TTs produced by the more experienced professionals (Jääskeläinen 1999; Künzli 2003; Norberg 2003). Both Künzli (2003) and Norberg (2003) find that the less experienced subjects (junior professionals in Norberg’s case, translation students in Künzli’s study) tend to show in some respects a greater degree of textual freedom in relation to the ST. However, Tirkkonen-Condit (1992: 439) finds great similarities in the products of her two subjects, in spite of important differences in their processing. Jääskeläinen (1999: 242) finds that more extensive processing tends to lead to higher quality in the translated text, and Norberg (2003: 187) reaches a similar conclusion, stating that the attitude towards the task can have a decisive influence on the quality of the translated text. Jarvella, Jensen, Jensen and Andersen (2002) found that young professionals, with 2 years of professional experience, engaged in more extensive processing, making significantly more corrections and verbalizing goal-setting and problem-solving to a much greater extent than experts with more than 10 years of experience. Although some results quoted here have been found in more than one study, it should be remembered that there are as yet only a small number of process studies of professional translators that specifically address aspects of their competence as manifested in the process and/or in the product. Moreover, the number of subjects in the process studies has so far been small. Sometimes subjects in a study are called translators or professionals, although it is clear from the research design that they are actually students in a translator training program (e.g. Shreve, Schäffner, Danks & Griffin 1993), foreign language





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

students (Krings 1986a) or even bilingual school children (Malakoff & Hakuta 1991). The term semiprofessional is also used with different meanings in different studies: in Kussmaul (1995) and Jakobsen (2003a; 2003b), it is used for advanced translation students, in Norberg (2003) for junior professionals with between 6 and 18 months of at least half-time experience in the profession. Finally, the number of language combinations represented in studies so far is quite small, as well as the number of TL linguistic communities: Finland, Sweden, UK, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Denmark. The concept of translator competence is not an unproblematic one, despite the seeming consensus in many of the quoted works regarding components of the competence. A central question is whether it is possible to define translator competence in such a way that it is applicable only to, for instance, professionally active translators (past and present) and graduates from translator training programs while excluding everybody else. Competence refers to qualities, skills and abilities, and it is not an absolute, but can be present in different degrees. It cannot be taken for granted that there will be a one-to-one correspondence between having certain training or experience and having a certain competence. We may conceive of the one without the other: training and/or experience will not always result in competence, and competence can be found in individuals without specific training and/or experience. Therefore, when studying aspects of translator competence, a possible solution is to operationalize the concept in terms of a certain amount of experience and/or training. .. Expertise in translation and other domains Some studies on the translation process call professional translators experts, even when they have limited experience. In this study, a more narrow concept of expertise will be applied, more in line with expertise studies in cognitive psychology. In line with this, expertise in translation is assumed to be a subcategory of translator competence, and not all who have translator competence are experts in translation (cf. Pym n.d.; Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 9). Expertise in various domains is studied in cognitive psychology, often using methods of introspection such as think-aloud methodology. Expert performance can be defined as “consistently superior performance on a specified set of representative tasks for the domain” (Ericsson & Charness 1997: 6, emphasis in the original). Interest is thus in stable characteristics in individuals, not in achievements which have the character of “once in a life-time” (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 2) and on phenomena that can be empirically documented in individuals and reproduced. Sternberg (1997) in contrast views expertise as a prototype construct,

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

which comprises various aspects or components: quantity of knowledge, organisation of knowledge, superior analytical ability, superior creative ability, superior automatization of processing, and also a superior practical ability which allows experts to apply their more abstract, cognitive abilities within the constraints of the field where they work. In its purely prototypical form, expertise is rarely reached by an individual (Sternberg 1997: 150). However, Sternberg also stresses the importance of expertise as a labelling conception, seeing it partly as socially determined. People are designated as experts; doctors, for instance, are certified. This implies that there are shared conceptions of what constitutes expertise in a particular domain (Sternberg 1997: 159–160). This social view of expertise is similar to the views on translatorship expressed by Toury for example: ...‘translatorship’ amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social role, i.e., to fulfil a function allotted by a community – to the activity, its practitioners and/or their products – in a way which is deemed appropriate in its own terms of reference. (Toury 1995: 53, italics in the original)

Experts have more knowledge in their domain, but expertise and expert cognitive processing consists not simply in having access to more knowledge. More importantly, through their experience, experts have restructured their knowledge and can therefore access relevant information in the LTM (long term memory) in the process of performing a task in a more efficient way than non-experts. They are able to anticipate, to plan their task and parts of it, and to reason selectively (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xliv–xlv). Anderson (1990: 267–284) singles out several important dimensions in the development of expertise. Experts have converted declarative knowledge in their domain into procedural knowledge,3 a process known as proceduralization. They display tactical learning, which means that they learn and automatize sequences of moves or strategies which are necessary to solve problems in their domain. Furthermore, they display strategic learning, i.e., they have learnt how to organize their problem-solving in an efficient way. This is due, among other things, to their way of forming mental problem representations, which are constructed in such a way as to allow efficient problem-solving. Several of the results from earlier translation process studies are relevant from this point of view, for instance the textual awareness of professional translators and their verbalizations of global strategies (see Section 2.2.2). This could be seen as an instance of how experts approach a problem in a qualitatively different way from novices. When comprehending the problem, they generate steps for solving it while already comprehending the problem. Thus they rapidly





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

form a problem representation that integrates the available information with relevant background knowledge, a characteristic of expert processing (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xli). Tasks can be performed in various ways. The quicker, automatic way is by recognition and immediate retrieval of the relevant response or knowledge; if this is not available, problem-solving is necessary. The relative proportion of those ways of performing differs with the complexity and the novelty of the task. Experts make more use of recognition and retrieval, and thus of automated processes, than do novices (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xliii). With growing expertise in a domain, one and the same cognitive process in the individual may move from cognitively controlled to more automated processing (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 90). Experts’ differently stored and indexed information in the LTM furthermore enables them to circumvent limitations in short term memory (STM) capacity in their work processes (Ericsson & Charness 1997: 15–16). Expertise is thus acquired and it is characterized by restructured cognitive processes and task performance. This happens, importantly, not simply as a function of gaining more experience in the domain, but as a function of structured, focused and active learning with feedback from a teacher or coach. Available research points to the fact that it takes at least a period of 10 years of intense preparation with deliberate practice and feedback to attain expert performance (Ericsson & Charness 1997: 19). Expertise in translation turns out, however, to be a no less problematic concept than translator competence (cf. Pym n.d.; Shreve 2002). The types of tasks studied within the expertise paradigm are generally well defined, in terms of their final result, so that the results of the performance can be easily and objectively measured. This is not the case to the same extent in translation. Another problem is that, as mentioned above, it is assumed within the expertise paradigm that feedback from a teacher or coach, over a long period of time, plays a crucial role in the development of expertise. Clearly, this type of coaching is something which not all translators have access to. Even when translators have their work revised by others, as indeed is often the case (cf. Künzli forthc.; Mossop 2001), it still does not qualify as the type of coaching given, for instance, to an athlete. One reason is that such revision is not made to improve maximally the translator’s performance, but rather to ensure that a given TT meets certain quality criteria. Another reason is that the translator may not even get to see the revised translation, so that there is in fact no feedback. See also Shreve (2002). The solution to this dilemma is

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

again operationalizing expertise in translation in terms of a certain length of experience, in this study 10 years or more. In conclusion then, this study assumes that translation ability can develop into translator competence, through formal learning and training and/or through gaining practical professional experience. Translator competence can develop into translation expertise. These are relative concepts, of a prototypical nature, consisting of clusters of qualities and characteristics that are typical to a higher or lower degree for a given category.

. Performing a translation task .. Modelling the translation process as a text production process A number of models of the translation process have been suggested; for overviews and discussion, see Lörscher (1991: 7–23) and Norberg (2003: 23– 26) for example. Often they are purely theoretical, not being based on or corroborated by empirical data. Furthermore, it is not always clear whether the models should be seen as descriptive and predictive, or as prescriptive and normative. Moreover, it seems that they mostly intend to capture what could be called the “moment of translating”, when the translator comprehends the ST and mentally transfers it to the TL, presented as if it were really one moment in time. However, as a text production task, translation is more complex, and the final TT is influenced by factors that affect the task performance before, during and after that moment. Krings (1986a) and Lörscher (1991) present models based on empirical data from the translation process. Lörscher’s models, which also depict the moment of translating, will be discussed further in Section 2.4.4.2. Krings (1986a) presents two models, for translation into L1 and into L2. A limitation of these models is that they are based on an analysis of problem-solving and strategic processing only. For this study, the model of monolingual writing suggested by Hayes and his colleagues (see for example Hayes et al. 1987; Hayes 1996), will be applied. Figure 2.1 shows the model, as presented in Hayes (1996: 3). Three main processes are identified: planning, text generation4 and revision. The two components of the Task Environment encompass the idea that the task and the text are influenced both by the Writing Assignment and by the text produced so far, at a given moment of writing. The model needs only minor adjustments to be adapted to writing in translation. Obviously, the ST is an important part of the component Writing Assignment. The Planning process





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

TASK ENVIRONMENT Writing assignment Topic Audience Motivating cues

Text produced so far

COGNITIVE WRITING PROCESSES Monitor Planning –Idea generation –Organizing –Goal setting

Text generation

Revision reading Editing

THE WRITER’S LONG TERM MEMORY Knowledge of topic Knowledge of audience Stored writing plans

Figure 2.1 Model of the writing process (from Hayes, John R. “A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing”. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, 1996, 1–27. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. With kind permission by John R. Hayes and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.)

can be assumed to comprise also a component Read the ST. The component Text Generation remains, but is tentatively specified as Transfer of SL text segments and Generation of TL segments. In Long Term Memory, we need to add components capturing SL knowledge.5 This study will analyze factors of the three main cognitive processes postulated by the model, as they are applied to translation, as well as some aspects of the overall task. The postulated cognitive processes are assumed to be relevant both for dividing the task into different phases, and for the processing within each phase. In the following sections (2.3.2–2.3.5), I will discuss some results from research on writing and on expertise and relate it to previous

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

research on the translation process, as background to the empirical analyses in Chapter 4. .. Overall time: The phases of the task and process profiles Experts in various domains have been shown to perform tasks in their domain faster than non-experts, and this has been attributed to more automated and more efficient processing (cf. Section 2.2.3). However, the few empirical studies on translation analyzing time as a dependent variable seem to contradict this. Jakobsen (2003a; 2003b) found that the overall translation speed of professional translators was not significantly faster than that of semi-professionals (translation students), and Jääskeläinen found that non-professional translators on average spent less time on the task than professional translators (Jääskeläinen 1999: 118). She hypothesises that this is due to a lower level of sensitivity to potential translation problems in the non-professional subjects. In view of these results, it is clearly of interest to study time as a dependent variable in translation tasks, extending the study to other language combinations and text types, as well as to texts of various lengths. Few studies deal specifically with the question of different phases or stages in the process of performing a translation task – which phases can be distinguished, what characterizes them, whether there are differences in this respect between individuals, and whether this correlates with experience in translation. Based on empirical data, several studies have seen the task as divided into three stages or phases, usually defined as the phase before the TT is being written down, the phase when the TT is written down, and the phase after the TT has been written down, respectively: 1. The first phase, called Vorlauf (Krings 1986a), pre-writing stage (Jääskeläinen 1999), Planungsphase (Norberg 2003) or initial orientation phase (Jakobsen 2003b). 2. The second phase, called Hauptlauf (Krings 1986a), writing stage (Jääskeläinen 1999), Rohübersetzungsphase (Norberg 2003) or drafting phase (Jakobsen 2003b). 3. The third phase, called Nachlauf (Krings 1986a), post-writing stage (Jääskeläinen 1999), Revisionsphase (Norberg 2003) or end revision phase (Jakobsen 2003b). Three phases are also distinguished in studies that are not based directly on empirical data but on extensive experience; see for instance Mossop (2001: 135). The main phases in the process can be seen as further divided into several sub-





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

phases. The terminological variation reflects the difficulty of finding terms to designate the phases or stages in a clearcut way, since actually a variety of cognitive processes take place within each of the phases, such as reading the ST or the TT, writing, transferring from the SL to the TL, evaluating, etc., (cf. Breedveld 2002). Furthermore, even the small amount of data available so far from translation tasks indicates that there is considerable individual variation in how the task is approached. Most of the terms are chosen on the basis of empirical data, which potentially makes them unsuitable in view of the analysis of future data, which may differ in nature: for instance, the terms drafting phase or Rohübersetzungsphase seem to imply that the translator views the first version as a draft and later makes a number of revisions in it, although in the literature there are examples of subjects considering the task finished after this phase (Gerloff 1986: 249; Krings 1986a: 181; Jääskeläinen 1999: 124). For the present study, the phases have been identified and labelled according to an operational definition (see further Section 4.1.1), which focuses on the writing process and is based on the data from the computer logging software. No clear correlation has been established between the relative time spent on each phase and the amount of experience in translation. Both Jääskeläinen (1999) and Jakobsen (2003a) report that most of their subjects spend the largest share of the time on the second phase. Professionals spend on average more time on the first and the third phases than do students (Jakobsen 2003a: 194). However, some professionals include revisions and editings in their second phase and use their third phase for simply checking their TT (Jakobsen 2003a: 194; Jääskeläinen 1999: 122). These results can be related to research on writing, where experienced writers have been found to plan more, revise more, and invest more effort in the writing task than inexperienced writers (Scardamalia & Bereiter 1991: 172). The relative allocation of time for the phases is a consequence of how the main cognitive process components of the task are distributed and applied throughout the task. For instance, some translators do extensive reserach already during the first phase, while others may start translating more or less right away and postpone some of the research even to the third phase. There are also differences in the extent to which problems are solved during the second phase, or left for the last phase, as well as what aspects are focused upon in the second phase: whether to achieve first and foremost an idiomatic TL text, or to make sure that the TT is accurate and complete, dealing with pragmatics and stylistics in the third phase. The specific patterns of processing within each phase constitute different process profiles (Jääskeläinen 1999; Lorenzo 1999; Norberg 2003; cf. also Breedveld 2002).6 The existence of such profiles has

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

also been discussed in research on writing, and different profiles have been identified according to the relative distribution of processes such as planning and revision. These profiles have not been found to correlate with amount of experience in writing (Torrance 1996: 285), but they are strongly dependent on the writing mode – computer or pen and paper (van Waes 1991: 320–321). Few studies of translation or of writing compare individuals’ process profiles across different tasks, but Levy and Ransdell (1996) found a very high degree of consistency in how individual writers allocate time for the different processes across various writing tasks, and concluded that this indicates the existence of consistent individual process profiles. The present study will analyze the overall time spent, as well as the allocation of time to the different phases. The results are presented in Section 4.2. In Section 4.6.6, process profiles are discussed on the basis of the evidence from all empirical analyses reported in Chapter 4. .. Planning the task Planning as a cognitive process can be defined as preparatory reflection on a goal (including specifying it), and/or on the means to reach the goal (Hayes & Nash 1996: 29). Goal-setting also means potential activation of plans and routines that a person may have learnt and internalized as appropriate to achieving a particular goal. Specifying the goal and possible subgoals of a task by creating a task definition is of special importance in ill-defined tasks such as writing (Hayes & Nash 1996: 31). Translation is also an ill-defined task (Jääskeläinen 1999: 84; see also Section 3.2.1), and specifying the goal or purpose of the translation is therefore of paramount importance for the task performance, since this allows the formation of a plan, understood as the goal and the sequence of moves or actions to reach it (Hayes & Nash 1996: 32). Plans for a task can change or be modified in the course of its performance by the changing task environment, as captured by the model (see Figure 2.1). Furthermore, someone performing a task, for instance writing, may have several, competing goals, such as both to convey a content and to convey a good impression of himself or herself, and therefore he/she will need to strike a balance between those competing goals (Hayes 1996: 10). Hayes and Nash distinguish three planning methods (Hayes & Nash 1996: 35–37):





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

1. Planning by abstraction. This involves planning only some aspects of the task, mostly the most important ones. In writing, this could mean to plan by topic. 2. Planning by analogy. In writing, an example would be to make use of genre conventions. 3. Planning by modeling. An example from writing is that writers often plan a text segment mentally before writing it down. Planning as a process occurs all throughout the performance of the task, and involves both more macro-level and micro-level goals and actions. It can be assumed that the initial stage is especially important for the planning of the task as a whole. In translation, the first phase (cf. Section 2.3.2) can be assumed to be crucial in this respect. Earlier process studies have shown considerable variation in how subjects approach the translation task during the first phase. Most subjects read the ST, all of it or partially, silently or aloud, sometimes underlining unknown words or looking them up. In their verbalizations, they comment on difficulties, on terminological questions and also on the translation brief (Jääskeläinen 1999: 124; Krings 1986a: 186; Norberg 2003: 86– 89). Reading the ST including the use of aids can have a psychological function, to give a greater sense of security facing the task (Krings 1986a: 179). Results reported so far do not permit generalizations regarding how translation experience correlates to approach to the translation task during the first phase. Several studies report that some subjects, including both students (Krings 1986a: 186) and professional translators (Jakobsen 2003a: 194–195; cf. also the quotes from professional translators in Krings [1986a: 178–179] and Shreve et al. [1993: 24]), do not read the whole ST before starting to translate.7 On average, professional translators seem to devote slightly more time to the first phase than students (Jakobsen 2003a: 195; Jääskeläinen 1999: 117). It is probable that the approach taken during the first phase is influenced by whether the translation task is a routine task for the translator, or not (cf. Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen 1996: 50). Jääskeläinen (1999: 121) suggests that in the use of aids during the pre-writing phase, there may be two types of translators: those who look up words and do the research before doing the actual translation, and those who do it concurrently, while translating. Clearly, reading and comprehending the ST is vital for a successful translation process (Dancette 1995; Kussmaul 1996, 1997). However, this reading is distributed over several or all of the phases of the task (Breedveld 2002). Generally, the purpose of reading a text influences how it is read and which aspects are focused on, as shown by concurrent verbalizations (Wærn 1979). Thus, the

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

translator’s approach to reading the ST must be influenced by the imminent task of translating it, being in fact a part of the translation task, and therefore it differs in some respects from reading done for other purposes. Reiss and Vermeer (1984: 72) propose that, already while reading the ST, translators are “searching” for difficult passages and making notes of translation equivalents that occur to them, so that consciousness of the task influences the process of perception and comprehension of the ST. Shreve and Diamond (1997: 246– 247) assume that experts in translation are characterized by a differential cue use in reading, in the sense that they extract translation-relevant information from the ST along with “normal” linguistic information. Differences in reading for different purposes were explored in Shreve et al. (1993), where three different groups of subjects read one and the same text, each group for a different purpose: to paraphrase, to understand only, and to translate. The subjects who read for the purpose of translating the text identified more problems, and in part different kinds of problems, than the other groups. The results are difficult to generalize to professional translation, however, since the translators in the study were actually translation students in their first year of study, who probably had not yet had time to become sensitized to translation problems in professional translation (cf. Jääskeläinen 1999: 118 and Section 2.3.2 above). Norberg (2003) investigated translators’ text representation after the first phase through a recall test. The ST was short, 120 words, and the focus of the recall was on its contents, in the form of seven content blocks (roughly corresponding to macropropositions). On average, the subjects recalled 3 out of 7 content blocks, but there was considerable interindividual variation, especially in the group of semiprofessionals (younger professionals), indicating different ways of approaching the task and reading the ST (Norberg 2003: 162). The present study will investigate two aspects of the pre-writing phase (see further Section 4.3): 1. The time for this phase and overall approach 2. How the participants plan their task: how do they define their task and what goal(s) do they set for their task in the first phase. .. Writing the translated text ... Strategies, automated processing and segmentation of the process The process of text generation in translation (cf. the model in Figure 2.1), as manifested in writing down the translated text differs from the text generation process in monolingual writing in at least one important respect. In trans-





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

lation, the topics for the text and its content, as well as many aspects of its structure, both overall and often also at sentence level, are modelled upon another text, the ST, instead of being generated by the writer from the topic of the writing assignment. However, there are also similarities, both concerning more general cognitive processes, such as the alternation between automatic processing and problem-solving, and the linguistic levels or aspects processed. In the translation process of any individual, there are segments which are translated apparently automatically, without any problems, and other segments where translation is slow, full of many variants and deliberations, which necessitates a problem-solving approach and the application of strategies. This has been called the stop-and-go character or dichotomous structure of the translation process (Krings 1986a: 116; cf. also Lörscher 1991: 203–204). The term strategy is used in translation studies in a number of ways, to some extent with overlapping definitions (for overviews of different strategy notions, see Chesterman 1998; Jääskeläinen 1993). A first distinction can be made between definitions and classifications that are based only on textual features, and those based on other kinds of evidence and data, e.g., TAPs. One example of the first kind is the dichotomy between strategies of domestication and foreignization (see Venuti 1998). Another one is the elaborate taxonomy of translation strategies proposed, on the basis of earlier research, by Chesterman (1997: 94–112; see also the application of this taxonomy in Künzli 2003). Here, strategies are seen as changes or shifts in the TT, as compared to its ST. The other type of definition and classification is found in processoriented studies. Jääskeläinen (1999: 180; cf. also Jääskeläinen 1993) subsumes global strategies, having the function to guide the translation process, under translation principles. Dancette (1997: 89) sees strategies as a series of ordered behaviours that the translator consciously calls upon to solve a problem; a similar definition is given by Klaudy (2003: 171). Krings (1986a; 1986b) and Lörscher (1991) base their strategy notions on work on communicaton strategies in second language acquisition (Færch & Kasper 1983). This study will apply a strategy notion in accordance with Krings (1986a): ...potentiell bewußte Pläne eines Übersetzers zur Lösung konkreter Übersetzungsprobleme im Rahmen einer konkreten Übersetzungsaufgabe. (Krings 1986a: 175) [“...a translator’s potentially conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems in the framework of a concrete translation task”. Translation from German: BED]

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

Central here is the notion of problem, which Krings (1986a, 1986b) operationalizes, proposing a number of problem indicators. They will be introduced in Section 5.1 and applied in the analyses in Chapter 5. Although this strategy notion is process-based, since strategies are plans for solving problems in the process, strategies will often have as their result a particular textual feature or pattern. Segments in the process data that do not contain problem indicators in the on-line data used (TAPs and computer logging of the writing process) will be assumed here to be instances of automated processing (cf. Ericsson and Simon 1984/1993: 15). In Section 2.4.4.2, the role of literal translation in the translation process will be discussed, and I will then return to the questions of automatic versus non-automated processing, and problem-solving strategies. It is necessary for the translator to segment the translation process, due to limitations in working memory capacity. Normally, it is possible to hold up to around 7-8 “chunks” in working memory for processing (Anderson 1990: 151; Bower & Cirilo 1985: 75). These chunks are patterns or sequences that the memory system has stored as units. They can be words, but they can also be smaller, if the translator has to focus his/her attention at something below word level, and probably also larger, depending upon the translator’s skills in reading for instance (cf. de Beaugrande 1984: 173). Even very experienced translators can be assumed to focus on segments that are smaller than a sentence in their translation process, and thus translate smaller segments at a time than a complete sentence (cf. Krings 2001: 404; Séguinot 1996: 82). The fact that the ST segment is visually available (cf. the visual-spatial sketchpad as part of the working memory, see Baddeley and Hitch [1974]) to the translator may to some extent facilitate processing (cf. Shreve & Diamond 1997: 235). How are the chunks to be focused on determined in the process by the translator? Nida claimed that the really competent translator, working even between closely related languages, usually tries to translate by “meaningful mouthfuls”, not by structural units. What he actually does is to decode the meaning, transfer the content, and then generate another message in the receptor language. (Nida 1964: 68)

When the translator starts to extract a ST chunk (whatever its size in the ST) in order to translate it, the process can follow one of two basic scenarios: 1. The translator reads and comprehends the ST segment and retrieves and produces TL linguistic material, without any problems in the process. 2. There are one or more problems in the process, in the comprehension of the ST and/or in the retrieval and production of TL material; this necessitates the application of one or more strategies to solve the problem.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

In both scenarios, on-line data from the process will record one or more pauses in the process, in the first case due to the time necessary for carrying out the processes, i.e., for planning and text generation; in the second case the time necessary to apply problem-solving strategies. In TAPs, they take the form of pauses in the verbalizations, followed by either a verbalization of a TL segment, or verbalizations indicating a problem and strategic processing. In computer logging of the process of writing down the translation, there will be, in both scenarios, pauses in the form of keyboard inactivity. There is yet another reason for pauses in on-line data from the process, viz. for monitoring and evaluating already produced TL material (see the component revision in the model, Figure 2.1, and Section 2.3.5 below; for different causes of pauses in logging data, see also Lorenzo 1999). The pause length can be assumed to be longer in the second scenario than in the first one. Furthermore, the number of problems, and thus the pauses caused by such problems, can be assumed to be higher in the process of less experienced translators. As for pauses in the first scenario, they can be assumed to occur less frequently in the loggings of more experienced translators than in less experienced ones. Thus, there are several, concurring reasons for assuming that more experienced translators will have fewer pauses in their translation process than less experienced ones, and thus also larger segments of uninterrupted stretches in their TL output. Before discussing how this matter can be studied, a few words must be said about segmenting the writing process, planning and pauses in monolingual writing. ... Segmenting in monolingual writing In on-line studies of monolingual writing, by computer logging of the writing process (e.g. Sanders, Janssen, van der Pool, Schilperoord, van Wijk 1996; Strömqvist 1996; van Waes 1991), by video recordings (Chanquoy, Foulin, & Fayol 1996; Matsuhashi 1982) or by studies of dictation (Schilperoord 1996), pauses are interpreted as evidence for or traces of underlying processes, such as planning, retrieval, problem-solving and decision-making. Pause length is seen as an indicator of the cognitive complexity of various aspects of the task, and has been shown to correlate with their location in the textual structure. Longer pauses tend to occur immediately before more extensive syntactic constituents (Chanquoy et al. 1996) and before hierarchically higher units in the discourse (Matsuhasi 1982; Sanders et al. 1996; Schilperoord 1996), which presumably require a larger amount of planning. Breaks and pauses take up a considerable portion of the writing process, more than half of the time spent on the task (Baurmann 1989) and divide the

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

process into often quite small segments. The subjects in the study by Kaufer et al. (1986) produced segments, delimited by pauses, varying in size from 4.5 words to 16.8 words. Expert writers produced larger segments than did novices. Good and weak writers have been found to differ in the number of pauses, but not in pause length (Baurmann 1989: 271). Pause patterns are influenced by the mode of writing (computer versus pen and paper). Computer writers make twice as many pauses as pen and paper writers, but also much shorter pauses, resulting in a more fragmentary writing process with the computer (van Waes 1991: 317). Computer writers are aware of what is termed word-processor comfort: since the text can be changed easily at any time, they tend to make faster decisions to produce text, which can then be evaluated on the screen. These results are important to bear in mind when studying the translation process through computer logging of the writing process, since what we actually study is the writing process as performed on computer, not the translation process per se. ... Segmenting the writing process in translation As already mentioned, most content planning in translation is done beforehand by the writer/author of the ST. Therefore, the length of pauses in translation cannot necessarily be assumed to correlate to boundaries between hierarchical units at different levels in the text, in contrast to monolingual writing. The amount of planning required before starting a new paragraph, for instance, is not necessarily greater than that required before starting to write a sentence or a clause. However, once the TL linguistic material has been mentally formulated by the translator, there can be assumed to be important similarities between monolingual writing and the writing down of translated text. Matsuhashi (1982) concluded that planning in monolingual writing, as evidenced by pause patterns, does not correspond to grammatical units, but rather to psychological processing units which are based on underlying conceptual content. Therefore, surface structure constituents are seldom produced as a unit (Matsuhashi 1982: 286). See the similar observation of units in TAPs in translating (Gerloff 1987: 147f.) and the quote from Nida in Section 2.3.4.1. The location of pauses in the process thus indicates where planning, problem-solving and/or evaluation and revising occur, and how the translator’s focus of attention shifts. An analysis of TL segments produced between pauses will therefore show the size of the segments held in focus, which could be called the individual translator’s units of translation (cf. Ballard 1993; Lörscher 1993: 209; Malmkjær 1998a). A claim frequently made in studies of translation is that experienced professional translators have larger units of translation than





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

students (Künzli 2000; Kussmaul 1998; Lörscher 1993: 209; Toury 1986: 89). As indirect evidence of this, it has been pointed out that there are certain features in translated texts, such as lack of idiomaticity in the TL or downright ungrammatical constructions, even when the translation is done into the translator’s/student’s L1 (Krings 1986a; Lörscher 1991; Toury 1986), which are attributable to interference from the ST and the SL. The hypothesis that professional translators segment their writing process in translation into fewer segments was confirmed in Jakobsen (2003b), where the differences in this respect between professionals and semi-professionals (advanced translation students) were found to be statistically significant. Furthermore, it can be assumed that there is a facilitation effect during the writing phase of the translation task, resulting in differences in segmentation between the beginning and the end of the task for one and the same individual. Facilitation effects have been found in monolingual writing (Strömqvist 1996) and can be expected in translation as well, for at least the following reasons: –

– –

Certain global decisions regarding the TT and the task are made at the beginning of the task, and can be expected to facilitate processing towards the end, thereby speeding up processing; Certain words or phrases might occur several times in the source text, which will potentially facilitate the retrieval of TL linguistic material; The text produced so far, that is the growing text representation (mental and in the form of a TL version), will facilitate certain aspects of both ST comprehension and TT production (cf. the model in Figure 2.1).

Section 4.4 will analyze the segmentation of the writing process and the possible facilitation effects in the course of a task. .. Revising the text Revision is the third main cognitive process in writing in the Hayes et al. model and postulated here for translation as well. Hayes et al. (1987: 185) postulate a number of cognitive processes in revision. The writer/reviser creates a task definition as a result of planning (cf. above Section 2.3.3). The task definition specifies for instance the goals of the reviser, which features of the text will be examined and how the revision process should be carried out. Obviously, the task definition varies between individuals (Hayes et al. 1987: 186). Furthermore, the individual’s task definition is dynamic and can be modified in the course of the revision process. The goals can be brought to the revision process by the reviser, but can also change as a result of that

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

process. An interesting difference between the 1996 version of the model and that of 1987 is that in the former model of the revision process, Task Definition was seen as part of Process (see Hayes et al. 1987: 185), whereas in the later model, as presented in Hayes (1996: 14), it is seen as part of Knowledge. It is not clear whether this change is intentional. However, it seems to depict the conception that the task definition, although created in the process, draws upon the knowledge of the writer/reviser. The evaluation process in revision involves both lower level processes, such as decoding words, applying grammar knowledge etc., and higher level processes, such as inferring the writer’s intentions and point of view (when revising a text written by someone else) and considering audience needs (Hayes et al. 1987: 203, 205; cf. also Hayes 1996: 15–16). Solutions to problems found in the text are either to rewrite (to redraft or to paraphrase) or to revise, both options leading to modifications of the text and/or of the plan. The easiest way to remove a problem in a text is the rewrite option, which means to produce a new text segment in the reviser’s own words. The more difficult revising option instead involves first diagnosing the problem and then finding the specific, appropriate means to fix it. Revising in this sense is by definition a focused repair procedure that is based on rich diagnostic information about the problem in the text (Hayes et al. 1987: 188; see also Mossop 2001: 55). Hayes et al. (1987) studied how experts and novices (students) revised a text that had been written by someone else. They found that experts see revision as a whole-text task, whereas novices see it as a sentence-level task. The verbalized problem representations were more global, elaborate, integrated and procedural in the experts’ protocols, thereby giving them access to appropriate procedures for remedy. There were also differences in the extent to which problems and errors in the text were actually detected, experts consistently outperforming novices in this respect (Hayes et al. 1987: 233). These results confirmed the conclusions from earlier studies, showing that students often revise rather haphazardly, without set goals and that they tend to attend mainly to lower text levels such as individual words or phrases (Bartlett 1982: 346). In revision as part of a writing task, the mode of writing has been found to influence revision patterns. Computer writers tend to spend considerable amounts of time revising their formulations already at an early stage of the writing process. They start to write earlier and plan less in the beginning of the writing process and revision tends to take place concurrently throughout the writing process, instead of being postponed to a special phase after the writing phase (Severinson Eklundh 1995: 12). However, the sum total of their revisions





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

is the same as that of the pen and paper writers (van Waes 1991: 318). However in this respect there are also individual writing patterns. Some studies address revision in translation, although literature on this topic is still sparse (Mossop 2001: v). Krings (2001) is an important study on the cognitive processes: mainly in post-editing of machine-translated texts, but also in translation. One interesting conclusion is that in planning and revision, subjects vary in relation to two different characteristics, which do not correlate. One is their tendency to consider different translation variants in the process. The ideal types here are the linear planner, who tends to consider few variants; and the parallel planner, with a tendency to consider many variants. The other characteristic is the extent to which variants are planned only mentally, or written down and then revised. Krings calls the ideal types in this respect anticipatory planners versus correctional planners (Krings 2001: 427f., 530). In these respects, there are thus different process profiles. Krings further found that in post-editing machine-translated texts, the highest cognitive effort was required for texts of medium quality, not for texts of poor quality, as might have been expected. He attributes this to the necessity for constant comparison between ST and TT, to determine whether elements from the TT can be accepted or not (Krings 2001: 539). A supplementary explanation, based on the observations from Hayes et al., quoted above, would be that when revising a medium quality text, the reviser will tend to apply such focused repair procedures, which require diagnosing the problem. In fact, it can be assumed that revision in translation is in certain respects more demanding than revision in monolingual writing, precisely for this reason. The easiest way to solve a problem in a text – to produce a new text segment in the reviser’s/writer’s own words – is usually not an option, since the text is so closely modelled on another text, the ST. Thus, revision in translation requires the translator to generate precise diagnostic information. A consequence of this may be that the reviser/translator will tend to accept structures, words, etc., when translating that he/she would not accept when writing a text of his/her own. In his textbook on revising and editing, Mossop (2001) lists a number of revision parameters: aspects that are checked by a reviser. They are grouped into four areas: transfer (concerning the relationship between the ST and the TT), content (concerning the logic, as well as the facts given in the text for instance), language (TL pragmatics, stylistics, cohesion, correctness) and presentation (including layout and typography) (Mossop 2001: 99). Based on extensive experience, the existence of these revision parameters in all probability could be validated also by empirical data, both when translators

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

revise their own texts (called self-revision by Mossop) and when revising texts translated by others. Section 4.5 will explore aspects of revision in translation by looking at the goals and plans verbalized by the participants, what revisions are actually made, and the verbalized problem representations. This will give a picture, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of what kinds of revisions are made, and whether there are any differences in this respect between participants with different amounts of experience in translation. So far, textual features of the ST and the TT and their treatment in the process have only been hinted at, although they are of course the essence and matter of that process. These aspects will be considered in the next section.

. The text in the process .. Explicitation in translation ... Explicitation as a textual phenomenon Within the expertise approach, a desideratum is to study mainly “domains in which there are accepted measures of performance” (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 9). Since the translator’s task performance results in a text, the quality of the TT would seem to be a perfect candidate for such a measure of performance, on the assumption that the amount of experience correlates to the level of quality of the TT. However, there is evidence that experience in translation does not always correlate with the quality of the TT (Jääskeläinen 1999; Künzli 2003). Also, evaluations of one and the same TT sometimes vary considerably among evaluators (Norberg 2003; Krings 2001: 255ff.; Künzli 2003). Criteria for “good translations” are not constant, but subject to change, among other things as a consequence of how translators actually translate. Therefore, this study will instead analyze a particular textual feature, which can be objectively established as present or absent in the TT, and which has received a lot of attention in studies of translation, viz. explicitation. Explicitation as a concept and term seems to have been first introduced by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958): Procédé qui consiste à introduire dans LA [langue d’arrivée] des précisions qui restent implicites dans LD [langue de départ], mais qui se dégagent du contexte ou de la situation. (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1977: 9)





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

[“the method of introducing into the TL clarifications/details which are implicit in the SL, but which become clear from the context or the situation”; Translation from French: BED].

Three out of four encyclopedic works on translation studies and its terminology give explicitation as an entry8 (Baker 1998; Delisle, Lee-Jahnke, & Cormier 1999; Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997), evidence of its terminological character. In Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997: 55) explicitation is defined as “the phenomenon which frequently leads to TT stating ST information in a more explicit form than the original”, in the form of the addition of explanatory phrases and connectives and the spelling out of implicatures. Delisle et al. (1999: 139) define it as a translation procedure where “the translator introduces precise semantic details into the target text”, either for clarification or because of the contraints of the TL. These details are available from contextual knowledge or from the situation. The three examples given are all additions derived from the translator’s world knowledge, more specifically SL culture and history. The definition of explicitation in Baker (1998) reproduces verbatim that of Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1977). Only Snell-Hornby, Hönig, Kussmaul and Schmitt (1999) do not list Explizierung in their index, but give instead Explikation. It is defined as “Erhöhung des Explikationsgrades” (op. cit., p. 152), i.e., raising the level of explication. No definition is given, however, of Explikationsgrad. In van Leuven-Zwart’s method (1989; 1990) for comparison of the ST and the TT on microstructural and macrostructural levels, explicitation (and its counterpart implicitation) denote syntactic-stylistic modifications where the TT contains more (or less) elements than the ST, without conveying more (or less) information (Leuven-Zwart 1989: 167). Formally, on the text surface, explicitations can take one of two forms: addition of new elements; or specification, a translation that gives more specific information (Klaudy 2003; Øverås 1998: 575; Perego 2003: 74). Table 2.1 gives an overview of some works which mention or study explicitation or explicitation-like phenomena with some empirical foundation from a wide variety of language combinations and text types. It must be stressed, however, that the data reported or referred to in these studies varies greatly in size, from just a few examples to quite large corpora. As is clear from the definitions, different kinds of phenomena seem to be subsumed under the term. Klaudy (1998) distinguishes the categories obligatory, optional, pragmatic and translation-inherent explicitations. Obligatory explicitations are caused by structural differences between SL and TL, e.g., in grammar or semantics (Klaudy 1998: 82–83; Vinay & Darbelnet

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

Table 2.1 Studies presenting evidence of explicitation phenomena. Study

SL

TL

Text type/genre

Berk-Seligson (1987) Blum-Kulka (1986) Dancette (1997) Denver (2002) Englund Dimitrova (1993) Goris (1993) Hansen and Teich (2001)

Spanish English, French English Spanish Russian

English Hebrew, English French Danish Swedish

court interpreting various newspaper, economy journalism fiction; interpreting

English, Flemish English

French German

Klaudy (1996)

Hungarian; English Hungarian; English, German, French, Russian Czech French German English

English; Hungarian Hungarian; English, German, French, Russian French English English Hungarian

film dubbing political speeches, popular scientific texts political speech

English Hungarian English English

Finnish Italian Russian German

fiction fiction tourist information literary, non-literary texts children’s literature subtitling fiction EU texts

English, French English Spanish

French, English Greek Dutch

various newspaper fiction

Russian

Finnish

literary studies

Russian English English, Norwegian

Finnish Hebrew Norwegian, English

newspaper fiction fiction

Klaudy (2000, 2001, 2003) Levý (1965) Mason (2001) Olohan (2000) Papai (2004) Puurtinen (2004) Perego (2003) Recker (1974) Schmied and Schäffler (1997) Séguinot (1985) Sidiropoulou (1995) van Leuven-Zwart (1989; 1990) Vehmas-Lehto (2001a, 2001b) Vehmas-Lehto (2002) Weissbrod (1992) Øverås (1998)

fiction





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

1958/1977: 164). For example, the lack of definite articles in Russian will entail “numerous additions” (Klaudy 1998: 83) in translations from Russian into English, as well as translations from preposition-free Hungarian, which will entail additions when translating into Russian or English for example. Semantic explicitation, on the other hand, means choosing more specific words in the TT. Thus, Hungarian has different terms for “younger brother” and “older brother”, but lacks the hyperonymic term “brother” (ibid.), and the translator must choose one of the hyponymics, thereby making, as it were, the text semantically more specific or explicit. A further example is when English the students is translated into French les étudiantes, in the context of St. Mary’s School or Vassar College which have only woman students (example from Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1977: 117).9 Optional explicitations are due to differences in text-building strategies and stylistic preferences between langauges and can involve the addition of connective elements to strengthen cohesive links and the addition of emphasizers to clarify the sentence perspective (Klaudy 1998: 83). They are not obligatory for constructing grammatically correct sentences in the TL. Some examples of this kind from the literature are: (1) English: Walk in (signpost outside an office) French: Entrez sans frapper [Enter without knocking] (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1977: 164). (2) English: The father never entered the house again alive. He would have been welcome. Hebrew: In translation into Hebrew, the relation between the two sentences was explicitated with a subordinate clause meaning “though if he did” (Faulkner, quoted from Weissbrod 1992: 160). (3) French: Un personnage? Oui, certes. La personne se révéla moins brillante. German, English: Translators into German and English explicitate the adversative relation. (A. Maurois, taken from Mason 2001: 66) (4) Witness (in Spanish): No, de ninguna manera. Interpreter (in English): No, in no way did I ever have any conversation with him. (Berk-Seligson 1987: 100910 )

In this classification, obligatory and optional explicitations are thus related to the linguistic systems. However, the borderline between what is optional and what is obligatory can be fluid, and importantly, even obligatory options will sometimes not be realized. For instance, in the example quoted above from Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1977: 117), the students might be translated by the

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

masculine les étudiants for instance if the translator does not know that there are only woman students, or if he/she knows, but fails to react accordingly. Section 5.4 below provides evidence of this: an “obligatory” choice (in that case, choice of tense) can be missed by the person translating, even when the temporal relations have been understood correctly. Thus, when certain choices are described as “obligatory”, this is seen from a prescriptive perspective. Pragmatic explicitations are caused by aspects of the communicative situation and anticipated difficulties for the TL reader to understand (parts of) the text which a ST reader can be expected to understand, due to assumed differences in culture and world knowledge. Culture-specific concepts, geographic names, etc., may be clarified by the translator to facilitate the comprehension of the TT reader (Klaudy 1998: 83). This is no doubt an important cause of many cases of explicitation. Professional translators can be assumed to be aware of such needs, and also to know the strategies that are available to achieve this, whereas students with no experience in communicative translation might not be. Examples of this type from the literature include: (5) English: Daniel Defoe, in 1725, was so impressed by this that he devotes far more space to it in his Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain than he does to the University. German: Daniel Defoe war hiervon so beeindruckt, dass er dieser Messe 1725 in seinem Führer ‘Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain’ weit mehr Platz widmete als der Universität. (quoted from Schmied & Schäffler 1997: 25) (6) English: Though the abbeys themselves were destroyed by armies from south of the Border, they remain beautiful and poignant in their ruin. German: Obgleich die Abteien selbst durch Armeen von ‘südlich der Grenze’ (d.h. aus England) zerstört wurden, besitzen ihre Ruinen dennoch eine überwältigende Schönheit. (quoted from Schmied & Schäffler 1997: 26) (7) English translation of original Hungarian dialogue: Kata’s father: Kata, Jancsi, come! Go there to the soldiers and say kleba, this means that you want some bread. Fine? Kleba, kleba. English translation of subtitling into Italian: Go to the soldiers and say chleba. This is the way to say “bread” in Russian. Chleba, chleba. (quoted from Perego 2003: 76)





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(8) Norwegian: Hun er ennå ikke blitt mor til polfareren (literally: the polar explorer). English: His young wife was also on board; she had not yet given birth to Roald, the polar explorer. (quoted from Øverås 1998: 580)

Finally, translation-inherent explicitations are attributed to the nature of the translation process itself, being “explained by one of the most pervasive, language independent features of all translational activity, namely the necessity to formulate ideas in the target language that were originally conceived in the source language” (Klaudy 1998: 83). They are “an inevitable result of the act of mediation” (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 55). It seems that this type is related to the translator and his/her process of interpretation. ... Discussion Klaudy’s (1998) account is an interesting attempt to unite the manifold observations on explicitation into a single framework. Being built on partly different criteria (hypothetical cause versus linguistic realization), its application becomes difficult, however (see also the discussion in Vehmas-Lehto 2001a). As for the cause of explicitations, the categories obligatory and optional seem superordinate; pragmatic explicitations are in fact a subcategory of optional explicitations. The category of translation-inherent explicitations is unclear (cf. also Vehmas-Lehto 2001b). From the way it is described, it could be claimed to be obligatory, not from a linguistic point of view, but from the perspective of the process. See further Section 2.4.4.3. Furthermore, examples can be found which do not fit easily into any of the suggested types: (9) English: It lived in yet another shadow, being equidistant from the Mendip Mast and Glastonbury Tor. Norwegian: Den levde sitt liv under nok en skygge, midtveis mellom Mendip-masten og Glastonbury-varden. (Literally: It lived its life, quoted from Øverås 1998: 577–578) (10) English: Only I’m going to have a yappy Pekinese, and chase kids off my lawn. Norwegian: Bare at jeg skal ha en gneldrende pekingeser, og jage ungene fra plenen med stokken min. (literally: with my cane, quoted from Øverås 1998: 578)

Examples (9)–(10) are cases of explicitating semantic roles, a cognate object and an instrumental object (Øverås 1998: 578).

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

In other works, Klaudy has studied aspects of explicitation, analyzing empirical data from translations from Hungarian into English, German, French and Russian, and vice-versa (see Klaudy 1996, 2000, 2001, 2003). Here, she points out that explicitation can be classified taking different aspects as the starting point: the reason, the purpose, the linguistic level, etc. (Klaudy 2000). A number of different transfer operations all entail explicitation, for instance the specification of meaning, lexical addition, grammatical addition, etc. Klaudy’s conclusion here is that explicitation is not one single type of operation, but a broader concept (Klaudy 2000, 2001). Toury suggests that shifts in translation, such as explicitation, involve pairs of shifts of a complementary nature, and that in such pairs, one of the shifts may have a higher probability of occurring (Toury 2004: 23–24). In line with this, some studies also draw the procedure or technique of implicitation into the discussion, i.e., removing such explicit information from the TT as can be understood from the context. Although it would seem that logically the same types and underlying reasons are valid also for implicitations, they seem to be a less frequent procedure (Øverås 1998).11 Klaudy (1996) shows that in backtranslation, explicitations are quite often preserved, although in many cases implicitations of them would have been expected. It must be stressed that even early works on translation, such as Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) and Nida (1964),12 recommend explicitation as a translation procedure in certain cases, and similar recommendations are found also in newer textbooks on translation. It is therefore not surprising to find that many translated texts have examples of the procedure. In the theoretical literature, there is also agreement that translations are, in some sense at least, more explicit than their ST, and this has been claimed to be a universal characteristic of translation: ...universals of translational behavior. For instance, there is an almost general tendency – irrespective of the translator’s identity, language, genre, period, and the like – to explicitate in the translation information that is only implicit in the original text. (Toury 1980: 60, emphasis in the original) Another translation law that has long been recognized is the law of explicitation: translators tend to produce texts that are more explicit than the originals [. . .] (Chesterman 1997: 71) Universals of translation are linguistic features which typically occur in translated rather than original texts and are thought to be independent of the influence of the specific language pairs involved in the process of translation [...] A number of features considered common to all types of translated texts





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

have been identified, mainly on the basis of contrastive analyses of translations and their source texts. These features concern simplification, avoidance of repetitions present in the source text, explicitation, [...] (Laviosa-Braithwaite 1998: 288)

To be sure, not all authors use the term universal; Toury, for instance, avoids this term in later works, preferring instead to talk about laws (see Toury 2004: 29). Still, the idea of the greater explicitness of translated text, as a general characteristic, is a pervasive one in translation studies. There is agreement that (some amount of) explicitation is acceptable in translated texts. Studies on the topic are either descriptive, taking as their starting point that the studied texts are in fact translations, not some other kind of text reproduction such as adaptation or paraphrase; or, if the studies are prescriptive, they see explicitation, or certain instances of it, as necessary and desirable. Researchers who have expressed negative evaluations of explicitations (e.g. Levý 1965; Gutt 1996) do not draw the conclusion that the TTs are not translations at all, only that they are bad or mediocre translations. Further, there seems to be agreement in the studies that not all explicitations are obligatory. Therefore, it must be concluded that if they are a universal phenomenon in translation, this should be taken to mean only that a potential for explicitation is universal in translation, not that it is by necessity always realized. However, such a statement does nothing more than to state the obvious (cf. Toury 2004: 20). It is also not clear whether something that is being taught and recommended should actually be considered a universal. The various usages of the term explicitation in translation studies can tentatively be categorized into two main groups: usages originating from a translation pedagogical context, and usages originating from a context of translation research. The former tend to be connected with more prescriptive statements regarding what the translator should or must do, the latter usually take a descriptive stance. The cited terminological dictionaries do not highlight this distinction, but both perspectives are reflected in their formulations. Perhaps it can be concluded that at the present time in studies of translation, a host of phenomena with certain aspects in common are grouped together under the term “explicitation”, which tends to be used as a kind of umbrella term to label certain phenomena of differences between the ST and the TT which seem to be permissible in translation. Definitions and classifications of explicitation so far seem to be based on smaller or larger corpora of instances that are included in the category, but they are seldom contrasted with other translational solutions, which resemble

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

explicitation in one or more respects, but that are not considered explicitation (with the exception of van Leuven-Zwart [1989; 1990] and Øverås [1998]). Nor are they contrasted with similar instances where the translator has chosen not to explicitate. Therefore, important questions remain to be answered. A central question is: How does the translator know what to explicitate? No text says everything, and a text is explicit only in relation to a certain communicative purpose. Since no text can be explicit in all respects, an explicit text elaborates “precisely those points that are important in its context of use” (Nystrand & Wiemelt 1991: 31). To a large extent, text meaning is constructed by the reader in the reading process and is dependent upon his/her background knowledge and experience. Different readers will construct different meanings from a text, and this must be assumed to be the case with translators as readers as well. Will all who translate a given text understand the same “implicitnesses”, and will they all explicitate? Will they do it to the same extent, and by the same means? How does the translator interpret the text, and how does he/she decide how to translate it? A writer’s problem “is not just being explicit; the writer’s problem is knowing what to be explicit about” (Nystrand & Wiemelt 1991: 34). Quite clearly, this is equally valid for a translator. .. Explicitness of cohesion Explicitation indeed touches on many of the core questions of translation. It is therefore particularly well suited to study from a combined product and process perspective. The present study will discuss these questions in the context of one specific type of explicitation, namely the explicit expression in the TT of logical links that are implicit in the ST. Examples of this type of explicitation are the following, taken from the literature: (11) English: The definitive face that begins to emerge with adolescence was long, slender, and tenderly responsive [. . .] Norwegian: Det endelige ansitet som formet seg i de første ungdomsårene var langt og smalt og følsomt [. . .] (literally: long and slender; example quoted from Øverås 1998: 575) (12) French: Je lui ai demandé si on pouvait éteindre une des lampes. L’éclat de la lumière sur les murs blancs me fatiguait. English: The glare from the white walls was making my eyes smart, and I asked him if he couldn’t turn off one of the lamps. (Camus, quoted in Mason 2001: 72)





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(13) French: J’ai montré mon che d’ouvre [sic!] aux grandes personnes et je leut ai demandé si mon dessin leur faisait peur. Elles m’ont repondu “Pourquoi un chapeau ferait-il-peur?” (Saint Exupery, Le Petit Prince, p. 11) English: I showed my masterpiece to the grown-ups and asked them whether the drawings frightened them. But they answered, “Frightened? Why should anyone be frightened by a hat?” (English version 1962, by K. Woods; example quoted from BlumKulka 1986: 21) (14) Russian: Po staromu obyˇcaju rodovogo adata, kotorogo togda ešˇce priderživalis’ v aile, nel’zja otpuskat’ v storonu vdovu s synov’jami, i naši odnoplemenniki ženila na nej moego otca. (Ajtmatov) Swedish: Efter den gamla släktlagens bud – som man den gången fortfarande höll fast vid i byn – fick en änka med söner inte ställas åt sidan, och därför såg våra stamfränder till att gifta henne med min far. (transl. Blomqvist) [Engl. transl. According to the old custom of the ancestral law, to which they were then still adhering in the village, it was prohibited to put a widow with sons aside, and our relatives therefore married her to my father.] (example from Englund Dimitrova 1993: 290).

The first two examples are cases of explicitation of an additive connective, the third of explicitation of a contrastive (adversative) relation, and the fourth of explicitation of a causal relation. The explicitation of implicit logical links (between sentences or clauses) in translation has been mentioned in several studies, e.g., Blum-Kulka (1986), Dancette (1997), Goris (1993), Klaudy (2003), Levý (1965), Mason (2001) and Sidiropoulou (1995). Van Leuven-Zwart notes that the “addition, deletion or replacement of function words may cause a shift with respect to the degree of explicitness through which cohesion is achieved” (van Leuven-Zwart 1990: 81). Chesterman lists cohesion change among the syntactic strategies as “something which affects intra-textual reference, ellipsis, substitution, pronominalization and repetition, or the use of connectors of various kinds” (1997: 98). Among the pragmatic strategies the strategy of Explicitness Change is also listed, which subsumes explicitation and implicitation (Chesterman 1997: 108). Levý found in experiments that “a translator tends to explain the logical relations between ideas even where they are not expressed in the original text, to explain away any breaks in thought or changes in perspective, to ‘normalize’ the expression” (Levý 1965: 79), and suggested that this is due to the translator’s

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

endeavour to make the foreign text intelligible to the readers. Øverås (1998) found an increased level of cohesive explicitness (grammatical ties and lexical ties) in a corpus of English-Norwegian and Norwegian-English translations of fiction. There was a strong tendency towards explicitation, i.e., the number of explicitations exceeded the number of implicitations (Øverås 1998: 583). There were more explicitations, as well as implicitations, in translations from English into Norwegian than in the other direction. Sidiropoulou (1995: 85) finds an overall tendency for explicitating implicit cause-effect relationships in the translation of newspaper texts from English into Greek. There seem to be two partly different types of proposed explanations for the observed tendencies: 1. An increased level of cohesive explicitness is a function of or manifestation of translation norms. Weissbrod (1992) finds variation in the extent and amount of explicitations in fiction translated from English into Hebrew, depending on both the genre and period when the translation was made. She concludes that explicitation is a “norm-oriented procedure” (Weissbrod 1992: 168). Øverås (1998) also discusses her results in terms of translation norms and argues that an increased level of cohesive explicitness may be one of the features characterizing “the third code” (Frawley 1984: 168): translations as a sub-code of each of the linguistic codes involved. This means that it can change over time, so that translations from different periods and genres may differ in this respect, as indeed was found by Weissbrod (1992). The rationale behind this type of proposed explanation can be assumed to be that translations are expected to either conform to the textual patterns of the TL, or to constitute a text type of their own (the third code), and these expectations then guide the production of the TT. 2. An increased level of cohesive explicitness is an inevitable consequence or result of the translation process (cf. the quotes above from Klaudy 1998 and Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997; see also Klaudy 2003: 372, 375). Thus, Blum-Kulka (1986) postulates that the process of translation entails shifts in textual and discoursal relationships, such as changes in cohesive ties in the TT as compared with the ST. She further postulates three different reasons for this: grammatical differences between languages, differences in stylistic preferences between languages, and constraints imposed by the translation process itself (Blum-Kulka 1986: 18–19). The last reason is formulated as the explicitation hypothesis, which “postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless of the increase traceable





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems involved” (Blum-Kulka 1986: 19). Important for the purposes of this study is that explicitation also has been suggested to correlate with the amount of experience in translation and/or level of quality of the translated text. However, these suggestions go in opposing directions. Some researchers assume that explicitation is characteristic of translations produced by translators with little experience. Blum-Kulka advances the assumption that the trend for explicitation might be especially marked in nonprofessional translators, but notes that it is found in professional translations as well, and thus might be a universal strategy inherent in the process of language mediation (Blum-Kulka 1986: 20–21). Laviosa-Braithwaite (1996: 153) hypothesizes that the universal features of translation, among which she lists explicitation, are more strongly in evidence in translations produced by learners than in those produced by professional translators. Levý considers the tendency to explicitate characteristic of average or mediocre translations (Levý 1965: 80). Others suggest that explicitation is a translation norm and therefore presumably characteristic of professional translators, since the studies are based upon corpora of published translations (Øverås 1998; Weissbrod 1992; also suggested by Blum-Kulka 1986). Denver (2002) finds a correlation between a higher level of general and linguistic knowledge in the translator (in her study, advanced translation students) and a tendency to explicitate implicit logical links. Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 will discuss these hypothetical explanations in more detail. .. Translation norms ... Norms in translation studies The first in-depth treatment of norms in translation was offered by Toury (1980; 1995). Norms are general values or ideas, shared by a community (such as a community of translators, in a given culture, at a given point of time), and which “translate into” instructions for performance in particular situations. They are acquired in a process of socialization. Norms imply sanctions; they act as criteria for evaluation (of behaviour, or in the case of translation, evaluation of the translated texts) (Toury 1995: 54–55). It must be emphasized that norms and the underlying values of this view are constructs arrived at by the inference of the researcher from the available data (cf. Hermans 1999: 86, 90). In Toury’s model, there are three main kinds of translation norms: preliminary norms, operational norms and the initial norm. Preliminary norms

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

affect translation policy, e.g., which texts are translated and whether translations are done from the original ST or via another language. The initial norm reflects whether the translated text is primarily oriented towards the norms of the ST and SL, which in Toury’s terminology is an adequate translation. If, on the other hand, the translated text is oriented primarily towards the norms of the TL, this is termed an acceptable translation (Toury 1995: 56–57). Operational norms concern the decisions made during the act of translating. One category of operational norms are the matricial norms, which govern the fullness of the translation for example: whether the whole ST is translated, or only parts of it, as well as its segmentation. The other category is textual-linguistic norms, which govern the selection of the TL material to replace the original SL material with (Toury 1995: 58–59). If we assume that the occurrence of explicitation is norm-governed, we would primarily be interested in the initial norm and its concrete realization in textual-linguistic norms. Both the initial norm and operational norms can be deduced from different types of data, such as the observation of various kinds of relations between the ST and the TT. We would then assume that explicitation is a feature which is not concomitant with the initial norm of adequacy, since explicitation involves in some respects a departure from the textual pattern of the ST, possibly, but not necessarily, in the direction of conformity with the TL norms. Chesterman (1993; 1997) proposes the existence of two kinds of norms in translation, product norms and process norms, also called expectancy norms and professional norms. Expectancy norms as product norms are “established by the expectations of readers of a translation concerning what a translation (of this type) should be like” (Chesterman 1997: 64). Among the factors which govern such expectations are the prevailing translation traditions in the given culture and parallel texts in the TL. Process norms, on the other hand, regulate the translation process itself. The basic process norms are the accountability norm, the communication norm and the relation norm. The accountability norm is an ethical norm, which concerns the demands of loyalty, both to the ST writer, and to the commissioner of the translated text and the translator (Chesterman 1997: 68). The communication norm is a social norm, specifying the translator’s role as an expert in communication, who is supposed to optimize communication between all involved parties (Chesterman 1997: 69). Finally, the relation norm is a linguistic norm which is formulated as: ...a translator should act in such a way that an appropriate relation of relevant similarity is established and maintained between the source text and the target text. (Chesterman 1997: 69)





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

From the translator’s point of view, process norms are subordinate to expectancy norms, since they are determined by the end product they are supposed to lead to (Chesterman 1997: 67). ... Translation norms for different kinds of translations Operational norms are of different nature: some are general, others are particular, in which case they are in force only within, for instance, a particular text-type or mode of translation. Some of them are identical with norms governing monolingual text production (Toury 1995: 59). Norms in translation studies have generally been studied in the context of professional translation, which is also reflected in the term “professional norms”, chosen since they are derived from the translational behaviour of translators who are recognised to be competent professionals (Chesterman 1997: 68). Indeed, bilinguals’ and students’ ways of translating has received fairly little attention in translation studies. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are actually very few systematic studies on textual patterns in the translations of non-professionals. However, it is my contention that norms must be assumed to be potentially in operation in any context where interpersonal translating occurs, i.e., in which the translating person and the receiver (reader/listener) are not one and the same individual.13 All such translating is potentially subject to some kind of feedback from the reader/listener or from other factors in the communication situation. Therefore, any translational behaviour which occurs with some frequency within a particular socio-cultural setting is potentially subject to norms. It follows from this reasoning that translation as a part of foreign language learning, teaching and testing is also subject to (translation) norms. However, the communicative situation in this kind of translation, which I will call didactic translation, in the prototypical case differs from that of professional translation (Malmkjær 1998b). In didactic translation, there is normally only one prospective reader of the TT, the teacher, who does not need to have the TT translated in order to understand the ST, contrary to readers of TTs within professional translation. When translation into the student’s L1 is used in language teaching, its main purpose is to check the student’s comprehension of the ST. Translation into L2 (the foreign language) has the purpose of having the student produce structures in the foreign language, either for practice and internalization, and/or to show that they have been mastered, such as in a test (Källkvist 1998). Thus, in neither case is the primary or main purpose to produce a functional text in the TL, nor to communicate the message of the ST to the readers (or listeners, if it is done orally). Rather, it is to communicate another, metalinguistic message, that the translating student has

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

the necessary knowledge in the foreign language. Thus, the purpose is not to give information about the text and its contents, but to give information about the translator, i.e., the student. To achieve this, the student must master that relation norm which has been prescribed by the teacher. Therefore, in didactic translation, the relation norm is of paramount importance, and the expectancy norm is derived from the fact that there is only one prospective reader of the TT. This prospective reader differs from an ordinary reader in several respects. Firstly, he/she can and will compare the TT to its ST, and secondly, he/she can and will enforce his/her translation norms, by passing or failing a text translated by the students. One important difference between professional and didactic translation is thus that in the latter, the concrete nature of the norms will prototypically depend only upon the reader(s) and evaluator(s). In professional translation, translators are socialized into the relevant translation norms, through training and/or through work as translators (cf. Toury 1984, 1986, 1995; see also Section 2.2.2 above), but they also potentially act to change and develop norms. In this respect, the community of translators as a whole are on “equal footing”, and all of them potentially influence the norms (Toury 1995: 62). In a prototypical didactic setting, when translation is used as a language teaching and language testing method, translation norms are set by the teacher, and the community of “translators”, in this case the students, usually does not have much chance of negotiating the norms or of influencing them. Therefore, language students as a rule can be assumed to be less aware than professional translators of the possibility of generating and accepting several potential translation solutions for a ST segment; instead, they tend to assume the existence of one, “correct” TT, and see it as their task to try and find that solution. Due to the differences between norms in a didactic setting and norms in a professional translation situation, professional translators and students can be assumed to produce different TTs from one and the same ST segment. However, similarities in their TTs can also be assumed to exist. I assume that norms for didactic and norms for professional translation overlap to a certain extent, and furthermore, that one crucial aspect of becoming a professional translator is to learn and internalize how, where and to what extent the relation norm in professional translation differs from the relation norm in didactic translation, and where they overlap; or formulated otherwise: how the professional accountability and communication norms affect the relation norm (see also Chesterman 1997, Chapter 6). Underlying this view of acquiring translator competence is of course the assumption that virtually





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

everybody who enters a translator training program, or who starts to translate for professional purposes without such training, has in fact some experience in didactic translation. ... Studying translation norms In translation studies, norms have been deduced from various sources, for instance from recurrent patterns in the translated texts, but also from statements of translators and other people active on the translation arena, as well as from normative statements from various authorities. There is not necessarily any relationship of identity between the norms themselves and any formulation of them in language, although “[v]erbal formulations of course reflect awareness of the existence of norms as well as of their respective significance” (Toury 1995: 55, italics in the original). Assuming that translation is a decision process (cf. Levý 1967/1989) and that (translation) norms act as a steering factor in the translation process of course implies that there are, in fact, often potential alternative solutions. Such alternatives can potentially be brought to the fore in an individual’s process of translating a given ST, and if this process is studied by concurrent introspection, all or some of the alternatives considered can be assumed to be verbalized by the individual. The protocols also provide evidence of the translator’s decision processes; does this mean that translation norms are reflected in them to some extent, and thus are possible to study? Chesterman has suggested that a norm may be defined as follows (the definition is adapted from Bartsch 1987: 76): Let S = a given society, C = a given set of conditions, X = any individual belonging to S, A = a given act. Then: there exists a norm governing A if and only if all the following conditions hold: 1. Most members of S regularly do A under C. 2. If X does not do A, members of S may criticize X and other members of S will regard such criticism as justified. 3. Members of S use such expressions as “X ought to do A under C” or “it is the rule that under C, people in S do A” or “the right thing to do under C is A” in order to justify their own or others’ actions or criticisms. (Chesterman 1997: 54–55)

These conditions capture the different aspects of norms and their force in regulation of behaviour. Condition 1 concerns the actual behaviour that is governed by the norm – the results will be observable, for instance, by the

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

researcher. In translation, this can entail certain recurrent patterns in translated texts. Condition 2 means that the practice which can be observed is also accepted as being desirable and valid among the members of the society in question. Condition 3 postulates that norms are accessible to intersubjective consciousness, and that the members of the given society know them and can talk about them. Conditions 2 and 3 involve externalizing underlying values in various ways. Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect verbalizations in TAPs that in some way reflect underlying translation norms, if, indeed, the translation act of a given translator is norm-governed. It seems, however, that no study so far has addressed the specific question of whether TAPs can be used as a research method to study translation norms. Norms are an expression of (underlying) values and serve as criteria against which instances of behaviour are evaluated (Toury 1995: 55). Several TA studies have actually studied the subjects’ evaluative utterances, but without raising the issue of translation norms. Tirkkonen-Condit and Laukkanen (1996) connect evaluations expressed in TAPs with the affective dimensions of translational decisions, proposing that evaluative statements in the protocols reflect subjective theories of translation. Examples are given of verbalizations which seem to reflect underlying norms, or hesitation concerning which norm to adhere to (the excerpts are here quoted only in their English translation): (15) Translation teacher/TAPs: oh heck (9.0) but I don’t have to aim at a perfectly (.) natural English format as this is (.) as it will be known that it´s a (4.0) translation (.) translation and that it (7.0) belongs to a corpus of sample texts (Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen 1996: 50; emphasis in the original) (16) Professional translator/TAPs: SULKAVA HOLIDAY CENTRE (1.0) this is still a bit problematic but I wonder if I should put this in Finnish or in English it would depend on the employer and his wishes because there are of course two ways of doing it (Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen 1996: 49; emphasis in the original)

Tirkkonen-Condit (1997) found that translational proficiency14 is reflected in the evaluations found in TAPs, and more specifically that the proportion and specificity of TT evaluations grow with proficiency. The examples given in that study indicate that the professional translators more explicitly base their evaluations on the needs of the future reader, whereas students and laymen evaluate in more general terms. These findings are consistent with viewing the internalization of translation norms as part of the competence of a professional translator (cf. 2.4.3.2).





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

The professional translators in Jääskeläinen’s study verbalized translation principles (comprising among others the subcategory of global translation strategies, which reflects underlying strategies that guide the translation process) more often than the non-professionals (Jääskeläinen 1999: 202). The verbalizations of translation principles in the non-professional translators’ protocols often reflected insecurity, whereas the professional translators verbalized explicit principles or rules of conduct (Jääskeläinen 1999: 178). The nonprofessionals showed in their verbalizations that they do not quite know what is expected of them or what is allowed in translation (Jääskeläinen 1999: 182). Another way of stating this is of course that they are not certain which norms to follow. Thus, one of the non-professionals asks the experimenter: (17) Layman/TAPs: should one think about that as well, that this would be good Finnish or like just getting the idea translated (Jääskeläinen 1999: 182)

Evaluative statements have also been noted in TA studies of non-professional translators. Krings (1986a) distinguishes within the group of evaluation strategies the subtype of Übersetzungsmaximen [translation maxims], in which the evaluation is based on a deliberation of a principle. An example is the Wörtlichkeitmaxime [the maxim of literalness ], which can be paraphrased as: if you have a choice between two alternatives that are equally appropriate, choose the more literal one (Krings 1986a: 429). Three of the four subjects translating from their L1 into L2 verbalized what can be called the correction maxim: finding something which they considered a norm breach in the ST, two of them thought it necessary to get rid of the breach in their TT, the third one on the contrary considered it necessary to keep it (Krings 1986a: 433). This is also found in Tirkkonen-Condit and Laukkanen’s (1996) data, where it is labeled a subjective theory of translation. Translation maxims are viewed as partly idiosyncratic by Krings (1986a: 434). Perhaps it is a similar view which has led Tirkkonen-Condit and Laukkanen (1996: 57) to use the term subjective translation theories, which seems to imply a dimension of individuality or even idiosyncrasy, although some theories were in fact shared by more than one subject. Viewing verbalizations such as these as idiosyncratic or subjective is perhaps a consequence of the character and size of the data in each case: Krings (1986a) had in all eight subjects, and Tirkkonen-Condit and Laukkanen (1996) had four. Some maxims, which may seem idiosyncratic in the context of a single study, can take on another status when other data is considered as well. TAPs studies are usually relatively small, in terms of the number of subjects and the length of the ST. More impor-

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

tantly, the focus of the analyses so far has been more on psycholinguistic and affective dimensions than on sociocultural issues. Perhaps this is why different researchers classify very similar verbalizations in different ways, failing to realize their potential systematic nature in a wider perspective due to the limited numbers of subjects. TAPs thus seem to offer a possibility of shedding some more light on the issue of translation norms in the actual translation process. Through their verbalizations, people who translate can show an awareness of the existence of norms and their content, but the opposite is naturally also possible, i.e., that verbalizations will reveal a lack of such an awareness. Caution is advisable, however. There is not necessarily a correspondence between a normative or evaluative statement and the translation solution decided upon. Furthermore, the fact that TAPs are data from individuals’ translation processes, usually only from a limited number of subjects and a small number of texts (ST and TTs), makes generalizations regarding norms from TAPs studies difficult, since norms, by definition, are deduced from the underlying values of large groups/communities. It is not clear what rate of intersubject agreement would be necessary for a particular statement or value judgment to be called (the expression of) a norm. This of course also has a bearing on the important question of the representativity of the sample of subjects in a given study. .. Processing the text ... Literal translation in the process In the translation process of the individual translator, the likely alternative to an explicitation is a translation which is not explicitated, but is formally closer to the ST structure: what could be called a literal translation. In translation studies, this term is used mainly in two different senses: a) A translation procedure or strategy applied to (smaller) text segments; b) A translated text which as a whole is characterized by a high frequency of the procedure/strategy (cf. Delisle et al. 1999: 155; Robinson 1998: 125). Various definitions of the term in the first sense are given. Delisle et al. (1999: 154) define it as a translation strategy which preserves the formal features of the ST, while conforming to TL grammar. Wilss defines it as “structural identity or near-identity on the syntagmatic and syntactic level” (Wilss 1996a: 128) between the ST segment and its corresponding TT segment. Other definitions also include an evaluative element:





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

A literal translation can be defined in linguistic terms as a translation “made on a level lower than is sufficient to convey the content unchanged while observing TL norms” (Barkhudarov 1969: 10, quoted from Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 95; emphasis added)

Thus, the two common features seem to be: (a) maximal closeness to the ST meaning and structure, and (b) conformity to the TL grammar. However, Robinson (1998) gives a stricter definition: Literal translation [. . .] is ideally the segmentation of the SL text into individual words and TL rendering of those word-segments at a time. [. . .] most so called literal translations are in fact compromises with the ideal: looser renditions that replace individual SL words with individual TL words wherever possible, and cling as closely as possible to the SL word order in TL. (Robinson 1998: 125)

This seems to be what is called in other works a word-for-word translation, (cf. the following example of this procedure from Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997: 198): Engl. I have read the book would in a German word-for-word translation be rendered as: Ich habe gelesen das Buch, whereas in literal translation it would be: Ich habe das Buch gelesen, i.e., with a correct German word order. Translated texts characterized by a high frequency of the procedure, indeed where the translator’s ideal seems to have been to use the procedure whenever possible, have been viewed differently at different periods and in different cultures. Implicitly underlying certain dichotomies that have been proposed by translation theorists is the concept of literal translation and whether it is used as a frequent procedure or not. See, for instance, Nida’s concepts of formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964) and Toury’s concepts of adequacy vs. acceptability (cf. above, 2.4.3.1). Literal translation as a procedure is often frowned upon, under the (implicit) assumption that it leads to a bad translated text, a translated text where the ST structure is reflected in an exaggerated and unwanted way. Indeed, such unwanted influence from the ST (structurally, semantically) has been called interference in the form of negative transfer (Toury 1986; 1995: 275) or translationese (Gellerstam 1986). However, literal translation is often acceptable (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958/1977: 48) and also recommended: My thesis is, however, that literal translation is correct and must not be avoided, if it secures referential and pragmatic equivalence to the original. (Newmark 1988: 68–69)

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

Translating quite literally can also be a personal style of translating, or perhaps a way of playing it safe, by first producing a literal translation, as evidenced in Jonasson (1997: 102), or an intermediate stage in the process (Komissarov 1990: 206–207). See also the following statement: The translator begins his search for translation equivalence from formal correspondence, and it is only when the identical-meaning formal correspondent is either not available or not able to ensure equivalence that he resorts to formal correspondents with not-quite-identical meanings or to structural and semantic shifts which destroy formal correspondence altogether. (Ivir 1981: 58, quoted in Toury 1986: 93)

For the purposes of the present study, the term literal translation will be used in the sense of “a TT fragment which is structurally and semantically modelled upon the ST fragment while respecting TL grammatical constraints”. The concept will be used in the analysis of types of revisions (Section 4.5.3) and in Chapter 5 on explicitation. ... Automaticity and depth of processing The issue of literal translation versus various non-literal translation procedures is a central one when studying expertise in translation. With a slight exaggeration, it could be claimed that anyone who can read and write and who has a translation ability (in the sense discussed in Section 2.2.1) and a bilingual dictionary can produce some kind of translated “text” applying the procedure of literal translation. However, for professional competence and expertise in translation, it is necessary to know which text segments can be translated literally and which cannot. For this, it is necessary to be able to generate different translation variants for the same ST segment, as proposed by Pym (1992: 281) as one of the central skills in translator competence (cf. Section 2.2.2). The ability of professional translators to generate many different translation solutions has been corroborated by process studies (Krings 1988; Tirkkonen-Condit 2000). Furthermore, Dancette (1997: 103) saw a larger number of proposed variants as an indicator of efficient processing in translator students. It has been suggested that literal translation generally is less demanding cognitively than non-literal translation (Wilss 1996a: 128). As mentioned in Section 2.3.4.1, in the translation process there is an alternation between automated and strategic problem-solving processing. What is then the connection or correlation between literal translation, as defined here, and automated versus strategic processing? A psycholinguistic correlate to literal translation seems to be the notion of primäre Äquivalentassoziationen [primary equiva-





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

lent associations], which was introduced by Krings (1986a) and defined as a psycholinguistic category of the individual, answering to the following criteria: (1) interlinguality: the associations come from two different languages and are associated with each other directly, not via some further element in both languages; (2) immediacy: activation of the one element leads to the activation of the other element; (3) constancy: they can be shown to remain constant over time; (4) equivalence: for the subject they are equivalent (Krings 1986a: 304– 305). These associations are at word level or sometimes above it, but with consideration for contextual restrictions (Krings 1986a: 315). Olohan (2000) uses the term direct mappings in very much the same sense. Krings proposes on the basis of his data that translating subjects can process on three levels: 1. The interlingual level of primary equivalent associations and spontaneous translations15 2. The combined intra-/interlingual level of L1 reverbalizations (paraphrases, etc.) together with primary equivalent associations and spontaneous translations 3. The deep semantic level of direct conceptualizations (Krings 1986a: 507). Subjects only go down to a deeper level if equivalent findings on a higher level, cognitively less demanding, do not succeed, and there is thus a psycholinguistic minimax strategy (Levý 1989: 48) to keep the cognitive load as low as possible (Krings 1986a: 508; cf. also Lörscher 1991: 276). Processing on the first level means automatic retrieval, since the activation of one element, in one language, leads to the activation of the other element, in the other language. Since the primary equivalent associations are a psycholinguistic category derived from actual data, they will differ to some extent between different subjects. This means that some of them are literal translations, and some are not. Of course literal translations can also be produced with effort, non-automatically. One instance is when the translating person is unable to access the literal translation in the TL, either temporarily or because he has not stored it as an equivalent. Furthermore, literal translation can be used precisely as a problem-solving strategy, applied after other procedures have failed (cf. Künzli 2003), in which case it is of course not automatically retrieved. The other issue is whether only literal translations are (stored as) primary equivalent associations and thus processed automatically. It can be assumed that as the individual’s experience grows, the size of automatically translated chunks grows (cf. Section 2.3.4.1 above). One way to interpret this is to say that a larger number of stretches (Olohan 2000) and longer stretches of literal translation can be produced automatically. Another is to assume that auto-

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

matically translated segments will include also non-literal translations. With growing experience, translators will have automatic cross-linguistic access to larger linguistic units: We might conceive of cross-language structure matching of relatively broad scope and great semantic complexity (relative to novices). . . This means that certain complex operations such as transposition of syntactic structures, modulation of cultural perspective, and selection of equivalent macrosigns (as in the translation of proverbs and so on) could also be automatized. (Shreve & Diamond 1997: 250)

To the complex operations that are potentially automated, we may add also explicitation. We now return to the issue which was briefly touched upon above in Section 2.2.1, namely how the bilingual stores and processes his/her languages. A critical issue is the connections between the languages and how they are activated in processing, and more precisely: can both form and meaning be processed simultaneously? The ‘deverbalization hypothesis’, proposed by Seleskovitch (e.g. 1968) to account for processing in interpreting, but later also for processing in translation (Seleskovitch & Lederer 1984; Delisle 1988), postulates that in the processing, the interpreter/translator brings about a separation of the sense from the SL form, and generates a new TL segment on the basis only of the sense of the ST segment. Lörscher (1991) makes a similar distinction between sign-/form-oriented translating and sense-oriented translating: In sign- or form-oriented translating, subjects transfer source-language text segments by focussing on their forms (=succession of signs) and by replacing them by target-language forms. This transfer of forms/signs is brought about without recourse to the sense of the two text segments involved (. . .). . . . Senseoriented translating is dependent on and controlled by mental processes which bring about a separation of SL forms/signs from their sense which is in turn combined with TL forms/signs. However, these processes of separation and combination require much longer periods of time than automatic association processes. (Lörscher 1991: 272; emphasis added)

In my view, this position is too extreme. Lörscher (1991: 276) claims that “the subjects do not proceed to sense-oriented translating before sign-oriented procedures have turned out to be unsuccessful or unsatisfactory.” It is not clear how subjects are able to judge that sign-oriented procedures are unsuccessful, if they do not process sense as well. Furthermore, no evidence is given as to why processing form and sense must necessarily take “much longer periods of





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

time”, and if so, how long these periods of time have to be. In view of these objections, and in view of the fact that Lörscher’s study is based on data from language students only, the following assumption seems highly hypothetical: But on the whole, it can be assumed that non-professional translators take a mainly sign-oriented and professional translators a mainly sense-oriented approach to translation. (Lörscher 1991: 276)

In contrast, Krings (1986a: 511) assumes that the postulated three levels of processing (where the third level, direct conceptualizations, seems to correspond to sense-oriented translation) are valid for professional translators’ processing as well, so that they also operate according to a psycholinguistic minimax strategy. This has not been studied on the basis of process data from professional translators, but it is indirectly corroborated by some of the quotes given above. Explicitation of implicit logical links as a translation phenomenon is particularly well suited to the study of these issues. Text segments with a potential for such explicitation can serve as a test-bed in the study of how text is processed in translation. Such explicitations are interesting in the process for another reason as well: the explicitated translation variant cannot be looked up in a dictionary or in a grammar. They are instead the result of the translating individual’s process of interpretation and decision-making regarding the translated text. ... Processing implicit logical links Explicitating implicit logical links is an example of a case when processing at the most shallow level is not sufficient (Dancette 1997: 102). Processing requires understanding something that is not on the textual surface. This requires inferencing regarding the implicit link. A number of studies on monolingual discourse processing have shown that knowledge-based inferences, for instance, regarding causal relations, are indeed generated during reading (Graesser, Swamer, Bagget, & Sell 1996; Long, Seely, Oppy, & Golding 1996; Trabasso, Secco, & Van den Broek 1984). To achieve this, the reader/comprehender needs to keep some trace of the meaning of the preceding text segment, such as a sentence, activated while reading and comprehending the following sentence (Graesser et al. 1996: 14; Trabasso & Suh 1993: 28). Inferential processing is a functionally separate component of skilled reading in L1. Thus, in reading in L1, a low ability reader may manage to execute the processes necessary to read and comprehend the sentences, but still fail to make the necessary inferences to construct a representation that is consistent with the

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

topic or theme of the text (Long et al. 1996: 209. Translation into L1 involves reading in a foreign language, which potentially requires more resources for the comprehension process. This possibly makes inferencing more difficult, or takes cognitive resources away from inferencing, and this can be assumed to be more notable in the case of students. An implicit link within a sentence (as is the case in the segments studied in Section 5.3), may pose less problems in this respect, since inferencing regarding such a link only requires the activation of a smaller segment, within the same sentence, and thus does not require keeping the meaning of the preceding text or sentence activated. Knowledge-based inferences are generated from a combination of various sources, apart from the explicit text. The reader’s knowledge structures naturally play a decisive role. Also the reader’s goals and the pragmatic context of the message are of importance (Graesser et al. 1996: 14). In translation, the goal of the task can be assumed to be set in the pre-writing or planning phase (see Section 2.3.3 above), and this goal can thus be assumed to influence what inferences are made to some extent. For instance, the translator may already in the first reading of the ST see the text from the perspective of the future readers, and this can involve planning to add information which he/she will eventually derive from inferencing. If a person translating has inferred in the comprehension process the nature of an implicit logical link, different hypotheses can be proposed regarding how processing is done and what will happen in that process to the inferred link. One hypothesis is that translation is done via a language-independent mental representation of the meaning of the ST segment. An argument in favour of this hypothesis is the fact that in discourse processing, verbatim memory for text is usually quite poor. This shows in that the surface string of words, i.e., the phonological or graphological representation, will rapidly start to decay from STM, and only the semantic representation, the sense will remain (de Beaugrande 1984: 169; Bower & Cirilo 1985: 81). In monolingual processing, even where verbatim quotations are a prescribed norm, as for instance in direct quotes in journalism, in fact a substantial number of discrepancies have been shown to occur between taped speeches and published, allegedly verbatim quotations (Lehrer 1989). Interestingly from the perspective of the present study, conjunctions was a category with a high proportion of discrepancies (Lehrer 1989: 113).16 If translation is hypothesized to be done via a language-independent meaning representation, in accordance with the deverbalization hypothesis (see Section 2.4.4.2), it can be assumed that this meaning will include the inference regarding the nature of the implicit logical link. As a consequence, this would





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

then be explicitated, when the TL segment is generated from the semantic, nonverbal representation. This seems to be one possible interpretation of the explicitation hypothesis (Blum-Kulka 1986; see above 2.4.2) and its suggestion of explicitation as a result of the translating individual’s process of interpretation. However, the explicitation hypothesis also assumes that explicitation may be more frequent in translations produced by learners, i.e., students. It is not clear how this is compatible with the frequently stated opinions regarding students’ ways of translating (small segments and sign-oriented translation), which seem to constitute counter-evidence against the deverbalization hypothesis. Furthermore, it is not clear how explicitation in accordance with the deverbalization hypothesis is compatible with the limitations of STM, which of course must be assumed to be more conspicuous in the case of students, especially when the two sentences to be linked are quite long. These seem to be strong arguments against this hypothesis. If, on the other hand, processing in translation is not done, or not always done, in accordance with the deverbalization hypothesis, this means either that the person translating processes only ST form (cf. Lörscher’s notion of sign-oriented translation), or that he/she processes both form and sense. The former alternative is only compatible with non-explicitation. In the latter case, inferences regarding the implicit link can be made. If so, the explicitation or non-explicitation of an inferred implicit logical link can be either the result of personal preferences, thus idiosyncratic behaviour, or an instance of norm-governed behaviour. If explicitation is indeed norm-governed, it could be the result of one or several norms that act on all TTs or on different sets of TTs. Explicitation, if norm-governed, seems to be more compatible with the initial norm of acceptability, in Toury’s terms, than with adequacy, since explicitation per definitionem involves departing in some respects from the norms of the ST. If explicitation is explainable in terms of a more general quest for acceptability, it should be possible to observe its appearance together with other phenomena that are typical of acceptability when translating between the specific SL and TL. Thus, it should then be only one indicator among many of a striving for acceptability. In Chesterman’s (1997) terms, it can be assumed that explicitation should be seen as an instance of the implementation of the communication norm, being a feature which (according to the translator) will optimize communication. Since such views may differ from one translator to another, there can be individual differences between different translators. However, there should be consistency in the TT patterns of one and the same translator, at least within a given text type. If explicitation is indeed norm-

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

governed in translation it should have a regular character. Furthermore, it should be found in the TTs of all or most subjects in a certain group of translators. ... Translation norms and decisions in the translation process The application of literal translation as a translation procedure at the textual level, and of primary equivalent associations in the translation process is also a function of norms, which determine the span within which this is allowed: when it can take place, when it should take place, and when it should not take place (Toury 1986: 91). Norms have a dual function: they oblige or enforce certain choices, but they also guide and facilitate decision-making (cf. Hermans 1999: 80). From the individual ontogenetic perspective, norms can be assumed to have influenced which ST segments are processed and translated in an automatic, non-problematic way. The professional translator can be assumed to have worked out, or perhaps explicitly learnt, certain (types of) solutions to recurring textual phenomena in his/her particular language combination. In the translation process, such ready-made solutions can be assumed to be automated to a certain extent. Automated processing can be a consequence either of not having access to more than one option, or of having internalized and automated one out of several options, and both these alternatives can be norm-governed. In such cases, norms have facilitated the automation of processing, by providing the framework of allowed variation. Furthermore, when solutions are evaluated in the process, and especially if problems of any kind occur in the process, norms provide the values against which different translation solutions are generated and evaluated, and decisions are made. Problem-solving is facilitated by providing these values. Norms thus have an influence both on automatic and strategic processing. When TT stretches are produced automatically, in the TAPs there will be either no verbalizations or verbalizations that are identical to a large extent with the TT. However, the oral nature of the verbalizations potentially offers some further information sources, such as pauses, intonation patterns, paralinguistic features, etc., which could be drawn into the analysis (cf. the analysis of pause length in Section 5.3). If, on the other hand, the translation of a text segment requires more extensive processing, involving deciding between different options, translation norms, assumedly being one of the possible influencing factors in the decision process, may be reflected in the TAPs in the form of evaluative statements and principled statements on translation. I will assume that such verbalizations are potential reflections of underlying norms.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Potential, because obviously data from one single individual cannot constitute evidence for the existence of a norm. More evidence, and converging evidence is needed, for such conclusions to be drawn.

. Research design This chapter has discussed aspects of how translation tasks are performed (Section 2.3) and how the ST and TT are processed (Section 2.4). This has been done from the point of view of potential differences in these respects depending on the translating individual’s previous experience in translation. This perspective was introduced in Section 2.2. The main research question in this study is: how do differences in amount of translation experience correlate to: a. The postulated main cognitive processes in performing the task? b. The processing of implicit logical links in the ST and different translation solutions in the TTs? Most studies of the translation process are based on data either from one category of subjects, or from two categories that are contrasted. This study has the word “expertise” in its title, and it is clear from Section 2.2.3 above that the expertise paradigm provides part of the theoretical framework. Indeed, special attention will be given to aspects that may be indicative of expertise in translation (see the empirical analyses in Chapters 4 and 5, and also Section 6.2). However, the research design is cross-sectional and the participants were chosen in order to permit studying more than two categories with differing amount of translation experience, that is, not only the dichotomy of experts versus non-experts (novices). The different categories representing translation experience are operationalized, departing from the concepts of translation ability, translator competence and expertise in translation. A prototypical person with translation ability would be a bilingual with minimal experience in any kind of translation, in any language combination. Such people are hard to find, however, at least in a country like Sweden, where school children learn at least one foreign language from 3rd grade, and where various kinds of translation are used as one of the teaching and learning methods. Translation ability, in the sense discussed in Section 2.2.1, also characterizes language learners for instance, and therefore, university students were chosen. Two such categories were selected: students taking the SL (Russian) at university level, and students

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production

taking a translator training program. The purpose in choosing two different student categories was to see to what extent and in what respects the translation students differ from the language students, by presumably approaching in some respects the professional translators. The categories translator competence and potentially also expertise in translation are represented by professional translators, differing in their amount of experience in translation. (See further 3.4.1.) The general research questions are specified in the following ways. It is assumed here that performing a translation task shares important cognitive processes with monolingual writing tasks, namely planning, text generation and revision. It is further assumed that these processes apply throughout the task as a whole, influencing how the task is divided into discernible phases, and also the processing of smaller units of the text, but that their exact distribution and application within a particular task varies between different individuals. The amount of experience with translation tasks is assumed to correlate to how an individual approaches and performs such tasks. Characteristics of the translated text are also assumed here to correlate to on the quality and quantity of experience in translation. One specific aspect of the TT in relation to the ST will be in focus: implicit logical links in the ST and their potential explicit expression (explicitation) in the TT. This will be studied both from a textual perspective and through an analysis of the process of translating the relevant parts of the text. In this way, the questions will be addressed of whether the explicitation of implicit logical links occurs in Russian-Swedish translation; and whether it is norm-governed, or whether other explanations should be sought, such as the cognitive constraints of the translation process. More specified research questions are presented as an introduction to the analyses in Chapters 4 and 5.

Notes . See reports on so called spontaneous translation (Perecman 1984) and paradoxical translation (Paradis, Goldblum, & Abidi 1982) in aphasic bilingual patients. . Olohan (2000: 606) notes the same tendency in the protocols of advanced translator students, in contrast to intermediate students. . Anderson (1990: 220) defines declarative knowledge as knowledge about facts and things, and procedural knowledge as knowledge about how to perform cognitive activities.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process . In the earlier versions of the model, text generation was called translating, by which was meant the translation of ideas into language, not interlingual translation. . This model is more easily applicable to a heavily text-constrained text production task like translation than the Knowledge Telling and Knowledge Transforming models (see, e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter 1987). They intend to capture “how knowledge is brought into the writing process and [. . .] what happens to knowledge in that process” (1987: 143) and view writing as a discovery process, where writers develop new ideas precisely through writing and where writing is seen as having “epistemic benefits” (Scardamalia & Bereiter 1991: 179). Although this model of the writing process is aimed at generality, it does not seem to be suitable to translation and the writing activity in a translation assignment (cf., however, Jensen 2000). The translator’s possibilities of generating new content and restructuring the text are generally limited, so using a model where this is a key factor does not seem justified. . Tirkkonen-Condit (2000, 2002) discusses different translator profiles, based upon a linguistic analysis of the contents of the TAPs. . An interview with the well-known literary translator (Finnish-Swedish, English-Swedish) Thomas Warburton corroborates this. He claims usually to start translating from the middle of the text, “to get going”, without reading the whole text first (Svenska Dagbladet March 2, 2003). . In Baker (1998), the entry “explicitation” is even given slightly more space than the entry “equivalence”. Furthermore, a subsection of the entry “universals of translation” is also devoted to explicitation. . See the often quoted statement: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.” (Jakobson 1959: 236). . Berk-Seligson (1987) calls this lengthening, not explicitation. She considers one of the reasons for lengthening that the interpreter inserts material which is perceived as underlying or understood in the original utterances. . For implicitation, sometimes called condensation or compression, see also Kosta (1988). . Nida does not use the term explicitation, but recommends certain types of additions (Nida 1964: 227–231). Many of them are of the same types as those which are by other researchers classified as explicitations, for instance “filling out elliptical expressions”, “obligatory specification”, “additions required by grammatical restructuring”, “amplification from implicit to explicit status”, “connectives” and “classifiers”. Another group of techniques of adjustment is alterations, where such cases are discussed as when the translator has to choose words/equivalents on a lower or higher rank than the ST, i. e., either hyponymic or hyperonymic expressions (Nida 1964: 236). . I thus exclude from this discussion instances of intrapersonal translation, for instance when a language learner translates mentally, orally and/or in written form, on his/her own initiative, without having been told to do so, doing this to facilitate learning. . Defined as “the abilities, skills and know-how which an adequate performance of a professional translator prototypically requires” (Tirkkonen-Condit 1997: 70). . A spontaneous translation is the first rendering of a longer ST passage, which does not contain any problem indicator (Krings 1986a: 316).

Chapter 2. Translation as text (re)production . Other categories especially susceptible to change were Hedges & intensifiers, Referring expressions & determiners, and (Omission of) Repeated material (Lehrer 1989). These categories have been found to be subject to tendencies to change in translation and interpretation as well.



Chapter 3

Methods and data

. Methodological considerations The aims of this study are broad and exploratory. It investigates a number of process aspects in order to find factors which can be assumed to be characteristic of professional translators and of experts in translation (cf. Section 2.2 above). Concerning the study of expertise, Ericsson and Smith (1991) advocate a three-step approach consisting in: 1. Finding or defining a collection of tasks which will enable the researcher to capture expert behavior in the relevant domain (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 13 ff.). This will involve identifying crucial aspects of experts’ performance, by studying how they regularly perform at a superior level in their domain, under the specific constraints of that domain. 2. Designing representative tasks to make experiments under controlled laboratory conditions possible (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 18). From a research point of view, this involves defining the simplest stiuation where experts’ superior performance can be reproduced and studied (Ericsson & Charness 1997: 8). 3. Accounting for the superior performance of experts, in theoretical and empirical accounts of how the mechanisms identified can be acquired (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 25, 32). The approach of this study is in accordance with the first and second steps. I hope that by studying translators who have many years of experience in professional translation, and by comparing them with translators with less experience, as well as with students, crucial performance aspects can indeed be identified which can be further tested empirically in other subsequent studies. A strict definition of expertise takes into account not only the length of experience, but also its quality, for instance whether systematic feedback has been given (cf. Section 2.2.3). Here, it is simply assumed that a large



Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

amount of experience in translation is potentially concomitant with expertise in translation. Since the focus is on how the translation task is performed, ecological validity is crucial. This means that the nature of the task and the circumstances surrounding its performance should be as close to a real task as possible. The research methods used here (see further Sections 3.2–3.3) are not part of a translator’s normal task performance. Section 3.2.2 further discusses the potential effects of this on the data obtained. Ecological validity requires that the text used is a plausible ST for a given communicative purpose in the target culture so that a translation brief (a purpose for which the ST is to be translated) can be given to the participants in the study. This important aspect has not always been considered in earlier studies (see similar criticism in Bernadini [2001], Jääskeläinen [1999] and Künzli [2003]). Methods for the study of the translation process, and for the study of writing in general, can be classified according to when and how data is collected in relation to the process itself: cf. Figure 3.1. Data can be collected from the ongoing process (i.e. on-line) or after the process is finished (off-line). Collecting certain data after the process itself is finished, for instance through interview or retrospection, has the advantage of not having any effects on the process itself. Retrospection builds on the assumption that parts of the information that resided in the subject’s STM during a particular task will be stored in his/her LTM and can be retrieved afterwards by the subject (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 149). A disadvantage of retrospection is that it generally does not allow complete recall of the information, but only parts of it. Furthermore, the information does not necessarily have the same form as when it was being attended to in STM, since it has undergone processes of abstraction, generalization, elaboration, etc. Cued recall will lessen the negative effects of this to some extent. Cues for retrospection in a translation task could be the ST, the final version of the TT, a log file of the writing process being

On-line Off-line

Introspective methods Non-introspective methods Think-aloud Dialogue translation Computer logging Interview Comparison between ST and TT

Figure 3.1 Methods in research into the translation process. (From Norberg, Ulf. Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos. Eine empirische Prozess- and Produktstudie. Uppsala: Uppsala University, p. 40. Translation into English by BED. With kind permission by Ulf Norberg.)

Chapter 3. Methods and data

replayed in real time, or a video recording of the task performance, showing the subject’s use of reference material, but also facial expression, etc. Retrospection is facilitated by the recency of the task, as well as by the short duration of the task, so that a recently performed task will yield richer retrospection than one which was performed a longer time ago. As for duration, actual sequences will be recalled in retrospection with accuracy and completeness for tasks that can be completed in 0.5–10 seconds (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xvi); but for tasks that require 7–10 minutes, “the accuracy of information in retrospective reports may be reduced by forgetting” (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xxi). In view of this, the risk of incomplete or distorted data from retrospection in a translation task must be considerable. Such tasks often require a much longer time and are also characterised by a recursive mode of working with the same material (the ST, the growing TT); in phases, for instance, of doing revision in several run-throughs of the text. Furthermore, if a task takes considerable amounts of time, which will be the case if the ST is not very short, and if it is perhaps performed on two different occasions, recency is impossible to obtain. Also, the participants will most likely be tired after having finished a longer task and therefore will not be likely to engage in a long session of retrospection. In conclusion, for tasks of longer duration, as in this study, retrospection seems less suitable and the validity of TAPs is greater (Ericsson & Simon (1984/1993: xxii). This is confirmed by Levy, Marek and Lea (1996) who found the correspondence between data from introspection and retrospection obtained from the same subjects during a writing task to be quite low: in the best case, 75% of the retrospective responses matched the ones given concurrently with task performance; whereas in the worst case, there was such a match in only 10.5% of the responses (Levy et al. 1996: 553). Therefore, the method of concurrent verbalization or TA was decided on for the present study. This method will be introduced and discussed in Section 3.2. All types of data and methods have their inherent limitations, but the validity of one method, for instance the TA method, can be enhanced if it is combined with other data, elicited by another procedure, so-called triangulation (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xx; Grotjahn 1987: 72; Long & Bourg 1996; Whitney & Budd 1996; cf. also Alves 2003). It was therefore decided in this study to also use the method of computer logging of the writing process. This method is introduced and discussed in Section 3.3. The methods used yield large amounts of data, which at the present stage of research cannot be analyzed automatically, but must be analyzed manually. This means that the number of participants in the study needs to be limited, as well as the number of STs. This has important consequences





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

for how a textual phenomenon like explicitation can be studied with these methods. Explicitation as defined and studied so far in translation studies (see Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2) is revealed at the textual level, as an operation whose result is to be found in a TT, mostly in relation to a ST. Therefore, studies of explicitation have been based on smaller or larger text corpora, varying in the extent to which various text types, ST authors, translators, etc., are represented. The present study focuses on process aspects and potential differences between professional translators and students. Since one of the aims is to study how the cognitive processes correlate with underlying translation norms, it is justified and indeed necessary to limit the data to a small sample of participants and texts. Studies of explicitation have so far been based on off-line data of a non-introspective nature. If we want to find out more about why a particular solution was chosen, clearly it is of interest to look at evidence other than the translated product, given directly by the translator. Introspective methods of various kinds are particularly promising in this respect. This study therefore is essentially exploratory in nature, which seems justified in view of the relative scarcity of studies that combine the analysis of textual features with an analysis of other data with the aim of elucidating underlying cognitive processes (cf. however Dancette 1995; Jonasson 1997, 1998a, b; Kussmaul 1995; Künzli 2003; Norberg 2003).

. Concurrent verbalizations or think-aloud protocols (TAPs) .. The theory and the method The standard work comprising an overview and detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of introspection is the monograph by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993). The following text is based mainly on that study. A shorter introduction is found in Ericsson and Simon (1987). Reviews of and introductions to the method and the theory are also found in larger studies of translation that use this methodology, e.g., Dancette (1995: 64– 69), Jääskeläinen (1999: 57–62), Krings (1986a: 63–70; 2001: 214–233), Künzli (2003: 21–28) and Lörscher (1991: 48–55). For overviews of some of the achievements of TAP studies in translation, as well as a critique of methodological issues, see Bernadini (2001), Jääskeläinen (2002), Krings (2001, for the period 1982 to 1992) and Séguinot (1996). Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993; 1987) describe human cognition as information processing. Cognitive processes are described as a sequence of internal

Chapter 3. Methods and data

states. Each state, or information state, contains the end products, the output of cognitive processes, and serve as input to following processes. They can also serve as input to verbalizations. These cognitive processes can be retrieval of information from LTM, perception and recognition of information, or information generated by inferencing, for example. Importantly, according to the theory, only the resulting information states can be reported, whereas the processes themselves cannot be reported (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xiii). Furthermore, the theory assumes that only information that was recently attended to is kept in STM (also called working memory). Therefore, it is only such information that is directly accessible for further processing, e.g., for verbalizing. This means that a person can only report what is in their focus of attention and thus cognitively controlled. Furthermore, the limitations of STM allow only the most recently heeded information to be directly accessible (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 11). The verbalization reflects the structure of the information that is being heeded, and is a direct encoding of it (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 222). Since the verbalizations contain information states, the underlying cognitive processes have to be inferred by the researcher (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 204), and this analysis is an integral part of using the method. Processes that are highly practiced can be carried out without the intermediate steps being processed in the STM, i.e., they are automated. Only the final results of the processes are processed in STM and can be reported. This typically speeds up the given process. A further consequence is that the intermediate products are unavailable to STM and thus unavailable for concurrent verbalization (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 15). With growing experience in a task, one and the same process can move from being cognitively controlled to an automatic status (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 90). Concurrent verbalizations are claimed to be of three different types. In Level 1 verbalizations, information is verbalized in the form in which it was heeded, i.e., it is already in verbal form and is simply vocalized. An example from translation is when a subject verbalizes a TT segment. In Level 2 verbalizations, a recoding into a verbal code occurs. This could involve for instance verbalizing an evaluation of a translation solution. Level 3 verbalizations occur when the subjects are asked by the researcher either to report only selected information, or to attend to aspects of the situation that they would normally not do (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 17–18). In a translation task, this could involve asking subjects only to report their thoughts regarding a particular aspect of the task, for instance, pragmatic adaptation of the TT. Only in Level 1 and Level 2 verbalizations does the sequence of the heeded information re-





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

main unchanged by verbalizing (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 18). In Level 2 verbalizations, the recoding of the information into a verbal code must share focal attention with other, task-directed, processes, which can be assumed to have priority. For this reason, subjects tend to stop verbalizing when under high cognitive load (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 91). Level 1 verbalizations are also called Talking Aloud, Level 2 verbalizations are called Thinking Aloud. In the present study, I will follow the example of Jääskeläinen (1999: 64) in not making this distinction, using only the term thinking aloud or think-aloud. An integral part of applying the method is to do a task analysis before collecting and analysing the data (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 28). This analysis should consist of the necessary procedures, methods and available knowledge for producing the answers to the task. This is more easily done in domains and for tasks where there is only one possible or “correct” answer. Translation as a task differs from many of the tasks traditionally studied with TA methodology. Translation is a task in which there is not a priori only one “correct” solution, in which the cognitive steps can be reliably predicted by a task analysis. Rather, it is an ill-defined task with a strong social and cultural component in choosing between various options. It is a task where subjects will have to set their own goals to a large extent and where several, equally satisfactory, solutions may be generated for the same problem. See also Jääskeläinen (1999: 84). In this respect, it resembles writing (cf. Janssen, van Waes, & van den Bergh 1996: 236; Stratman & Hamp-Lyons 1994: 92). Ericsson and Simon (1987: 28) briefly consider the specifics of translation as a task, but their reasoning reveals a strictly linguistic view of translation, which has probably been inspired by early translation research in the 1960s and early 1970s. .. The validity of the method Concern has been raised regarding the validity of the method of concurrent introspection. The following overview and discussion is based on Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993: 63–107) where this question is addressed at length; on studies from the context of research on writing; and on those studies of the translation process that explicitly address the question of the validity of introspective data (see, e.g., Jääskeläinen 1999: 68–71; Krings 1986a: 89–101, 1987: 163–167, 2001: 219–232; Künzli 2003: 22–25; Lörscher 1991: 51–55). Incompleteness. An objection raised against the TA method by sceptics is that the TAPs are incomplete, not being identical with nor reflecting in their entirety the underlying cognitive processes. This objection is quite correct, as it

Chapter 3. Methods and data

were. However, the underlying theory has not claimed that everything is verbalized. On the contrary, as is clear from the account given in Section 3.2.1, only those information states that are heeded, i.e., being are attended to in STM, are verbalized. In other words, verbalizations only reflect what the subject is focusing on. It is quite possible to focus on one aspect of a task while at the same time performing other parts of it quite automatically. Therefore, individual differences in the completeness of verbalizations are a potential indicator of differences in automatization of the processes. Completeness/incompleteness (in the context of an analysis of the relevant task) is therefore not something that invalidates the method, but rather an inherent, analysable feature of the data, based on the assumption of systematicity in this respect. In certain tasks involving motor skills, which must be executed quite rapidly, some processes may be executed much faster than they can be verbalized. Indeed, there are cases where prolonged attention to items in STM, that is to the process itself, to allow verbalization will disrupt the process itself (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 248–249). In translation however, this would not seem to matter. Another factor causing incomplete verbalizations is that information in the STM is easily obliterated, so that if attention shifts, the previous content of the STM becomes unavailable for verbalization. Therefore, intermediate results of processes that cause the immediate execution of other processes may not be verbalized (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 159–160). Are the verbalizations indicative of systematicity in the underlying processes, or are they inherently idiosyncratic? This question has been raised due to the fact that the number of individuals participating in the various studies is usually small. However, the accumulated body of data and knowledge derived from them indicate systematicity in the verbalizations, both regarding content and production aspects; this can be shown in studies from other areas as well as from translation studies. Conclusions regarding content can indeed be drawn, that is, both from the actual content of the verbalizations and from the lack of verbalization when a certain aspect of the task is performed, if the lack of verbalization can be shown to be systematic in relation to the task and its pertinent aspects. Such aspects could be linguistic aspects of the source text, and even more so, of the produced target text. Krings (1986a, 1986b) and Lörscher (1991) show that mainly problems are verbalized. The translator’s decision leading to the textual feature studied here, explicitation, is not necessarily of a problematic nature and therefore, the decision process regarding this might not always be reflected in the TAPs. On a more general level, it is clear that when the analysis takes as its point of departure not the process features that are verbalized, but instead one or





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

several textual features, it is not certain that TAPs will always give evidence, or rather, they will give a mixture of direct and indirect evidence, from which conclusions may be drawn. Precisely for this reason, it is important to use a complementary method that reflects the process; in this study it is on-line logging of the writing process. TAPs are considered valid data if they conform to certain prerequisites. One is that if subjects fall silent, they should be reminded by the experimenter to keep talking, for instance, by a prompt “keep talking”. The accepted period of silence can be from 15 seconds to 1 minute (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 83). However, one reason for silence is, supposedly, that processes are automated and thus unavailable for introspection. The rule for prompts seems to imply that automated processes cannot occur for any long period of time, which is counterintuitive. For this reason, in the present study, just as in Krings (1986a: 92) and Jääskeläinen (1999: 100), no such prompts were given, since an obligation to verbalize “may blur the clear-cut distinction between automated and non-automated parts of the translation process” (Krings 1987: 165). Effects from researcher-subject interaction. Interaction between the researcher and the subject may influence what is verbalized and thus bias the data (cf. Bernadini 2001; Smagorinsky 1994; Stratman & Hamp-Lyons 1994). This is certainly a risk in a task such as translation, where there are social and cultural constraints on what is a good translation and what aspects should be taken into account in the communication process; and where, at the same time, there is not any clear-cut agreement on what is the “correct” or “only” solution to the task. Participants in a study might try to refrain from verbalizing what they think is not compatible with the expectations of the researcher, or with their own conception of a person translating. This risk can be reduced by the researcher not giving the participants any specific information about the exact purpose of the study, as well as being as unobtrusive as possible during the data collection. An important objection to the TA method is that the obligation to verbalize might influence and change the cognitive processes that the verbalizations are supposed to reflect, termed interference or reactivity. Thinking aloud in itself might influence the performance of the task in one or several of the following ways: 1. The time necessary to complete a given task; 2. The sequencing of the cognitive processes;

Chapter 3. Methods and data

3. The processing, e.g., what elements are focused on, perhaps because attention has to be divided between task-specific processing and verbalizing (Stratman & Hamp-Lyons 1994: 95); 4. The result to which the task leads. Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993: xxii, 1987: 33) consider that the only effect of importance is that the time for performance of the task tends to increase, due to the time required for verbalization. Therefore, temporal measurements taken from data with concurrent introspection can only be compared to other data elicited under the same conditions. This delaying effect of TAPs is confirmed for translation by Jakobsen (2003b). Krings (2001: 525) also finds a slow-down effect on post-editing of machine-translated texts under the TA condition. However, interestingly, this effect decreased during the progression of the task (three texts) (Krings 2001: 279). As for the second point, the sequencing of the processes, no effect of the TA method has been found (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: xxii, 1987: 32). The third point (other effects on the processing than mere sequencing) has been addressed by some studies. Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) review some of those, but all deal with studies of well-defined tasks. Other studies of less well-defined tasks, such as writing and of course translation, are more interesting in the present context. Janssen et al. (1996) studied the influence of concurrent verbalization on the length of pauses in the writing process, as logged by computer. As predicted, the duration of pauses was longer under TA conditions, presumably reflecting the time needed for verbalization. This effect was found both in a task consisting of writing an argumentative text and in one writing a simple explanatory text, but was stronger in the former case. The authors point to the great variations found in the effects of the TA condition, both within individuals and between individuals, as well as the variation across tasks of different types, and conclude that reactivity may very well vary with the type of writing task (Janssen et al. 1996: 249). Leow and Morgan-Short (2004) studied English-speaking learners of Spanish in a reading task and found no effect of the TA condition on learners’ comprehension, intake and controlled written production. Krings (2001) found that the TA condition not only slowed down task performance in his study of post-editing, but also that it seemed to have an effect on some of the processes involved in two respects. The first was that the number of revisions was much higher under TA condition. He hypothesizes that the TA condition may cause additional cognitive effort and thereby make overall coordination of the processes more difficult, although it cannot be ruled





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

out that individual differences in processing influenced the results (Krings 2001: 526). The second effect was that the writing process was segmented into smaller segments under TA condition (Krings 2001: 494). Jakobsen (2003b) also found a change in the segmentation pattern in translation tasks, so that, on average, writing the TT requires more segments under TA condition than under silent condition. This means that the translating subjects “chop up” their writing processes into more chunks, and thus also smaller chunks, when verbalizing than when translating without verbalizations. This difference was statistically significant. However, there was considerable variation among individuals, and the effect was not always found at the individual level. An effect on the process may lead to an effect on the resulting product. In a pilot study, Stratman and Hamp-Lyons (1994) found effects of TAPs on revision processes and the outcome of revision. TA slightly depressed the ability of the participants to detect certain types of errors in texts, and they made fewer revisions, such as meaning-changing alterations, under TA condition. The amount of data collected was too small, however, to permit tests for statistical significance. Levy et al. (1996: 543) report results from a study by Ransdell (1994) who found that writers composed fewer words and clauses per minute under TA condition than under silent condition. However, no differences in the total output of words and clauses were found, nor any differences in syntactic complexity. Aspects of the resulting product are also the dependent variables in Jääskeläinen’s (1999) study of the effects of the TA condition. She measured the degree of formal correspondence at the syntactic and lexical levels between the ST and the TT, hypothesizing, following Toury (e.g., 1995) that segmentation would be affected by the TA condition, which would lead to a higher degree of formal correspondence in the TT. Her results are inconclusive. Syntactically, there was no effect, whereas there was one at the lexical level. Her findings are difficult to interpret, since the two groups were not entirely comparable in terms of translation competence: the subjects who did their translation with concurrent verbalizations were four professionals and four laymen, whereas those who translated the same text without concurrent verbalizations were two professionals and six advanced translation students. The differences in translation experience could account for the differences found. Jääskeläinen (1999: 158) concludes that it is too early to say that there are no interference effects, and that more research is needed that specifically addresses this issue. Krings (2001: 299) found no effect of the TA condition on the product in the post-editing of machine translated texts. Jakobsen’s study (2003b), as men-

Chapter 3. Methods and data

tioned, shows an effect of the TA condition on the segmentation of the writing process, without taking into account product features, however. In conclusion, it seems that there are still too few studies on the possible effects of TAPs on the performance of tasks such as writing and translation. The results are inconclusive, and there is so far at least no strong evidence to suggest that the TA condition significantly changes or influences the performance of these tasks.

. Computer logging of the writing process Logging the writing process on the computer enables the researcher to follow the translator’s on-line process of writing down the translated text. Temporal patterns, including pauses, segmentation, and revision patterns, allow scope for more inferences and conclusions regarding underlying cognitive processes. In this way, it is possible to study when in the process a decision is executed, such as, for instance, to explicitate, whether the decision has any indications of problems, etc. It is well known that in the translation process as a whole, the actual writing down of the translation is not the dominant occupation in terms of time. Most of the total time of a translation task is spent on other activities, such as reading, consulting aids of different kinds, and so on. Logging data must therefore be used with caution in research into translation. Furthermore, it is important to be aware that what is logged is not the translation process per se, but the writing process in a translation task (cf. Lorenzo 1999: 24). Translations are, of course, usually written down, today mostly on a computer, and logging the writing process can therefore be considered a method with high ecological validity, in the sense that it can be used in studying the task performance under its “normal” conditions. High general validity can also be assumed, since it does not seem very likely that the method in itself influences how the process is carried out or the characteristics of the product. The degree of ecological validity depends to some extent on which software is used for the logging. An unobtrusive logging software which allows the writer/translator to use his/her ordinary word processing software will give high ecological validity. Most logging software for research on writing and/or translation is designed specifically for research, and at least earlier versions had the functions of a simple word processor, but not the more sophisticated formatting or search functions. Nor was it possible to study how translators





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

use the grammar and spell check functions of an ordinary word processor, for example. Computer logging of the writing process already has a long history, and various types of software have been developed and used (see SeverinsonEklundh 1995; Severinson-Eklundh & Kollberg 1996; Strömqvist 1996; Wengelin 2002; also Sullivan and Lindgren forthc.). An early study using computer logging in translation is Tommola (1986). Lately, the software Translog, developed by Jakobsen (see e.g. Jakobsen 1999; 2000) specifically for analysing the translation process, has had a positive impact on the number of studies using this methodology. See for instance the contributions in Alves (2003) and Hansen (1999, 2002).

. The data for the study .. Participants There were nine in all participants in this study (see Table 3.1) representing the categories professional translators with varying amounts of experience, students attending a translator training program, and students studying Russian at university level. The first language of all participants is Swedish; all have learnt Russian as a foreign language, starting either at school or at university. Some of them have spent shorter or longer periods in Russia/USSR, studying and/or working. The operational definition of professional translator in this project is “a person who has been earning at least half of his living from translating for no less than 3 years”. The professional translators and the translation students were known personally by me1 and agreed to participate when I asked them. The language students volunteered for participation after I had presented information on the project to their classes at university. All participants were offered a participation fee. Participants were informed that they were free to stop their participation at any time. To ensure anonymity, they have been given fictitious names here and only minimal information is given about them. In the text, the names will always be followed by an abbreviation to show to which category they belong: (PR) for professional translator, (TS) for translation student, and (LS) for language student. In some of the analyses, the professional translators will be divided into two groups, consisting of those with longer experience (10–15 years or more) and those with shorter experience (less than 10 years). For ease of reference in these instances, the first

Chapter 3. Methods and data

Table 3.1 The participants. Name

Age interval

Sex

Status

Additional information

Anna

30–35

F

professional translator

50–55

F

Christian

50–55

M

Daniel

30–35

M

professional translator professional translator professional translator

Translates mostly non-fiction, from Russian and other languages Translates fiction and nonfiction, only from Russian Translates fiction and nonfiction, mainly from Russian Translates mostly non-fiction, from Russian and other languages

Berit

Ellinor Fredrik Gabriella

25–29 25–29 20–25

F M F

translation student translation student language student

Harald

35–39

M

language student

Isak

20–25

M

language student

Studies Russian second semester at university level Studies Russian third semester at university level Studies Russian second semester at university level

category (Berit and Christian) will be referred to as senior professionals, and the second category (Anna and Daniel) as junior professionals.2 All professional translators had studied Russian at university level, but had taken only shorter courses specifically aimed at training in translation and interpretation. At the time of their participation in this project, the four professional translators had all been engaged in translation work for extended periods of time, and they have also continued in this line of work since then. The translation students were attending a translator training program, which lasted for three semesters of full-time study. To enter this course, students had to have a background of four semesters of full time study of Russian at university level, or the equivalent. Admission to this program was on the basis of former study and the results of an entrance test, which aimed at determining their actual level of competence in Russian, in translating from Russian into Swedish, and in writing in Swedish. When participating in this study, Ellinor (TS) and Fredrik (TS) were in their second semester of this threesemester training program.3 The language students attended Russian courses at university level. Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS) were in their second semester of full-time study, whereas Harald (LS) was in his third semester of full-time study.4





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

.. Source text and translation brief The ST5 used in this study was taken from an album of reproductions of the graphics and paintings of the Ukrainian 19th century poet and artist Taras Shevchenko published in Kiev, Ukraine (Stepovik 1984). It contains a text in Ukrainian, introducing the life and works of Shevchenko, and a slightly shorter Russian text. The Russian text is the ST of the volume’s translations into English and French. The editor, Dimitrij Vlasoviˇc Stepovik, is probably responsible for the Ukrainian text, although this is not stated in the book, and perhaps for the Russian text as well. O. B. Sandakova is named as the editor of the English text. Both the Ukrainian and the Russian texts seem to draw heavily on encyclopaedic works on the Ukraine, especially those parts of the texts that tell about the artist’s life. Thus, both the facts and very similar formulations are found in encyclopaedic works such as Ukrains’ka radjans’ka enciklopedija (1985) and Encyclopaedia of Ukraine (Vol. 5, 1993). For this study, the first six paragraphs of the Russian text were chosen. They describe the life of Shevchenko, ending with his death and burial in St Petersburg and the subsequent removal of his remains for burial in the Ukraine. The six paragraphs of the ST have been labelled A through F, and the 30 sentences in all have been numbered consecutively 1 through 30, preceded by one of the letters A through F to indicate in which paragraph the sentence is found. Thus, sentence B6 is the 6th sentence of the whole text, and it is found in the second paragraph. The number of words is 438 (counted using the word count function in Microsoft Word). The text was chosen for several reasons. First, it was important that a plausible translation brief could be given (cf. Section 3.1). Although obviously the real translation brief was to participate in the study and thus give me, the researcher, data, the brief given to the participants was the following: a Stockholm art museum (it was not specified which one) is planning an exhibition of Central and Eastern European 19th century art, where among others Shevchenko will be represented. For this purpose, the museum needs biographies in the form of short accounts of the lives of all represented artists. The museum does not plan to use this biography for any fancy catalogue, rather the information will be made available to the visitors in photocopied form, or perhaps used in part for signs next to the paintings and graphics on the wall. Another reason for choosing this text was its perceived degree of difficulty. It was important that the text should not be too difficult for a language student to understand and translate, since it was crucial that all participants would be able to do a translation and not give up because of too many difficulties. I

Chapter 3. Methods and data

considered the text to be appropriate in this respect, since the students probably would have read similar texts about Russian cultural identities in their course of study. This assumption was confirmed by a comment made by Fredrik (TS) in his TAPs, where he states that had he known the text type beforehand, he would have brought some texts: “when studying at X [name of university], we kept reading texts like this all the time”. At the same time, it was important that the text should be authentic and offer at least some challenges in the form of difficulties even to an experienced professional translator. A third reason for choosing this text was that it is an instance of a TL text type that we can assume that all participants will be acquainted with. Furthermore, an important reason for choosing this text is that it seemed to offer excellent possibilities for studying certain phenomena of explicitation. In Chapter 5, a more detailed presentation is given of the ST, together with an analysis concerning the specific features of the text that are the focus of this study. .. Procedure and data collection ... Collecting the data The participants were free to choose where to perform their task, whether at their normal place of work, usually their home, or at my office at the university. They were given no time limit and told that they themselves were to decide when to stop, and whether to work on the translation once, twice or several times (see Table 3.2). The ST had been photocopied and enlarged from the book it was taken from. The participants were given the text in this form. However, they were also given the book and told that the text to be translated was actually the first part of a longer text, which they could find in the book. Table 3.2 Data collection sessions: number of occasions and location. Participant Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

Number of occasions 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2

Location Participant’s home Participant’s home Participant’s home Participant’s home Participant’s home Researcher’s office Researcher’s office Researcher’s office Researcher’s office





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Participants were told to verbalize their thoughts while working; the method was orally explained to them. They were asked to write their TT on the computer, using the ScriptLog software. They were free to use whatever aids they found necessary. Those doing the task at home had at their disposal the dictionaries and aids they normally use. Those doing the task in my office could bring whatever aids they wanted; in addition, a number of monolingual (Russian, Swedish) and bilingual dictionaries were at their disposal. They were also free to use aids outside the workplace, e.g., go to the library, and several participants in fact used that option (this was not recorded). None of them wanted to use the Internet for searches, which is an indication of how quickly the translator’s working environment has changed in the last decade (the recordings were made between December 1993 and February 1995). After the task was finished, I collected every participant’s copy of the ST, with possible notes, etc. In some cases, there is also a printout of an intermediate version of the TT, with the participant’s notes on it, as well as any other notes on other pieces of paper. ... The think-aloud protocols and transcription conventions The participants’ verbalizations were audio-taped using a small microphone which was fastened with a clip to their clothes. The tapes were transcribed using a normalized orthography. For transcription conventions, see Table 3.3. Table 3.4 shows the size of the TAPs data. The characters in the transcription files have been counted with the word count function of Microsoft Word. The figures include the transcriptions of all verbalizations, indications of the length of pauses, and the information given in parentheses, in accordance with the transcription conventions.

Table 3.3 Transcription conventions. / (5s) [. . .] () ? italics CAPITALS underlining

Unfilled pause in the verbalizations of less than 2 seconds Unfilled pause with length in seconds Parts of the verbalizations omitted Three types of information are given in parentheses: (a) paralinguistic signals; (b) dictionary lookups; (c) on inaudible parts of the tapings Uncertain transcription Is used for whispered utterances Are used for parts of utterances pronounced with greater emphasis Underlining indicates that the participant is writing on the computer at the same time (determined by the sound of the computer keys)

Chapter 3. Methods and data

Table 3.4 Size of transcriptions, in number of characters, with and without spaces, and in number of words.

Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

Number of characters without spaces

Number of characters with spaces

Number of words

71,431 33,023 31,311 42,450 85,901 107,968 72,676 57,075 74,392

90,453 42,233 39,060 53,898 109,632 138,551 92,274 70,963 94,269

19,021 9,209 7,750 11,448 23,732 30,583 19,598 13,889 19,878

Excerpts from TAPs will be given in the Swedish original, followed by an English translation in square brackets [ ]. Only the Swedish parts of the verbalizations have been translated; thus, Russian words and phrases in the verbalizations appear in Russian. ... ScriptLog logs The logging program used was ScriptLog, version 2.1 from 1993, which runs on Macintosh computers. This software has been developed by the Institute of Linguistics at Göteborg University, Sweden, by Sven Strömqvist and Sven Moen. (For a presentation of the program, see Strömqvist 1996 and Wengelin 2002.)6 The program saves a record of all keyboard activities of a writer, such as pressing keys (alphabetical, numerical, space bar), mouse and cursor movements, cutting, copying and deleting operations. Furthermore, this information is time-coded and the information is saved in a log file. From this file various other files can be generated. For this project, principally two file types have been used: Edited text and Linear text. Edited text files give the final version of the writer’s text;7 Linear text files show aspects of the production Table 3.5 Symbols and conventions in the ScriptLog excerpts. <3.2> @ <move> <sel 2-3>

Shows that the writer paused for 3.2 seconds. Carriage return The writer pressed the “delete” button one or more times. The writer moved the cursor with the mouse or using the keyboard. The writer selected a string of characters (in this case, 2 characters), in order to delete them, to perform a cut (and paste) operation, or to write over them.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

process as well, such as pauses, defined as keyboard inactivity, and their length, as well as all key strokes and other keyboard activities. Table 3.5 lists the conventions used in the excerpts from the text files generated from the logs. ... Other data All participants were videotaped when performing the task. The camera was placed so as to give a full view of the participant’s face and upper part of the body, as well as of the desk at which he/she was sitting. The main purpose of this was to provide a record of the participant’s behaviour and what dictionaries and other aids were used. The video recordings were used for measuring the overall time spent on the task, but apart from that, the information from them was used only sporadically in the analytical process. The project plans originally included conducting an interview with each participant after the recordings had been made, and after there had been time to do a preliminary analysis of each participant’s TT. The interview was supposed to serve two purposes: to elicit information about the participant’s background and to record the participant’s retrospective comments on the text passages that are the focus of this study. In this way, it was hoped to enhance the validity of the data from the TAPs and possibly to complement it. Due to unforeseen circumstances, however, the interviews could not be carried out within a reasonable time span with two of the participants (Christian (PR) and Gabriella (LS)), and interview data was therefore not analyzed. Data on each participant’s background was collected informally.

. Coding and analyzing the data and reporting the results Before analysis, the TAPs have to be coded. Although incomplete in some respects (cf. Section 3.2.2), their oral nature make the protocols a very rich data source and a large number of features of them are potentially relevant. This is one important reason why many researchers tend to devise their own systems for coding and analysis, instead of applying one from previous studies. As a consequence, no single, widely accepted model for coding and analysis exists. There is no a priori unit for analysis, since it depends on the purpose of the analysis, nor is there any a priori way of transcribing the protocols, since this also depends on the purpose of the analysis. The coding system used to analyze the protocols should, of course, be borne out of the theoretical assumptions of the research design (Bernadini

Chapter 3. Methods and data

2001: 257; Smagorinsky 1994: 7) and reflect the task analysis (cf. above Section 3.2.1). However, coding is an analytical and recursive process. It is thus an integral part of the research process, and the exact coding system must develop in interaction with the data (Smagorinsky 1994: 10). In the coding and analysis, clarity and consistency are of great importance. If the procedures and coding categories have been established on the basis of a prior model, from task analysis, or from protocols that have been gathered from other subjects previously, this will enhance the analysis and provide stronger evidence (Ericsson & Simon 1984/1993: 284). In the present study, previously used coding schemes (from Hayes et al. 1987 and from Krings 1986a) have been used and adapted (see Sections 4.3.1, 4.5.4.1 and 5.1 for further details). The combination of methods also leads to a combination of different analytical procedures for the data. In this respect, the present study can be said to be both qualitative and quantitative. The methods used for analyzing the different kinds of data will be introduced as part of each of the analyses in Chapters 4 and 5. It should be kept in mind that the quantitative analyses are given primarily to show tendencies, which could be further tested in larger studies. Consequently, no tests for statistical significance have been performed. As for reporting the research, there does not yet seem to be an established way of reporting protocol data (Smagorinsky 1994: 12), which is potentially both voluminous and difficult to read and interpret out of its context. The question of how studies that include TAPs data are reported and their validity is extremely important. TAPs as data usually demand an interpretative analytical procedure by the researcher, but this procedure is not always described in sufficient detail when the results are reported (Bernadini 2001: 251). This makes replication and comparison between results from different studies difficult. Also, a researcher planning to use introspection as a research method for the first time may not understand the full implications in terms of research design, data collection procedures, etc., when reading earlier studies in the field. This is certainly the case in some of the smaller TAPs studies within translation. My aim here has been to make the analyses as transparent as possible, both through the description of the analytical categories and by giving many examples from the data.

Notes . I was teaching translation theory to the translation students. The translation exercises were taught by other teachers, however.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process . The adjectives “senior” and “junior” are solely intended to reflect their “age” in the professsion. . This program in Russian-Swedish translation has been offered only once; thus, none of the professional translators had attended it. The two translation students in this study also participated in a longitudinal study, reported in Schmidt (forthc.). . The prerequisite for entrance into the first semester is that the student has taken Russian at high school level for three years. . The ST is found in Appendix 1, together with an English translation (in Appendix 2) that was published in the same volume as the ST. . I am grateful to Professor Sven Strömqvist for giving me the software. . In the case of participants Fredrik (TS), Harald (LS) and Isak (LS), however, some parts of the final version of the TT have been reconstructed from the logs combined with data from the TAPs due to software failure in the phase of generating their Edited text file.

Chapter 4

Performing the translation task

. Overall research questions This chapter will deal with the question how differences in amount of translation experience correlates with planning, generating the TT, and revising it within a translation task. The first aspect to be analyzed is the time spent to complete the task and its relative allocation into phases (see Section 4.2). The second aspect concerns how the participants plan their task initially. This is presented in Section 4.3. The third aspect, presented in Section 4.4, concerns the phase when the translated text is first written down. More specifically, on the basis of the logging data, the segmentation pattern of the writing process is analyzed, i.e., the chunks into which the participants divide their TT when writing it down. The fourth aspect presented in Section 4.5 is revision patterns, how participants make changes in their written TT, both while writing down the first version and later, after having written the first version. Section 4.6 summarizes and discusses the results. Certain analyses will be presented in the form of quantitative data at three levels: a. Individual level, with data for each participant; b. Group level, with data for the two groups professionals and students; c. Subgroup level, with data for the subgroups senior professionals,1 junior professionals, translation students and language students. See also the remark on quantitative data in Section 3.5. . Task performance: Temporal characteristics .. Research questions, data and methods The research questions investigated here are: Does amount of experience in translation correlate with: a. Time spent for the task; b. The relative allocation of time to the phases within the task.



Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

The task was to produce a written TT and the obligatory writing task is taken here as the point of departure for the division into phases and their designation. Certain aspects of behaviour common to all participants can be observed. All participants work through the text in more than one phase. These regularities in behaviour form the basis for the delimitation of the phases adopted here, since it emerges naturally from the data at hand. The following labels have been selected as the most appropriate given the actual data:

Pre-writing phase: Begins when the participant has received the ST and the oral information about the translation brief, and finishes when the participant starts to write down the TT as an integral text. Making notes about word meanings, etc., while reading the ST for the first time is thus not considered as a start of the writing phase. Writing phase: Begins when the participant starts to write down the TT and finishes when he/she has written down an integral version of it. Post-writing phase: Begins immediately after the writing phase and finishes when the participant declares that her/his task is finished. In the task performance by many of the participants, this phase is divided into several subphases, in which the participant starts from the beginning of the ST and/or the TT, reading, possibly making revisions, etc. Two kinds of (potentially) time-coded data are available: from the recordings (audio and video); and from the ScriptLog logging of the writing process. The most exact time is given by the computer log; however, since each participant decided when to start the program, the logs do not give a complete time for the whole task. The changing of the audio tapes every 45 minutes also caused some loss of data. Therefore, the video recordings, made on tapes with a running time of 240 minutes, were used for measuring the times of the phases. .. Results The number of occasions used by the participants to perform the task and produce a translation which they themselves considered a finished product differs (cf. Table 3.2 in Section 3.4.3.1). Of the four professional translators, Berit (PR), Christian (PR) and Daniel (PR) finished the task on one occasion, while Anna (PR) used two occasions. Of the five students, only Harald (LS) finished on one occasion, the remaining four (two translator students and two language students) using two occasions.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

Table 4.1 gives the temporal data for each participant for the whole task, including the temporal data for the different phases and subphases (when applicable). Anna (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS) all finished their first occasion at the end of post-writing subphase 1, Fredrik (TS) at the end of post-writing subphase 2. There are considerable inter-individual differences, both in the overall time spent in completing the task and in the relative allocation of time. The shortest overall times are found in the four professionals, but they in turn form two distinct groups: the senior translators Berit (PR) and Christian (PR), who finished the task in about 1.5 hours, and the junior Anna (PR) and Daniel (PR), who used about twice that time. All students spent more time than the professionals on the task, but there is no clear correlation between their status (translation student or language student) and the amount of time spent. Thus Ellinor (TS) and Harald (LS) use some 3.5 hours, Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS) around 5 hours, and Fredrik (TS) almost 6 hours, almost 4 times as long as the two fastest professionals. The mean values at the group level are given in Table 4.2 and in Table 4.3 at subgroup level. On average, students spend twice the time of the professionals to complete the task. At subgroup level, the differences are more conspicuous between the two subgroups of professionals than between the two subgroups of students. The quantitative differences between the two subgroups Table 4.1 Time spent on the task and its phases and subphases, individual level (minutes). Anna Berit Christian Daniel Ellinor Fredrik Gabriella Harald Isak (PR) (PR) (PR) (PR) (TS) (TS) (LS) (LS) (LS) Pre-writing phase Writing phase Post-writing subphase 1 Post-writing subphase 2 Post-writing subphase 3 Post-writing subphase 4 Post-writing subphase 5 Total time (minutes)

12 78 3

9 69 12

8 53 28

3 121 45

6 138 10

80 88 59

2 180 35

22

12

37

23

24

66

35

61

39

38

13

22

19

11

8

4 198

7 142 54

32 136 61

12 90

89

169

223

344

302

203

299





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.2 Time spent on the task and distribution into phases, group level (minutes). Professionals

Students

8 80 48 136

25 137 112 274

Pre-writing phase Writing phase Post-writing phase Total time

Table 4.3 Time spent on the task and distribution into phases, subgroup level (minutes). Senior professionals

Junior professionals

Translation students

Language students

9 61 20 90

8 100 76 184

43 113 128 284

14 153 102 269

Pre-writing phase Writing phase Post-writing phase Total

Table 4.4 Relative distribution of time spent on different phases, individual level. Anna Berit Christian Daniel Ellinor Fredrik Gabriella Harald Isak (PR) (PR) (PR) (PR) (TS) (TS) (LS) (LS) (LS) Pre-writing 6.1% 10.0% phase Writing 39.4% 76.7% phase Post-writing 54.5% 13.3% phase Total time (minutes)

198

90

9.0%

2.7% 23.3%

0.7%

3.4% 10.7%

59.5%

71.6% 61.9% 25.6%

59.6%

70.0% 45.5%

31.5%

26.6% 35.4% 51.2%

39.7%

26.6% 43.8%

89

1.8%

169

223

344

302

203

299

of professionals is a consequence of the senior professionals having both shorter writing phases and shorter post-writing phases. Table 4.4 shows the relative distribution of time spent on the three phases for each participant. Most notable here is the relatively low proportion of time spent on the writing phase, the highest value being Berit’s (PR) at 76.67%, the lowest being Fredrik’s (TS) at 25.58%. Since the pre-writing phase generally takes less than 10% of the total time (with the exception of Fredrik (TS)), this means that a large proportion of the time spent for most participants falls within the post-writing phase.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

. Initial planning of the task .. Research questions, data and methods The initial phase of the task can be assumed, as discussed in Section 2.3.3, to have the function of orientation and planning. This will be investigated here by looking at how participants form their task definition (cf. above Section 2.3.3) during the pre-writing phase (cf. Section 4.2.1). The data analyzed in this section are the TAPs and the video recordings from the pre-writing phase. The following aspects are analyzed: 1. Time for this phase, a figure derived from the video recordings. 2. Approach taken. This is based on TAPs data and in some case also the video recordings. 3. The task definition, through an analysis of the verbalizations. The categories into which the utterances are coded will be presented in the results section. .. Results ... Time and approach The length of the pre-writing phase for each participant is shown in Table 4.1 above. The length of the pre-writing phase does not correlate with amount of experience in translation. Clearly, these figures have to be related to the actual activities performed during this phase and to the approach taken. In this respect, different approaches can be discerned: a. Reading the ST incompletely (time up to 3 minutes); b. Reading the whole ST (time between 6 and 9 minutes); c. Reading the ST combined with verbalizing an oral, partial translation (time from 12 minutes up to 80 minutes). Daniel (PR) and Gabriella (LS) read the ST incompletely, without using any dictionary or other aids. In spite of the very short time Gabriella (LS) spent on this phase, the video recording shows that she looked at both pages of the ST. Her reading was almost completely silent, so it is not possible to determine how much of the text she actually read, let alone understood. Her subsequent translation process was quite painstaking, with many comprehension difficulties; therefore it can be assumed that her first reading was of a very superficial character. As for Daniel (PR), it cannot be determined from the data exactly how much of the ST he read before starting to write the TT, but he did not





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

turn to the second page of the ST. He commented on the fact that he did not read the whole ST (for transcription conventions, see Table 3.3): (1) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: ja jag tror att jag har / begripit ungefär vilken stil det är här så att jag (2s) trots att jag inte har läst igenom precis allting så börjar jag från (2s) från början direkt [yes I think I have / understood more or less which style this is so that I (2s) in spite of not having read through exactly all of it I’ll start from (2s) from the beginning straight away]

Berit (PR), Christian (PR), Ellinor (TS) and Harald (LS) read the whole ST. Berit (PR) did two dictionary searches during reading. The other three did not use any aids during this phase. Anna (PR), Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS) combined reading the ST with a first translation of parts of the text. This translation was mainly done orally, but some notes were also written on the sheets of the ST. As a consequence of this approach, they also looked up several words and expressions in dictionaries during this phase, something which of course also contributed to the longer time spent by them. In time, there are important differences between the three of them. Tentatively, Anna (PR) and Isak (LS) could be grouped together. They both made a quick, rather freely paraphrasing translation. Their reading combined with translation seems to have been a way of verbalizing their comprehension. They did not translate every single sentence. Furthermore, in some of the sentences that they did translate, they left words or expressions untranslated, explicitly postponing decisions for later on, saying: “I’ll have to look that up later”, “I’ll think about that later on”: (2) Anna (PR)/TAPs: JAHA / i Peterburg studerar han / ne-za-urjadnye (3s) akvarell risunke karandašom [OH I SEE / in Petersburg he studies / ne-za-urjadnye (3s) water-colour risunke karandašom] (3) Isak (LS)/TAPs: bol’šim prepjatstviem na puti estestvennogo razvitija ego darovanija / ehm / prepjatstviem / det / ja / det vet jag inte vad det är (2s) till / (ohörbart) / på vägen till / naturlig utveckling av hans / darovanija / (ohörbart) / bylo to cˇ to kak krepostnoj on vsecelo zavi- / zavisel (3s) ja / han / han till fullo / ehm (2s) han / var beroende av (2s) prichotej / av hans godsägares / En-gel-gardt / Engelgardt / -s öö (2s) prichot’ / ha / vad det nu kan vara [bol’šim prepjatstviem na puti estestvennogo razvitija ego darovanija / ehm / prepjatstviem / that / well / I don’t know what it is (2s) to /

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

(inaudible) / on the road to / natural development of his / darovanija / (inaudible) / bylo to cˇ to kak krepostnoj on vsecelo zavi- / zavisel (3s) yes / he / he completely / ehm (2s) he / was dependent on (2s) prichotej / by his landlord / En-gel-gardt / Engelgardt / -s eh (2s) prichot’ / well / whatever that is]

Fredrik (TS) started working more systematically on possible formulations in Swedish already in this phase, but without striving to find translations of whole sentences. Instead, he worked mainly with content words. The translation variants that he decided on were partly written down on the sheets of the ST. A large part of these solutions are actually found in his final TT, which means that he made many decisions regarding the translation at this early stage. However, the long total time he spent on the task (cf. above, Table 4.1) shows that he did not solve all the problems in this phase, at least not to his own satisfaction. He also stated explicitly regarding some problems during this phase that he would have to check about them later: (4) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: zvuˇcnost’ / zvuˇcnost’ / det måste jag ju slå upp (5s) i en hm (2s) ehm i / jaja / först i Ožegov för att se / ehm / ja / jag tar det sen [zvuˇcnost’ / zvuˇcnost’ / I’ll have to look that up (5s) in a hm (2s) ehm in / yeah yeah / first in Ožegov to see / ehm / yeah / I’ll do that later on]

... Task definition: verbalizations during the pre-writing phase The verbalizations during the pre-writing phase are here assumed to reflect the goal of the task, through the task definition that the participants set for themselves. The verbalizations are classified into five categories, which are presented with examples below. 1. General comments on the text as a Russian text, for instance its length, perceived difficulty and certain grammatical forms: (5) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: jamen den / den var inte så lång i och för sig [yes but it / it’s not very long] (6) Anna (PR)/TAPs: krepostniˇcestva (3s) samoderžavija (2s) det är nåt sånt där politiskt igen (4s) OJ / DET HÄR VAR INTE SÅ LÄTT [krepostniˇcestva (3s) samoderžavija (2s) it’s one of those political things again (4s) OH / THIS IS NOT VERY EASY] (7) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: den verkar inte så där jätte / svår / när det gäller meningsuppbyggnaden i alla fall





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

[it does not seem very / difficult / when it comes to sentence structure anyhow]

2. Comments on the contents of the ST or expressing a wish or need to find more information on the topic of the text: (8) Isak (LS)/TAPs: po-lu-legal’no / HALVLEGALT / zanimat’sja tvorˇcestvom / med sitt skapande / men / HALVLEGALT / polulegalno (skrattar) / hjälp mig (skrattar) / hur / gör man nånting halvlegalt [po-lu-legal’no / SEMILEGALLY / zanimat’sja tvorˇcestvom / with his creative work / but / SEMILEGALLY / polulegal’no (laughs) / help me (laughs) / how / do you do something semilegally] (9) Berit (PR)/TAPs: jag är lite störd av att jag inte vet nåt om honom själv [...] för det /skulle vara en hjälp / jag kanske skulle (2s) om det här var ett riktigt jobb / så skulle jag nog / leta fram nåt om honom [I feel a bit disturbed by not knowing anything about him [...] because / that would be a help / perhaps I would (2s) if this was a real job / I would probably / try and find out something about him]

3. Verbalizations on how to render proper names in the Swedish text: (10) Harald (LS)/TAPs: det måste jag ju (2s) veta hur man ska stava (ohörbart) egennamn / då? får jag titta i den? där? boken sen [I have to (2s) know how to spell (inaudible) proper names / then? I’ll have to look in that? book later on] (11) Anna (PR)/TAPs: Ka-rl Brjullov (2s) Brjullov / undrar hur man ska transkribera det / ska det vara tyskt ü kanske / Brüllov / eller Brjullov [Ka-rl Brjullov (2s) Brjullov / I wonder how to transcribe that / should it be a German ü perhaps / Brüllov / or Brjullov] (12) Christian (PR)/TAPs: ett problem som finns här som inte är nåt stort problem alls / det är vad man ska göra med fadersnamnen [a problem that is found here which is not a big problem at all / that’s what to do with the patronymics]

4. Comments regarding stylistic features of the ST, in a contrastive RussianSwedish perspective, as well as on the translation purpose and the appropriateness of the text for that purpose. One example from Daniel (PR) was already given above (Example (1)); further examples of this category are: (13) Anna (PR)/TAPs: vem är det som har skrivit den här texten var är den utgiven är det / i gamla Sovjet [who wrote this text where was it published is it / in the old Soviet Union]

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

(14) Christian (PR)/TAPs: vanlig patentformulering / flera patentformuleringar från sovjetisk tid [usual ready-made formulation / several ready-made formulations from the Soviet times] (15) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: den här boken verkar vara skriven / på kommunisttiden i alla fall / tror jag / jag måste kolla när boken var skriven (4s) kan ju vara roligt att veta (2s) åttifyra [this book seems to have been written / in Communist times anyhow / I think / I have to check when the book was written (4s) could be nice to know (2s) eighty-four]

5. Comments on the participant’s own translation process, such as planning to look up certain words later on, or deciding to start reading, as well as some self-evaluative comments, revealing their perception of themselves as students or translators: (16) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: får jag läsa hela tyst en gång bara liksom [can I just kind of read the whole thing once silently] (17) Fredrik: izveˇcnoe / det får jag slå upp (4s) känner mig lite osäker på även om jag vet ungefär [izveˇcnoe / I’ll have to look that up (4s) I feel a bit uncertain about it although I know more or less] (18) Isak (LS)/TAPs: nu s- / nu känns det som den här / texten inte är helt omöjlig att översätta (2s) men man kan ju bedra sig [now / it feels like this / text is not completely impossible to translate (2s) but one might be deceived in that]

... Correlation between task definition and amount of translation experience The first two categories of verbalizations from the pre-writing phase are mainly related to the comprehension of the ST. The other three categories are mainly related to the production of the TT, pointing forwards to the task of translating and therefore indicating a goal-setting and planning function. Comments on the content of the text relate mainly to comprehension and not to production, since they only express the reactions of each participant to the text content; however, there are also a few verbalizations where a participant expresses a need to know more about the topic of the text, which is a verbalization related both to the comprehension of the ST and the production of the TT (see Example (9)). Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show the average number of verbalizations of the





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.5 Categories of verbalizations during the pre-writing phase: mean number and relative proportion, group level.

Professional translators Students

General ST features

ST content

Proper names

ST vs. TT: style, TT purpose

Process, self-evaluation

Total

0.25 (3.7%) 1.4 (10.1%)

1.0 (14.8%) 1.8 (13.0%)

0.5 (7.4%) 1.4 (10.1%)

3.0 (44.4%) 2.8 (20.3%)

2.0 (29.6%) 6.4 (46.4%)

6.75 (100%) 13.8 (100%)

Table 4.6 Categories of verbalizations during the pre-writing phase: mean number and relative proportion, subgroup level.

Senior professional translators Junior professional translators Translation students Language students

General ST features

ST content

Proper names

ST vs. TT: style, TT purpose

Process, self-evaluation

Total

0

1.5 (18.75%)

0.5 (6.25%)

5.0 (62.5%)

1.0 (12.5%)

8 (100%)

0.5 (9.1%)

0.5 (9.1%)

0.5 (9.1%)

1.0 (18.2%)

3.0 (54.5%)

5.5 (100%)

1.5 (6.8%) 1.3 (15.7%)

2.0 (9.1%) 1.7 (20.5%)

3.0 (13.6%) 0.3 (3.6%)

6.5 (29.5%) 0.3 (3.6%)

9.0 (40.9%) 4.7 (56.6%)

22.0 (100%) 8.3 (100%)

five categories in the participants’ TAPs at group and subgroup levels (see Section 4.1). There is an interesting quantitative difference at group level in the relative proportions of the categories ST vs. TT style and Process and self-evaluation. In the TAPs of the professionals, the former category is the most frequent, accounting for more than 40% of the verbalizations, whereas in the students’ TAPs, the latter category is the more common one. At subgroup level, most conspicuous quantitatively is the large proportion in the senior professionals’ verbalizations of the category ST vs. TT style. This category is also found in the protocols of the subgroups junior professionals and translation students, although not with the same high relative proportion. Also conspicuous is that verbalizations of this category (giving comments on stylistic features of the ST, the purpose of the translation and terms) are almost completely absent from the TAPs of the language students. As is clear from the description of this

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

category, it is production-oriented, being related to the TL and the future TT. The stylistic features of the Russian ST are seen from a contrastive point of view with the TL Swedish. All professionals and translator students considered that the Russian ST had some stylistic features which make it less well suited for the stated translation purpose, if rendered very closely in the TT. Five of these six participants also stated a goal of adjusting their TT stylistically accordingly: (19) Berit (PR)/TAPs: det är en väldigt ytlig text / och väldigt klichébemängd men att / för det här ändamålet att kanske vara / i (2s) ja det beror ju på vad det är för typ av utställning / men jag menar att / att den kanske / inte ska vara så djuplodande heller för ändamålet så att / det passar ganska bra / om jag möjligen / tar bort / det som är / klichéer för det här / sovjetmarxistiska klichéer som / inte är begri-/ blir begripliga / på svenska / men att / tydligen vill de ha en sån här ytlig text i alla fall / så det är det jag ska göra då / med litet normaliserat för svenska / ideologiska förhållanden [it’s a very superficial text / and very full of cliches but that / for this purpose perhaps / in (2s) well it depends on what type of exhibition it is / but I mean / that it perhaps / does not need to be very profound for this purpose so that / it fits quite well / if I perhaps / remove / the cliches for these / Soviet Marxist cliches which / are not compr- / be comprehended in Swedish / but that / obviously they want a superficial text like this in any case / so what I am going to do then / with somewhat normalized for Swedish / ideology conditions] (20) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: trudovogo naroda Ukrainy / det där får vi skippa om det bara ska till en svensk utställning i dag / så finns det ingen mening med det här med arbetande folket / låter bara löjligt [. . .] eftersom det inte ska vara någon / ehm / någon stilistisk studie av sovjetspråket / så tycker jag att man / ehm / utan att blinka kan / ehm / kan ta bort alla de här typiska / ehm / sovjetepiteteten [trudovogo naroda Ukrainy / we’ll have to skip that if it’s only for a Swedish exhibition today / there’s no point having this about the working people / it just sounds silly [. . .] since it’s not going to be a stylistic study of the Soviet language / I think you / ehm / can without hesitation /ehm / remove all these typical /ehm / Soviet epithets]

Ellinor (TS), however, was of another opinion. Although she was not altogether happy with the stylistic features and some of the content of the ST, she did not consider it her task to adjust the TT in these respects (cf. similar comments by translation students in Künzli 2003):





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(21) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: den är inte helt / objektiv / den är ganska så ukrainsk ä (2s) vad ska man säga / (skrattar) / lite så där ja / men det är (3s) ja personligen tycker jag bä- / på museum och sånt så där tycker jag bättre om om det är helt / objektiva texter helt / bara liksom / så där fakta / men men okej / det är ju inte min sak [it’s not completely / objective / it is quite Ukrainian eh (2s) what can I say / (laughs) a bit like that / but it is (3s) personally I like be- / in museums and the like I think it’s better if there are completely objective texts / like / facts only / but but OK / that’s not my business]

. Segmentation of the writing process2 .. Hypotheses, data and method As discussed in Section 2.3.4.3, it has been suggested that experienced translators process and translate as a whole larger segments than students or novices, who tend to work more at the word level. This claim can be tested empirically by analyzing the size of the segments of the TT that are written together in one go without a pause. This method was used in Jakobsen (2003b), who found that expert translators used fewer segments per 100 characters of the ST than did semi-professionals (advanced students). This section will analyze this specific aspect of the writing process: its division into segments for generating the TT. For the analysis of the segmentation of the writing process, a minimum pause length must be chosen. It should capture the various processes involved, such as planning, problemsolving and evaluating and revising, which are all reflected in pauses (Lorenzo 1999). Very short pauses, up to about 2 seconds, are often followed in the process by the correction of typographical errors, and thus seem to be used for monitoring processes that are not directly related to the process of translating as such. Pauses in the writing process coincide sometimes with pauses in the verbalizations, but quite often, a pause in the writing process is parallel in time with verbalizations, with or without pauses. Pauses in the verbalizations have been seen as problem indicators by Krings (1986a: 137), who set the minimum value at 3 seconds; and by Lörscher (1991: 109), who set the minimum value at 2 seconds; and as indicators of marked processing by Jääskeläinen (1999: 166). Common to all three researchers is that they do not give pauses a status as problem indicators in their own right, without the presence of other indicators. Jensen (2000) chose the value of 4 seconds, and Jakobsen (2003b) 5 seconds. All such values

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

are to some extent arbitrary and mainly chosen for operational purposes. Furthermore, it must be remembered that in computer loggings the evidence regarding the translation process is indirect, and the data only shows when the unit in question was written down, not when it was actually transferred to the TL in the mind of the translator (cf. Lorenzo 1999: 24), so that it is actually an analysis of the writing units in translation. In this study, a minimum value of 5 seconds was chosen (cf. Jakobsen 2003b). One segment in the log is here defined as “a pause of ≥5 seconds + whatever keystrokes and mouse movements occur after it, until the next pause of ≥5 seconds”. This is an operational definition, which should not be taken to imply that the segment’s initial pause will always be due only to planning what is to be written after the pause. It may also be due to monitoring and evaluating what has already been written. Some segmentation parameters will be given for the task as a whole, but most parameters are derived from the log of the writing phase, i.e., the phase which starts when the participant starts to write down the TT, finishing when he/she has written down an integral version of it. One aspect studied is the number of segments in the logs, for the writing phase and for the task as a whole. There is no straightforward relationship between time spent and the number of segments into which the writing process is divided. This is because pauses are defined here as “keyboard including mouse inactivity”. This means that there can be a fairly long period of time when no character is written, without this being reflected as a very long pause in the logs, viz. if the participant clicks the mouse or moves the cursor during this time. The segmentation can also be analyzed through another parameter: the number of segments required to complete the task in terms of characters in the source text. This is not of interest as long as the same ST is translated into the same TL by all participants, since the values will only show those differences between participants that are already shown by the values for the number of segments. However, for comparisons across languages as well as across different texts, a text and language independent parameter should be used. The notion of ST unit, introduced by Jakobsen (2003b) and defined as “100 characters in the source text, including spaces” is suitable for this. The ST used here contains in all 3,330 characters including spaces, making the number of ST units 33.3. There will also be a quantitative analysis of the number of characters written per segment during the writing phase. Although the participants translate the same ST, it cannot be assumed that they will write the same total number of characters when translating it, for several reasons. First, different translations within the same language pair differ in relative length, and it is possible to discern patterns in this respect related to individual translators





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(Englund Dimitrova 1994). This is to say that if one and the same ST is translated by several translators into one and the same TL, their TTs will differ in length.3 Furthermore, all participants did some concurrent revising during the writing phase, but the exact amount was subject to individual variation (see Section 4.5.3.2). Also, different individuals make different numbers of typing errors, but do not correct them to the same extent. Individuals might also skip translating parts of the ST without intending to do so (cf. below). For this analysis, the number of characters written within each segment will be the unit of measurement. Using word as the unit of measurement turned out to be impossible, since the logs abound with examples of words written only partly, before being revised. The character was therefore considered a more appropriate unit of measurement, having the additional advantage of facilitating comparisons with data and results from other language pairs. It is expected that on average, the more experienced participants will write a larger number of characters within each segment. The value for the length of the segment initial pauses, i.e., the mean length of all pauses ≥5 seconds, will also be given. It is expected that the pauses of professional translators will be shorter, since their process will be characterized by a higher degree of automaticity and since they may be assumed to have fewer problems in the process. The possible facilitation effect during the writing phase of the translation task will also be investigated, more particularly whether there are differences in segmentation and/or number of characters per segment at the beginning and towards the end of the writing phase of the task. The following hypotheses are tested: 1. The log files of the professional translators contain fewer segments, both during the writing phase and for the completion of the whole task, than those of the students. 2. The log files from the writing phase of the professional translators contain more characters per segment (as defined above) than those of the students. 3. The length of the pauses ≥5 seconds during the writing phase are shorter in the log files of the professional translators than in those of the students. 4. A facilitation effect will appear during the writing phase leading to: a. A decrease in the number of segments per ST unit in the log files of all groups of participants for the last 50% of the ST units compared to the first 50% of the ST units; b. An increase in the number of characters written per segment in the log files of all groups of participants in the last 50% of the segments compared to the first 50% of the segments;

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

c. A decrease in the length of the segment initial pause in the log files of all groups of participants in the second 50% of the segments compared to the first 50% of the segments. The analysis of the segmentation of the writing phase is based on the logs. Most participants wrote their TT on the computer, as instructed (see Section 3.4.3.1), with two exceptions. Harald (LS) started by writing down his TT in shorthand. After having written the first paragraph in this way, he wrote it into the computer, then proceeding to write the rest of his translation straight into the computer, without doing it in short-hand first. He accidentally omitted one sentence in his TT, and never noticed it. Isak (LS) first wrote his translation in long-hand on paper, and only then proceeded to write it into the computer. His logs have therefore been considered as belonging entirely to his postwriting phase. Since all participants were videotaped (see 3.4.3.4), I tried to segment, on the basis of these recordings, Isak’s (LS) process of writing down the first version of his TT with pen on paper. The camera was not focused on the paper, however, so his writing process could not be timed with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Therefore, his data has not been included in the segmentation analysis. The method consisted in generating from the log file of each participant a text file with the software, showing all pauses equal to or longer than 5 seconds. This text was then divided into paragraphs, each paragraph consisting of a segment, as defined above. The characters written within each segment were counted with the help of the word count function of the Microsoft Word program; the figures include spaces between words. The results will be presented at three levels: individual, group and subgroup levels (cf. Section 4.1). Due to the small size of the data, tests for statistical significance have not been made. The study is of an exploratory nature, and is to be regarded as a pilot study. It should be remembered that the segmentation data are taken from performing a task under conditions of concurrent verbalization. This condition increases the number of segments (Krings 2001: 493–494; Jakobsen 2003b), but since this effect can be assumed for all participants, the values can still be used for comparisons between them. .. Results Tables 4.7–4.9 give the values for the number of segments for the writing phase and for completing the whole task.



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.7 Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, individual level. Writing phase Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS)

123 115 88 217 218 150 195 216

Number of segments Per ST unit, Whole task writing phase 3.69 3.45 2.64 6.52 6.55 4.50 5.86 6.49

Per ST unit, whole task

271 122 115 294 286 290 313 318

8.14 3.66 3.45 8.83 8.59 8.71 9.40 9.55

Table 4.8 Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, group level. Writing phase Professionals Students

135.75 194.75

Number of segments Per ST unit, Whole task writing phase 4.08 5.85

200.50 301.75

Per ST unit, whole task 6.02 9.06

Table 4.9 Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, subgroup level. Writing phase Senior professionals Junior professionals Translation students Language students

101.5 170 184 205

Number of segments Per ST unit, Whole task writing phase 3.05 5.10 5.53 6.17

118.5 282.5 288 315.5

Per ST unit, whole task 3.56 8.48 8.65 9.47

For this parameter, there is considerable individual variation (cf. Table 4.7). Tables 4.8 and 4.9 (see also Charts 4.1 and 4.2) show that the first hypothesis is verified only partly. There are substantial differences at the group level, but at the subgroup level, only the senior professionals stand out, whereas differences between the junior professionals, the translation students and the language students are rather insignificant. It is interesting to compare the value for segments per ST unit with those in Jakobsen (2003b), whose subjects translated from English into Danish.4 His professional subjects had between 3.68 and 7.24 segments per ST unit for the

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task  350

Segments (N)

300 250 200

Writing phase Whole task

150 100 50 0

Professionals

Students

Chart 4.1 Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, group level. 350

Segments (N)

300 250 200

Writing phase Whole task

150 100 50 0

Senior professionals

Junior prfessionals

Translation students

Language students

Chart 4.2 Number of segments, writing phase and whole task, subgroup level.

whole task, thus a range quite similar to that found in the present study (cf. Table 4.7). His group of semi-professionals can be compared to the translation students here. In his study, their values ranged from 3.80 to 7.49, thus lower than the values of the two translation students in this study (see above). These differences between the translation students in the two studies are perhaps attributible to the different language combinations and to the fact that Russian and Swedish are typologically more distant than Danish and English. The rest of the results presented are based only on the logs from the writing phase. Tables 4.10–4.12 and Charts 4.3 and 4.4 show the number of characters written per segment during the writing phase. For this parameter as well, there is a clear difference between professionals and students. The value for the subgroup of senior professionals stands out, whereas those of the junior professionals and the translator students are very close to each other, the language students showing, as predicted, the lowest

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.10 Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, individual level. Average number of characters Per segment, Per segment, first Per segment, first whole writing phase 50% of segments 50% of segments in writing phase in writing phase Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS)

29.28 29.39 46.05 19.52 18.00 29.63 21.81 18.42

26.90 27.77 38.18 19.16 15.57 29.60 19.44 17.90

31.69 30.98 53.91 19.87 20.43 29.67 24.19 18.94

Table 4.11 Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, group level. Average number of characters Per segment, Per segment, first Per segment, first whole writing phase 50% of segments 50% of segments in writing phase in writing phase Professionals Students

31.06 21.96

28.00 20.63

34.11 23.31

Table 4.12 Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, subgroup level. Average number of characters Per segment, Per segment, first Per segment, first whole writing phase 50% of segments 50% of segments in writing phase in writing phase Senior professionals Junior professionals Translation students Language students

37.72 24.40 23.82 20.12

32.98 23.03 22.59 18.67

42.44 25.78 25.05 21.56

value. Thus, hypothesis 2 is borne out clearly at group level, but not at subgroup level, except for the senior professionals. The values for the length of segment initial pause during the writing phase are given in Tables 4.13–4.15. For this parameter, the individual variation, as shown by Table 4.13, is quite small, with the exception of one language

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task  40

Characters (N)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Professionals

Students

Per segment whole writing phase Per segment first half of segments Per segment second half of segments

Characters (N)

Chart 4.3 Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, group level. 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Senior Junior professionals professionals

Translation students

Language students

Per segment whole writing phase Per segment first half of segments Per segment second half of segments

Chart 4.4 Number of characters per segment: whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, subgroup level.

student. At group level, the length of the segment initial pause is shorter in the professionals’ logs, as predicted, but at subgroup level, the difference between the professionals and the translation students is small. The language students have on average the longest pauses, as predicted. For this parameter, there is

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.13 Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, individual level. Writing phase Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS)

25.74 26.95 23.96 24.31 30.09 24.33 42.90 25.48

Length of segment initial pause (seconds) First 50% of segments, Second 50% of segments, writing phase writing phase 30.49 28.58 19.76 24.71 29.12 27.51 40.86 25.63

20.92 25.34 28.15 23.91 31.05 21.15 44.95 25.33

Table 4.14 Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, group level. Writing phase Professionals Students

Length of segment initial pause (seconds) First 50% of segments, Second 50% of segments, writing phase writing phase

25.24 30.70

25.89 30.78

24.58 30.62

Table 4.15 Length of segment initial pause, whole writing phase, first 50% and second 50% of segments, subgroup level. Length of segment initial pause (seconds) Writing phase First 50% of segments, Second 50% of segments, writing phase writing phase Senior professionals Junior professionals Translation students Language students

25.45 25.02 27.21 34.19

24.17 27.60 28.31 33.25

26.75 22.42 26.10 35.14

virtually no difference between the two subgroups of professionals. Hypothesis 3 is thus verified only partly. Values concerning possible facilitation effects during the writing phase will be presented next. The first parameter is the number of segments required for writing down the TT of the first half and the second half of the ST, given as segments for the first 50% and the second 50% of the ST units, respectively. If there is a facilitation effect, fewer segments will be required per ST unit towards

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

Table 4.16 Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, writing phase, individual level. Segments per ST unit First 50% of ST units Second 50% of ST units Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS)

3.78 3.60 2.88 6.67 7.87 4.56 6.49 6.37

3.60 3.30 2.40 6.37 5.23 4.44 5.17 6.61

Table 4.17 Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, writing phase, group level. Segments per ST unit First 50% of ST units Second 50% of ST units Professionals Students

4.23 6.32

3.92 5.36

Table 4.18 Number of segments for writing the translation of the first and second part of the ST, writing phase, subgroup level. Segments per ST unit First 50% of ST units Second 50% of ST units Senior professionals Junior professionals Translation students Language students

3.24 5.22 6.21 6.43

2.85 4.99 4.84 5.89

the end of the writing phase, the end here being defined as the second 50% of the ST units. Tables 4.16–4.18 give the pertinent values. As expected, the number of segments required to write the translation of the last half of the ST decreases in comparison to the number of segments required to write the translation of the first half of the ST. This decrease is found in the data of all participants, with the exception of Harald (LS), and as a consequence also in the group and subgroup values. The decrease is especially notable in the group of translation students. The possible facilitation effect is also studied through the number of characters written per segment during the first 50% and the second 50% of

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

the segments of the writing phase. For this parameter, facilitation would show in an increase from the first to the second 50% of the segments. The values are shown above in Tables 4.10–4.12 and Charts 4.3 and 4.4. Indeed, in all groups and subgroups, there is an increase in the average number of characters written during the second half of the segments in the writing process. At the individual level, however, this increase is very slight in some cases. Finally, it was also predicted that facilitation would lead to shorter pauses towards the end of the writing phase. Tables 4.13–4.15 above show the mean length of the segment initial pause at different stages of the writing phase, for the first 50% of the segments and the second 50% of the segments for each participant. Here, the results are contrary to what was predicted. The pause length does decrease, but not in all subgroups: this happens only in the groups of junior professionals and in the group of translation students. In the other subgroups, there is a slight increase, contrary to what was predicted. At group level, no effect was found.

. Revising – evaluating and making changes in the target text .. Research questions During the writing phase, as well as during the post-writing phase, participants made a number of changes in (that part of) the TT that had already been written down. These changes will be called here revisions. This section will look at participants’ revisions both during the writing phase, i.e., revisions that were made while they were still in the process of writing down their first TT version, and during the post-writing phase. Three specific aspects of revising in translation will be studied: 1. The task definition of the participants (see Section 4.5.2), i.e., the goals that they set for themselves in revising: a. as part of the phase when the TT is generated and written down; b. as a specific phase in the task performance; 2. The number and types of revisions actually made (see Section 4.5.3); 3. The problem representations as verbalized by the participants in connection with making revisions in their TTs (see Section 4.5.4). For all aspects, the analysis will look for correlations with amount of experience in translation.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

Three out of the four professionals went through the TT only once during the post-writing phase (cf. Table 4.1). Anna (PR) had as many as five subphases. Of the students, language student Harald (LS) was the only one to go through the TT only once in the post-writing phase; all the others had between three and five subphases. .. Task definition of revising ... Data and methods For the analysis of the goals and plans for revising, as reflected in the task definition, the TAPs were scrutinized for verbalizations which state explicit plans, or which can be seen as indicators of planning. Furthermore, in some respects the task definition is compared to what each participant actually did during the phases. The method is thus the same as in the analysis of the initial planning, during the pre-writing phase (see Section 4.3). Goals and plans for revising can concern two different aspects of the task: on the one hand the (planned) text and its characteristics, and on the other hand revising as a process. The activities during the writing and post-writing phases can be assumed to be subordinate to the overall goal of the task, and aimed at achieving it. Revisions in one’s TT are then done because the plan to achieve the goal has not been met, or, perhaps, because a new goal has been set and accordingly a new plan has been made. ... Goals and plans for revising as part of the writing phase In Section 4.3, we saw that in the initial planning during the pre-writing phase, when participants first acquainted themselves with the ST and started planning their task, they formulated and specified the goal of their task. We also saw that their goals differed according to each participant’s experience in translation. Obviously, “translating the text into Swedish for the purpose of an exhibition at an art museum” can be assumed to be the goal for all participants, since this is what they were asked to do, and none of them protested against it. However, the four professionals and one of the translation students further specified the goal in their initial planning into producing a TT that would conform to Swedish stylistic and pragmatic norms. Ellinor (TS) instead stated as her explicit goal to keep the original “tone” of the text, not considering it her business to change it. The three language students did not state any explicit goal of stylistic or pragmatic adjustment of the text. Nothing in the TAPs indicates that the professional translators and the translation students changed their

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

overall goals during the writing phase. One of the language students, however, Harald (LS), verbalized a new goal during the writing phase, to “make the text more Swedish, not so boring”. As for process aspects, TAPs from the writing phase contain very few verbalizations that state explicitly any plan specifically for the process of revising as part of that phase. Verbalizations during this phase that reflect plans specifically for revising instead seem to be plans mainly for the postwriting phase. Plans for the procedures of revising during the writing phase, more specifically for revising parts of the TT while still in the process of translating it for instance, were verbalized only by four participants: Christian (PR), Daniel (PR), Harald (LS) and Isak (LS). Christian (PR), Daniel (PR) and Isak (LS) said that they would evaluate and revise their TTs by paragraphs during the writing phase. Christian (PR) said this was his usual procedure, the purpose being to detect and correct any errors. Daniel (PR) stated that he did this “without looking too much at the ST”, i.e., he was trying to evaluate his text as a TL text. Isak (LS) stated no more specific plan than just “to look through the text”. It cannot be determined with absolute certainty from the data whether they actually followed this procedure of revising by paragraphs consistently. Harald (LS) stated that he would write his translation in short-hand, before typing it into the computer. After having written the first paragraph in short-hand and typed it into the computer, he wrote the rest of his translation directly into the computer, without doing a short-hand version first. There is no indication in his TAPs regarding the reason for this. In the TAPs there is evidence that all participants, regardless of their previous translation experience, considered that their task would not be finished with the writing phase; they were all planning a post-writing phase. Three out of four professionals (Anna, Berit and Christian) as well as Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS) also said so explicitly already during the writing phase. The remaining participants showed in various ways that they were planning to do further work after the TT had been written down in its first version, for instance by postponing a number of decisions. Anna (PR), Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS) set as one goal for the writing phase to produce a preliminary version of the TT as a basis for further work. Anna (PR) stated quite emphatically as the goal of her writing phase to produce a text, something that could form the basis for further work. In her writing phase, there were numerous verbalizations where she declared herself dissatisfied with a solution, claiming that she would return to it later. Her first TT version furthermore has several examples of what could be termed “provisional labels”

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

instead of translations, e.g., in sentence E24 the non-existing “word” lwkfrj for ST krupnejšimi dostiženijami [major achievements]. In other cases, although writing a Swedish word or expression, at the same time she stated: “I’ll write such an ugly translation that I will understand that it has to be checked”. This shows a tolerance for uncertainty and letting a decision sit for the time being (cf. Tirkkonen-Condit 2000), as well as a global strategy of postponing her final decisions to a later stage in the process when she would have a complete text in the TL to work with. Similarly, Fredrik (TS) sensed that his first TT would be a draft in need of refinement, as evidenced by his verbalization when starting the writing phase: (22) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: nu smattrar vi ner på dålig / ehm / knagglig / ehm / svenska [now we’ll hammer this down in bad / ehm/ rough /ehm / Swedish]

Isak’s (LS) verbalized plan was to write down a translation that could be compared with the English translation of the ST from the book on Shevchenko, for two purposes: to find any grammatical differences and to find any instances of miscomprehension. I understand this to mean that he wanted to check his own TT against the English TT for any possible errors due to a misunderstanding of syntactic structures and case forms for example, as well as lexical errors. Only after this would he type his TT into the computer. Both Berit (PR) and Christian (PR) stressed the importance of letting the translation “rest” for a while, to go back to it later on for revising. Christian (PR) also pointed out that he always wants someone else to take a look at his translations, if at all possible. However, none of them postponed any decisions for later on during their writing phase. In the TAPs of the remaining participants, several verbalizations express postponing decisions for “later”, or “afterwards”, a clear indication of planning to do more work after having finished writing down the translation. Such decisions involve, for instance, the spelling of some geographical names or the choice of translation equivalent for certain words. Words are marked off in the TT, for instance by slashes, to indicate that further work is needed. In some cases, a participant made a “mental note” of the necessity to check a certain solution, by saying that the solution chosen would do as a “working hypothesis”, “for the time being”, and that the chosen solutions “can be changed later on”. This is not uncommon in the process, as also evidenced by Krings (2001: 468–469). For several of the participants, one of the goals for the writing phase thus seems to be to produce a first version, a draft, to serve as the starting point for

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

evaluation, in some cases perhaps a version that can offer slots to be filled by appropriate or correct forms or words once these have been chosen. ... Goals and plans for the post-writing phase All four professionals, as well as Fredrik (TS), verbalized more or less elaborate descriptions of what they usually do after having written down a first TT version. Most of them said they prefer to make a paper printout of the text for their further work, and Daniel (PR) gave a reason for this: (23) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: jag brukar läsa igenom (ohörbart) jag hittar mycket saker som jag aldrig ser på en skärm / därför att det är / det blir ju mera en riktig text på ett papper [I usually read through (inaudible) / I find lots of things that I never see on a screen / because it’s / it’s more like a real text on paper]

Some also emphasized the need to let the text rest for a while, before starting to revise it; Berit (PR) gave the following explanation for this: (24) Berit (PR)/TAPs: just i det här stadiet / så tycker jag alltihop är ganska bra [. . .] och / ee / det är därför man ska vänta på det för att / att / jaha men det här blir bättre än jag trodde i / den här första reaktionen för nu är jag alltså inne i det va [. . .] och det / den här distansen / det är ju / det är därför man ska vänta va [right at this stage / I find it all rather good [. . .] and / ehm / that’s why you have to wait for it because / because / well this is getting better than I thought in / this first reaction because right now I’m into it you know [. . .] and / this distance / that’s / why you should wait you see]

Three of the four professionals did not, however, follow their stated usual approach in this task. Berit (PR), Christian (PR) and Daniel (PR) went through a post-writing phase immediately after the writing phase, working with the text on the computer screen. There was thus a discrepancy between their stated normal or preferred global approach (to let the text rest for some time, to have a printout to read from, and, in Christian’s (PR) case, to let someone else read the TT as well) and what they actually did in the task in this study. Some possible explanations for this will be suggested when discussing the results in Section 4.6.1. The remaining four, Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS), Harald (LS) and Isak (LS), did not indicate in their verbalizations any preferred or habitual approach for further work on their first TT version.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

As shown by Table 4.1, Anna (PR), Ellinor (TS), Fredrik (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS) divided their post-writing phase into several subphases. For some of them, the different subphases had different goals, as can be concluded from their TAPs and the nature of their revisions. For instance, Anna’s (PR) second subphase was devoted to checking for any factual errors and the correctness of the relationship between the ST and the TT. In her third subphase, the revisions made, as well as the concurrent verbalizations (see Section 4.5.4.3), show very clearly that her main concern was to make the text sound more Swedish and readable. This subphase thus seems to have been devoted to matters of acceptability, in terms of the TL, and in terms of the needs of the TT reader. Her fourth subphase began with the verbalization: “now I’ll just read it through and see if it seems to tally”. During this subphase, she was not quite content with all her solutions, thinking that the TT was not sufficiently “Swedish sounding”, since there were still some expressions that she found “stupid”. She commented that she might offer to do an adaptation of the text later for him [i.e., the imagined commissioner of the translation]: (25) Anna (PR)/TAPs: ja / vi tar så / jag kan erbjuda honom att bearbeta texten / i efterhand / det här är bara en översättning kan jag säga / jag har gjort en översättning / så ni vet vad det handlar om [yeah / we’ll leave it like that / I can offer to do an adaptation of the text for him / afterwards / this is just a translation I could say / I have done a translation / so that you know what it’s all about]

Fredrik (TS) took a break after the writing phase. Resuming work after the break, he stated as a specified goal for his post-writing phase to distance the text more from the Soviet style: (26) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: vad som ska komma ut ur det här det är egentligen fakta / det är inte så mycket / de språkliga nyanserna / eller att ett ord är / är perfekt korrekt / ehm / dessutom / vill jag nog ännu mer fjärma mig från / det sovjetiska / ehm / sättet att skriva / jag vill / ja / jag vill få bort det där på nåt vis [what should come out of this are actually facts / not so much / the nuances of language / or that a word is / is perfectly correct/ ehm / besides / I think I want to distance myself even more / from the Soviet /ehm / way of writing /yeah / I want to remove that somehow]

In all the four subphases, many of Fredrik’s (TS) verbalizations concerned the quality of his Swedish TT. However, he also considered the relationship to the ST, several times finding that he had distanced himself unnecessarily from the





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

ST (see further Section 4.5.4.3). After the first subphase, he stated that there were so many changes5 that he might just as well write a completely new text into the computer, but he proceeded to write only the revisions. After subphase 2, he declared that he had better stop for the day, being too tired to be able to judge the correctness of his own Swedish. Subphases 3 and 4 were done on the second occasion. No explicit goals were stated for those subphases. Ellinor (TS) had a very clear approach for her post-writing phase, focusing on different aspects in different subphases. In her second subphase, she wrote into the TT the results of the searches she had done in the library after the first occasion. Her TAPs indicate that she had used a variety of aids to find the correct forms: encyclopaedias, a guidebook, a book on Russian history and culture, etc. In the third subphase, she worked on the translation of certain words and expressions, where she had postponed the decision during the writing phase. Only in the last subphase did she look through the whole text to see what it actually sounded like in Swedish, whether it “worked” at all. Thus, Ellinor (TS) first solved the separate problems which she had identified, mostly at word level, and sometimes below, i.e., orthography, and only after this did she consider the text as a whole. Gabriella’s (LS) post-writing phase was divided into five subphases. Her goal seems to have been to find any “errors or stupid mistakes”. It is clear both from some of her revisions and from her comments, that the errors that concerned her were not primarily connected with the relationship with the ST, but rather with her own Swedish. A possible reason for this concern is found in the following verbalization, where she pointed out that she “gets blinded” by the text, and that she did not know what was Swedish and what was Russian: (27) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: man blir så blind av texten på nåt sätt / när man / tittar och tittar på den så länge / så till slut vet man inte / om det är svensk eller rysk man är [you get so blind to the text somehow / when you / keep looking and looking at it for so long / so in the end you don´t know / whether you are Swedish or Russian]

Harald (LS) started his post-writing phase (which had no separate subphases) immediately after the writing phase, without verbalizing any goals for it. However, in the verbalizations during the phase, it becomes clear that he wanted the text to “sound good”, that the text had to become somewhat “easier” or “lighter”, more readable. He hoped to achieve “some kind of Swedish”. Several of his comments during this phase pertained to Swedish grammar or stylistics. Also, after having finished, he said “I’ve learnt that the important

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

thing is the thought” (i.e., to follow the exact structures of the ST is not important). Isak’s (LS) post-writing phase started, as planned (see the preceding section), with a quick comparison between his hand-written TT and the English translation of the ST found in the book about Shevchenko, before he started typing his TT into the computer. During this subphase, he still postponed some solutions for “next time”. After the text was written into the computer, he claimed to have finished most of the job, but said that he would like to come back another time to look at the text. The three remaining subphases were not subject to any explicitly stated goals. .. Revisions from a product perspective ... Data and method Revisions are found: a. In the text of the log files from ScriptLog and the files generated from them (see further Section 3.4.3.3); b. Hand-written on a printout of a version of the TT; c. Hand-written on a hand-written TT. For the analysis of different types of revisions, all changes made in the written text were identified and classified according to the classification system introduced below. This classification system is built on a comparison between what was first written down, the first version, and what it is changed into, the second version, and is thus done within the confines of the target language. The proposed categories in the classification are data-driven, based on the Swedish target texts. However, being built on general linguistic categories, the proposed classification is in all likelihood applicable to revisions done when translating between other language pairs as well. Although the analysis is TL-based, the ST and SL are also taken into account in some further analyses. The revisions are categorized into the following six categories: Syntactic revisions: Under this category are subsumed: a. Construction changes such as changing the structure of a word group, clause or sentence. b. Change of word or constituent order – here, the words or constituents remain the same, but their internal order is changed.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Examples: Christian (PR), in sentence A2 during the writing phase, first wrote strävan mot frihet [striving towards freedom], an NP modelled on the structure in the ST, but then changed it into frihetssträvanden, a Swedish compound noun with approximately the same meaning. Daniel (PR), in sentence C14 during the writing phase, first wrote: Styrkan och sanningen bakom hans ord är slående [The strength and the truth behind his words are striking], then changed it into Hans ord äger en slående styrka och sanning [His words possess a striking strength and truth], i.e., a prepositional phrase in the first version has been made into the subject in the second version, and the heads of the NP which is the subject in the first version have been made into the object in the second version. Lexical revisions: These involve in the simplest case exchanging one word for a synonym, with the same function in the sentence. This kind of revision can also involve a word group. However, if one word is replaced by a word group or vice versa, this is classified as a syntactic revision. Example: Anna (PR), during the writing phase, first wrote ritade [drew] in sentence B6, and then changed it to the synonym tecknade. Morphological revisions: These involve changing the form of a word, usually a verb, noun or adjective (including any possible determiners), such as changing a verb from active to passive or vice versa, or changing its tense; in a noun and its determiners, it can involve change of definiteness, change of number, change of gender, etc. Example: Fredrik (TS), during his writing phase, wrote the preterite verb form lyfte [raised], and this was changed during the post-writing phase to the present tense lyfter. Content revisions: Under this category are subsumed additions and omissions of content words. Obviously, both syntactic and lexical revisions entail some changes in content; however, since the purpose of this analysis is not to give a semantic analysis, the category of content revisions has been reserved for more indisputable additions and omissions. It is important to note that since the classification has not been done in comparison to the ST, a revision that is classified as an addition can involve adding something that is not an addition from a ST point of view, but which the participant forgot in the first version. Likewise, content revisions can consist of removing something for which no counterpart was actually found in the ST.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

Example: Gabriella (LS), during the writing phase, first wrote Dnerp [name of river, spelling as in Gabriella’s TT] in sentence F30, then added floden [river] to form floden Dnerp [river Dnerp]. Orthographic revisions: Under this category are subsumed cases when the spelling of a word is changed, for instance because the participant has checked its correct spelling or form. Changes in punctuation are also classified into this category. Furthermore, if a participant has written a word in an abbreviated form in one version of the TT, the subsequent writing of the word in full form is also classified as an orthographic revision. Mere corrections of typing errors have not been considered at all, however, since they can be assumed to be of only marginal relevance to the translation process as such. The borderline between such corrections and orthographic revisions is not always clear-cut, but quite often the TAPs offer clues, since correction of spelling and punctuation is often commented on, whereas corrections of typing errors seldom are. Doubtful cases have not been counted. Example: During the writing phase, Ellinor (TS) wrote St Petersburg in several sentences. However, after having checked the official spelling of the name in Swedish, she changed this during the post-writing phase into S:t Petersburg. Other: Into this category are classified unclear cases, and also cases when a participant makes some kind of marking of a word which he/she intends to return to later, e.g. by putting it between slashes (//). Example: Ellinor (TS), during the writing phase, first wrote lära känna [get to know] in sentence B9. She was not certain whether this was the most appropriate translation, and therefore decided to put the words between slashes to indicate to herself that this was a problem to return to: /lära känna/. In some cases, one and the same revision occurs and is documented twice, first hand-written, then written into the computer. If identical when written into the computer, it has only been counted when made for the first time. If on the other hand a participant makes a certain revision and then, immediately or later, makes yet another revision of the same portion of the text, changing it back to the original wording, this is counted as two revisions. Versions (first versions or revisions) that are written down only partially, not in their entirety, before being changed, are treated as if they had been written down in full. In these cases, TAPs often give indications as to which version was intended. For instance, during the writing phase Berit (PR) first wrote in sentence A4: ...som livegen h [as a serf c], which was then changed into [som livegen] var helt och hållet beroende av... [(as a serf) was completely dependent on]. In the





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

first version, the letter h is taken to be an indication that Berit (PR) first intended to write som livegen helt och hållet var beroende av [as a serf completely was dependent on], but then reversed the order of constituents, placing the adverbial after the verb instead of before it. Several different revisions can be made in one complex operation. For instance, Berit (PR), in sentence B8, first wrote blev till lycka för Sjevtjenko [was fortunate for Shevchenko], then changed it into blev hans lycka [became his fortune]. This is categorized as two revisions: one syntactic, from blev till lycka för + NP into blev NPgen lycka, and one lexical (change of cohesion), from för Sjevtjenko into hans. The classification system is not intended as an evaluation system, nor does it in itself permit any evaluation of the solutions. Thus, if a participant changes a noun for instance, that is a “correct” translation from a normative point of view, into another noun that is not “correct”, or even a clear error, this is simply classified as a lexical revision. ... Revisions during the writing phase Table 4.19 shows the categories and number of revisions done by each participant during the writing phase according to the categories outlined in Section 4.5.3.1. The table also shows for each participant the relative proportion of each category in her/his total number of revisions during the writing phase. All participants did a number of revisions, of different kinds, during the writing phase, but there is considerable individual variation in the number, Fredrik (TS) representing the highest extreme and Berit (P) the lowest. However, overall there is no clear pattern in this respect which correlates with amount of experience in translation. The relative distributions of the different categories of revisions, overall and for each participant, are shown by the percentage figures. Overall, lexical revisions constitute the largest group, followed by syntactic revisions; these two categories constituting together almost 70% of all revisions. Morphological revisions and content revisions constitute between 10% and 12% each, orthographic revisions and other revisions sharing the remainder more or less equally. At the individual level, things look different. The overall largest category, lexical revisions, is the largest also for all of the students but one, as well as for one professional, Daniel (PR). For the remaining four participants, three of the four professionals and translation student Ellinor (TS), syntactic revisions instead constitute the largest category. Morphological revisions are not found at all in the data from the senior professionals.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

Table 4.19 Revisions in the writing phase (categories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Syntactic Morpho- Lexical Content Orthological graphy Anna (PR)

9 (37.5%) Berit (PR) 8 (36.4%) Christian (PR) 16 (43.2%) Daniel (PR) 15 (26.3%) Ellinor (TS) 15 (33.3%) Fredrik (TS) 17 (26.1%) Gabriella (LS) 10 (22.2%) Harald (LS) 7 (17.9%) Isak (LS) 7 (15.6%) Total each 104 category (27.4%)

7 3 (29.2%) (12.5%) 0 7 (31.8%) 0 15 (40.5%) 10 26 (17.5%) (45.6%) 5 9 (11.1%) (20%) 10 31 (15.4%) (47.7%) 2 25 (4.4%) (55.6%) 3 22 (7.7%) (56.4%) 3 19 (6.7%) (42.2%) 40 157 (10.6%) (41.4%)

4 (16.7%) 5 (22.7%) 4 (10.8%) 4 (7.0%) 6 (13.3%) 6 (9.2%) 4 (8.9%) 3 (7.7%) 9 (20%) 45 (11.9%)

0

Other

Total each participant

1 (4.2%) 1 (4.5%) 0

24 (100%) 22 (100%) 37 (100%) 57 (100%) 45 (100%) 65 (100%) 45 (100%) 39 (100%) 45 (100%) 379 (100%)

1 (4.5%) 2 (5.4%) 2 0 (3.5%) 4 6 (8.9%) (13.3%) 1 0 (1.5%) 0 4 (8.9%) 4 0 (10.3%) 5 2 (11.1%) (4.4%) 19 14 (5.0%) (3.7%)

Syntactic revisions are of two main types: construction change and change of word order (see Section 4.5.3.1). Those from the type construction change have been further classified into three subcategories : –

– –

More dissimilar: change of structure, from a structure that is closely modelled on the ST structure, a literal translation (cf. above Section 2.4.4.1), resulting in a structure that is less similar to the ST structure; More similar: change of structure into a structure that is closely modelled on the structure in the ST; Other structure change: a syntactic revision where neither the first structure nor the one resulting from the revision can be characterized as being closely modelled on the ST structure.

Table 4.20 shows the distribution of categories and subcategories. A tendency emerges from the figures for the subcategories of construction change. Of the syntactic revisions made by the professionals, as well as by Fredrik (TS), 50% or more are from the more dissimilar subcategory. In these cases, the participant





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 4.20 Syntactic revisions in the writing phase (categories and subcategories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Construction change More dissimilar

More similar Other structure change

Anna (PR) 7 (77.8%) 0 Berit (PR) 4 (50%) 0 Christian (PR) 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.2%) Daniel (PR) 10 (66.7%) 2 (13.3%) Ellinor (TS) 4 (26.7%) 3 (20%) Fredrik (TS) 9 (52.9%) 1 (5.9%) Gabriella (LS) 2 (20%) 0 Harald (LS) 3 (42.9%) 0 Isak (LS) 0 1 (14.3%) Total each category

Change of Total each word order participant

49 (47.1%) 8 (7.7%)

1 (11.1%) 2 (25%) 3 (18.8%) 2 (13.3%) 7 (46.7%) 6 (35.3%) 4 (40%) 3 (42.9%) 6 (85.7%)

1 (11.1%) 2 (25%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (5.9%) 4 (40%) 1 (14.3%) 0

9 (100%) 8 (100%) 16 (100%) 15 (100%) 15 (100%) 17 (100%) 10 (100%) 7 (100%) 7 (100%)

34 (32.7%)

13 (12.5%)

104 (100%)

first writes a TL structure which is a literal translation. In this respect, there is a clear difference between on the one hand the four professionals and Fredrik (TS), and on the other hand the other participants, Ellinor (TS) and the three language students. Although revisions of the more dissimilar subcategory are also found in the data from the latter four participants (except Isak [LS]), they are not at all as frequent. For the professionals, one purpose of the revisions during the writing phase is to remove structures which they deem to be too similar or close to those found in the SL and the ST. It seems that they use literal translations as part of their translation process, but that they work consistently to remove them. In this respect, it is interesting to quote one verbalization by Christian (PR) when translating sentence A2: (28) Christian (PR)/TAPs: svoim plamennym poetiˇceskim i chudožestvennym (ohörbart) / jag menar det vet alla vad den ordagranna formul- det är så att om man översätter det här ordagrant så ser det ut som nån obegåvad jävel [. . .] har gjort det / medan jag kan ju skriva om det litet friare och då låter det som bättre svenska och det är det jag försöker göra nu [svoim plamennym poetiˇceskim i chudožestvennym (inaudible) / I mean everybody knows what the literal formul- it’s a fact that if you translate this literally it looks as if it’s been done by some untalented bastard [. . .] / while

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

I can rewrite it a bit more freely and then it’ll sound like better Swedish and that’s what I’m trying to do now]

Christian’s (PR) logs show however, that in spite of his disdainful attitude towards literal translations, his own work with this sentence actually went through a series of literal translations, which were immediately revised into more dissimilar structures, see Figure 4.1. He began by writing a literal translation of the NP Svoim plammenym poetiˇceskim i chudožestvennym tvorˇcestvom in the first segment, obviously intending to write something like i sitt engagerade poetiska och konstnärliga skapande [in his committed poetic and artistic creative work]. However, before having written the whole NP in Swedish, he stopped halfway through a word, deleted what he had written, and then wrote a freer translation. He then began another literal translation, Ukraiin, obviously intending to write the Swedish genitive Ukrainas as a translation of the Russian genitive Ukrainy, but once again stopped before finishing the word and deleted it. He then wrote the structurally somewhat freer translation det ukrainska, i.e., an adjective. Finally, the Russian NP stremlenie k svobode was first translated literally by strävan till frihet, then changed into a freer translation, a compound noun.

Russian ST

Word-for-wordtranslation of Russian ST

Christian’s logs (pause length and delete symbols not shown) Han åerspeglade i sitt engagerade poet

Word-for-wordtranslation of logs

Svoim plamennym i chudožestvennym tvorˇcestvom on otrazil

[In/with] his ardent poetic and artistic creative work he reflected

izveˇcnoe stremlenie trudovogo naroda Ukrainy

ancient striving of Ukraine’s working people

i sin engagerade poesi och bildkonst återspeglade han Ukraiin

In his committed poetry and art he reflected Ukrain

k svobode

for freedom

det ukrainiska arbetsfolkets urgamla strävan mot frihet

the age-old striving for freedom of the Ukrainian working people

ssträvanden

strivings

Figure 4.1 Christian’s (PR) writing of sentence A2.

He reflected in his committed poet



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

... Revisions during the post-writing phase Table 4.21 shows the distribution of the different categories of revisions for each participant during the post-writing phase. The number of revisions made during the post-writing phase varies considerably; interestingly, the extremes are once again Fredrik (TS), with the highest number of revisions, and Berit (PR) with the lowest number (cf. the figures given above in Table 4.19 for revisions during the writing phase). As in the writing phase, the two most frequent categories are lexical revisions and syntactic revisions. Here, lexical revisions constitute a larger proportion, almost half of all revisions, both as the average and in all individual cases. In this respect, the pattern of revising during the post-writing phase differs from that found in the writing phase (see Table 4.19), where the differences in the sum total of syntactic revisions vs. lexical revisions were not as prominent (101 syntactic revisions vs. 157 lexical revisions). As for individual patterns, the two senior professionals Berit (PR) and Christian (PR) made very few revisions at all, and their revisions Table 4.21 Revisions in the post-writing phase (categories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Syntactic Morphological Anna (P) Berit (P) Christian (P) Daniel (P) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

Total each category

Lexical

Content

Orthography

Other

Total each participant

14 (14%) 0

3 (3%) 0

4 (4%) 0

100 (100%) 2 (100%) 7 (100%) 32 (100%) 31 (100%) 252 (100%) 52 (100%) 54 (100%) 97 (100%)

18 (18%) 0

5 (5%) 0

0

0

12 (37.5%) 2 (6.4%) 51 (20.2%) 13 (25%) 10 (18.5%) 13 (13.4%)

1 (3.1%) 3 (9.7%) 34 (13.5%) 7 (13.5%) 6 (11.1%) 8 (8.2%)

56 (56%) 2 (100%) 3 (42.9%) 18 (56.2%) 13 (41.9%) 120 (47.6%) 24 (46.1%) 33 (61.1%) 32 (33.0%)

119 (19.0%)

64 (10.2%)

301 86 (48.0%) (13.7%)

4 0 0 (57.1%) 1 0 0 (3.1%) 3 10 0 (9.7%) (32.3%) 38 7 2 (15.1%) (2.8%) (0.8%) 7 1 0 (13.5%) (1.9%) 4 1 0 (7.4%) (1.8%) 15 24 5 (15.5%) (24.7%) (5.1%) 46 (7.3%)

11 (1.7%)

627 (100%)

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

Table 4.22 Syntactic revisions in the post-writing phase (categories and subcategories, number and relative proportion), individual level. Construction change More dissimilar Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS) Total each category

9 (50%) 0 0 3 (25%) 2 (100%) 8 (15.7%) 2 (15.4%) 3 (30%) 6 (46.2%)

Change of Total each word order participant

More similar Other structure change 1 (5.6%) 0 0 2 (16.7%) 0 5 (9.8%) 1 (7.7%) 0 2 (15.4%)

33 (27.7%) 11 (9.2%)

5 (27.8%) 0 0 6 (50%) 0 32 (62.7%) 2 (15.4%) 7 (70%) 3 (23.1%)

3 (16.7%) 0 0 1 (8.3%) 0 6 (11.8%) 8 (61.5%) 0 2 (15.4%)

18 (100%) 0 0 12 (100%) 2 (100%) 51 (100%) 13 (100%) 10 (100%) 13 (100%)

55 (46.2%)

20 (16.8%)

119 (100%)

were devoted here to aspects connected with lexical choice and content. Two participants, Ellinor (TS) and Isak (LS), made a much larger proportion of orthographic revisions than the others. During the writing phase, there was a tendency for syntactic revisions to result in structures that were more distant from the structure in the ST than the first version chosen, both overall and especially in the revisions made by the four professionals and by Fredrik (TS). Table 4.22 gives the figures for the categories and subcategories of syntactic revisions during the postwriting phase. During the post-writing phase, there were still quite a large number of revisions that removed literal translations, but they were no longer the predominant type of syntactic revision, neither overall, nor for most individuals. Only in the data from Anna (PR) and Ellinor (TS) were they predominant here as well. .. Problem representations in revising ... Data and methods A revision can be assumed to be made because the first version written down is evaluated as non-optimal in some way by the person translating. I assume that verbalizations in connection with producing revisions are key components for understanding how participants work and why they make certain revisions. This section will therefore analyse the participants’ problem representations



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(cf. Section 2.3.5) in connection with the revisions made, as reflected in the concurrent verbalizations. The understanding of the person translating of what is wrong in the TT and what to do to fix it (cf. Hayes et al. 1987) is reflected in the problem representations, in other words, the amount of information and the kind of information focused on in revising. For this analysis, the procedure was to extract all verbalizations that were concurrent with a certain documented revision, or immediately preceding it or following it, and that appeared to either diagnose a problem or evaluate a solution. These verbalizations were then classified into categories modified from Hayes et al. (1987) (see further below). Far from all revisions turned out to be made with concurrent verbalizations. Some coincided with a pause in the verbalizations. Furthermore, even when there is a concurrent verbalization, it cannot always be analyzed in the categories applied here, since they intend to capture various types of evaluations and diagnoses of problems. For instance, a verbalization in which a participant simply reads a TT segment and then verbalizes a new version which is written down is not analyzable in these categories. This is because the only information that can be deduced is already available in the logs: that a revision was made and in what it consisted.6 It must be stressed that this analysis takes as its point of departure those revisions that were actually made. It can be assumed that all text segments are subject to the translator’s constant monitoring and evaluation, and furthermore that some of those processes are verbalized in the TAPs.7 The approach here goes, so to speak, in reverse: from the observed product phenomenon, the revision, to the process. Hayes et al. (1987) categorized the verbalized problem representations in their study into the broad categories Detection and Diagnosis. Detection constitutes fairly general verbalizations which give little information about the problem and its solution, whereas Diagnosis representations are more specific. The category Diagnosis is further divided into Intentional, Maxim-based and Rule-based diagnoses, ranging in specificity from the least specific (intentional diagnoses) to the most specific or well-defined (rule-based diagnoses) (Hayes et al. 1987: 214–215). These categories are derived from an analysis of protocols from a different task (revising a text written by someone else that was not a translation). They have therefore been adapted and specified here in order to account for revising within translation as a text production task. The category of ST-based evaluation proposed below is dependent on the fact that there is another text, the ST, that is the matrix text. As for Stylistic evaluation and

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

Semantic evaluation, verbalizations of these types can probably be found in monolingual revision processes as well. The evaluation categories are defined in relation to the type of information found in the verbalizations and its degree of specificity. In the data, an evaluation can concern the segment already written, or the one into which it is being revised. The verbalizations are coded into the following categories: Non-specified evaluation: These are very general verbalizations that take the form “you say that”, “it’s called like that”, “it sounds good”, “I like that”, etc. They can take the form of a declarative sentence, with or without a negation (“you don’t say that”, “it does not sound good”) or an interrogative sentence: “do you say that? what do you say?”. Furthermore, they can contain various modifying elements, such as a modal auxiliary: “you can say that”, adverbs “it’s probably called that”, and statements of epistemic modality “I don’t know whether you can say that” etc. Verbalizations that give a very general form of positive or negative evaluation have also been included in this category: “it sounds/is/ seems good/OK/fine/beautiful/stupid/childish” (also in negative, question form, and combined with modifying elements). Stylistic evaluation: These verbalizations indicate a somewhat more sophisticated metalinguistic analysis (most frequently stylistic) than Non-specified evaluations. They take the form: “it’s (not) dramatic/poetic/ journalistic/ like in a fairy tale” etc. Utterances evaluating something as being or sounding “(more/less) Swedish” are also referred to this category, since they seem to reflect more linguistic and TL-related awareness than verbalizations of the category Non-specified evaluation. Obviously, non-specified evaluations such as “it sounds good” are very often made from a TL perspective. However, I assume there is an important difference between having this as an underlying component, and verbalizing it explicitly. Semantic evaluation: two types of verbalizations have been classified into this category. In the first, a comparison is made between the meaning of the first solution and the second one, without, however, comparing with the corresponding part of the ST. Typical such verbalizations are in the form “it does not have exactly the same meaning”. In the second type of verbalization, the participant evaluates a solution in relation to the extralinguistic reality that it refers to, e.g., “I can’t write fight, because it actually was not a fight but an endeavour”.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

ST-based evaluation: Here, a solution is evaluated in relation to the corresponding part of the ST. They are of the type “I don’t know how to translate this”, “this solution does (not) cover the meaning of the word in the ST”, and “this is (not) what it says in the ST”. Intention-based evaluation: This category corresponds to Intentional diagnoses in the terminology of Hayes et al. (1987). Here, the participants “compare their representation of the text’s purpose and/or the author’s intentions with what is actually written and then [. . .] decide how to change the text (or a text plan) to satisfy those apparent intentions.” (Hayes et al. 1987: 214). These verbalizations often resemble stylistic evaluations, but they take more specified aspects into consideration, such as the text type or the future reader of the TT. Maxim-based evaluation: Evaluations of this category are based on “some established guidelines, but not any clear-cut rules [. . .]. Such maxims incorporate those found in standard handbooks, such as “Avoid wordy prose” or “Use parallel structure”.” (ibid.) Rule-based evaluation: This category of evaluations are based on standard rules for the TL, such as rules of grammar, orthography and punctuation. In the verbalized problem representation, the person translating draws on his/her knowledge of such rules. ... Problem representations for revisions during the writing phase Tables 4.23–4.24 show the mean number of verbalizations of the different categories and their relative proportions, at group level and subgroup level. Overall, the most frequent category is that of Non-specified evaluation, which accounts for more than half of all classified verbalizations. Most other categories are fairly evenly distributed, although ST-based evaluation is slightly more frequent. The most important difference between the groups is in the relative proportion of the category of Non-specified evaluations, which are Table 4.23 Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), group level. Non- Stylistic Semantic specified Profes6.0 1.25 sionals (47.1%) (9.8%) Students 8.4 0.8 (66.7%) (6.3%)

0.5 (3.9%) 0 (0%)

STbased 1.5 (11.8%) 1.6 (12.7%)

Intention- Maximbased based 1 (7.8%) 0.2 (1.6%)

Rulebased

Total

1 1.5 12.75 (7.8%) (11.8%) (100%) 1 0.6 12.6 (7.9%) (4.8%) (100%)

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

Evaluation categories

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Rule-based Maxim-based Intention-based ST-based Semantic Stylistic Non-specified Professionals

Students

Chart 4.5 Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the writing phase: proportions, group level. Table 4.24 Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), subgroup level. Non- Stylistic Semantic ST- Intention- Maxim- Rulespecified based based based based Senior professionals Junior professionals Translation students Language students

2.0 (25%) 10.0 (57.1%) 13.5 (67.5%) 5.0 (65.8%)

2.0 1.5 0 1.5 0 1.0 (25%) (18.7%) (18.7%) (12.5%) 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 (2.9%) (5.7%) (8.6%) (2.9%) (11.4%) (11.4%) 1.5 0 2.5 0.5 2.0 0 (7.5%) (12.5%) (2.5%) (10%) 0.3 0 1.0 0 0.3 1.0 (3.9%) (13.2%) (3.9%) (13.2%)

Total 8 (100%) 17.5 (100%) 20.0 (100%) 7.6 (100%)

more frequent in the student group. Stylistic and Semantic evaluations as well as Intention-based and Rule-based evaluations are on average more frequent in the professional group, more markedly so for the two latter categories. Thus, although the category Non-specified evaluation is the largest one in both groups, problem representations verbalized by the professionals are both more varied and more specific than those verbalized by the students; see also Chart 4.5. Table 4.24 and Chart 4.6 also show that both more varied and more specified verbalizations correlate with experience in translation. Thus, the relative proportion of Non-specified evaluations diminishes with growing experience, whereas the proportions of most other categories rise with growing experience.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Evaluation categories

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Rule-based Maxim-based Intention-based ST-based Semantic Stylistic Non-specified Senior Junior Translation Language professionals professionals students students

Chart 4.6 Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the writing phase: proportions, subgroup level.

A closer look at the verbalizations reveals that most of them are oriented only towards the TL, i.e., they do not refer to the ST and the SL, nor to the contrastive relationships between the SL and the TL, or between the ST and the TT. This is by definition so in the category Non-specified evaluations, and also in the categories Stylistic evaluation and Semantic evaluation. STbased evaluation is the only category that by definition always addresses the relationship between the ST and the TT. These verbalizations mostly evaluate TT solutions along the continuum closeness – distance to the ST: (29) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: med sitt glödande poetiska och (2s) konstnärliga skapande (3s) ehm / här ser jag också kanske nånting som skulle vara / kunna betecknas som en rusism / med sitt glödande poetiska / i / sitt konstnärskap ändrar vi [with his glowing poetic and (2s) artistic creation (3s) ehm / here I also see something which could be / could be called a rusism / with his glowing poetic / in / his artistic creation we’ll change it into that] (30) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: frågan är om det är för fritt att skriva / konstnär / živopisec målare / jag skriver / ja / jag skriver målare i stället [the question is whether it is too free to write / artist / živopisec painter / I’ll write / yes / I’ll write painter instead]

Interestingly, one and the same participant can, in one verbalization, evaluate closeness to the ST negatively, in another verbalization evaluate it positively. It thus seems that this kind of evaluation can justify different kinds of solutions:

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

(31) Christian (PR)/TAPs: jag har bara skrivit honom / utnämnde till akademiledamot / vilket är kortare / inte så tungt / men här kanske man skulle man / faktiskt / ligga närmre ryskan just för att uttrycket är så konstigt [I have only written appointed him / member of the Academy /which is shorter / not so heavy / but here you could perhaps / actually / stay closer to the Russian precisely because the expression is so strange] (32) Christian (PR)/TAPs: alltid när man gör sånt där så tänker man sen råkar man ut för nån jävla petimäter som säger / du har inte översatt som det står / men jag har skrivit bättre svenska än han ryska det kan jag inte låta bli [always when you do these things you think you will happen on some bloody nitpicker who will say / you have not translated as it says / but I have written better Swedish than his Russian I can’t help it]

Most Intention-based evaluations during the writing phase are focused on the future readers’ possibilities of understanding the TT. There is usually an implicit contrastiveness in these verbalizations. Typically, a participant has written a translation that is close to the ST in some respect, but changed it into something that is more distant, referring to the needs of the future reader: (33) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: Taras (4s) Grigorevitjs (2s) frågan är om man ska skriva det / eller om man ska skriva då / Taras / Sjevtjenkos i stället (5s) hm (2s) annars kanske ingen förstår vad som menas (3s) eller man ska skriva hela namnet / Taras Grigorevitj (2s) Sjevtjenkos (2s) jag tror jag gör det [Taras (4s) Grigorevich’s (2s) the question is whether you should write that / or if you could write / Taras / Shevchenko’s instead (5s) hm (2s) otherwise perhaps nobody will understand what it means (3s) or should I write the full name / Taras Grigorevich (2s) Shevtchenko’s (2s) yes I think I’ll do that] (34) Christian (PR)/TAPS: när det står stolicu här / så skriver jag Petersburg för det är enklare faktiskt / eehm (3s) vi vet att det är Petersburg det framgår ju längre ner / men det är tydligare för en svensk om jag skriver det [when it says stolicu here / I write Petersburg because it is actually simpler / eehm (3s) we know that it is Petersburg it becomes clear further on / but it is clearer for a Swede if I write it]

In other cases, genre conventions of the text type (in Russian and/or in Swedish) are hinted at: (35) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: speglade han / jag får en känsla av att man i såna här / sammanhang kan skriva har speglat

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

[he reflected / I get the feeling that in contexts like these you can write has reflected]

Most verbalizations classified as Maxim-based evaluations express participants’ perceptions of what is possible or desirable in the TL. Like Intention-based evaluations, Maxim-based evaluations are often found when a participant decides to distance the TT, structurally or lexically, from the ST: (36) Anna (PR)/TAPs: sluˇcajnost’ju / blev en lycklig (3s) (2s) en (suckar) lycklig nyck [. . .] en tillfällighet kan man inte skriva / lycklig / slump kan man inte heller / säga (3s) äsch / det ska inte vara så mycket substantiv / en av dessa nycker blev (2s) lyckosam för / det tar vi [sluˇcajnost’ju / became a happy (3s) (2s) a (sighs) happy whim [. . .] a coincidence you can’t write that / happy / chance you can’t say that either (3s) no matter / there should not be as many nouns / one of these whims became (2s) prosperous for / we’ll take that]

Anna’s (PR) maxim to try and decrease the number of nouns in her TT is most probably a reflection of normative statements from Swedish stylistics, where a tendency in certain styles to use heavy nominalization has been evaluated very negatively and called substantivsjuka [noun sickness]. (37) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: man tycker om korta meningar i svenskan så det får jag [they like short sentences in the Swedish language so I am allowed]

Rule-based evaluations during the writing phase mainly refer to TL rules for spelling or punctuation, but also other kinds of more or less set rules: (38) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: som redan hade undergrävts (2s) av förvisningen (5s) inte av förvisningen / under förvisningen / det är / det är / s- / svårt tycker jag att ha (2s) icke-levande substantiv som / agenter [which already had been undermined (2s) by the exile (5s) not by the exile / during the exile / it is / it is / d- / difficult I think to have (2s) inanimate nouns as / agents] (39) Harald (LS)/TAPs: nä jag tycker inte om dom där / tankstreckena / det ska va inskjutna satsen men / det passar inte på svenska [no I do not like these / dashes / it’s supposed to be an inserted clause but / it does not fit in Swedish]

Christian (PR) also verbalized a contrastive rule:

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

(40) Christian (PR)/TAPs: sen har vi ett exempel här / pog- ee /on umer / pogreben byl / där / eftersom / ryskan där / kör med ut- / icke har utsatt subjekt så anser jag att där kan man samordna två meningar till en [then we have an example here / pog- ee /on umer / pogreben byl / there / since / Russian there / has ex- / has no explicit subject I consider that you can coordinate two sentences into one]

... Problem representations for revisions during the post-writing phase The relative proportions at group level, as shown in Table 4.25 and Chart 4.7, reveal differences mainly in the category Maxim-based evaluations, which is much more frequent among the group of professionals; and semantic, STbased and rule-based evaluations, which are all more frequent in the student group. Furthermore, a comparison between the corresponding figures for the writing phase (see above Table 4.23 and Chart 4.5) reveals that in the student group, the relative proportion of verbalizations of different categories during the post-writing phase very much resembles that of the professionals during Table 4.25 Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the post-writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), group level. Non- Stylistic Semantic specified Profes4.25 1.0 sionals (45.9%) (10.8%) Students 19.6 3.4 (50.3%) (8.7%)

0 (0%) 2.8 (7.2%)

STbased

Intention- Maxim- Rulebased based based

0.5 (5.4%) 4.2 (10.8%)

Evaluation categories

100%

2.75 0 9.25 (29.7%) (0%) (100%) 2.6 3.4 39.0 (6.7%) (8.7%) (100%)

Rule-based Maxim-based Intention-based ST-based Semantic Stylistic Non-specified

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

0.75 (8.1%) 3.0 (7.7%)

Total

Professionals

Students

Chart 4.7 Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the post-writing phase: proportions, group level.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

the writing phase. This is an indication that those factors that the professionals take into account already in the writing phase, are focused on by the students at a later stage during the task, during the post-writing phase. Table 4.26 and Chart 4.8 give the values and proportions for the subgroup level. Here, there are only small differences between junior professionals8 and translation students in the proportions of Non-specified evaluations. Maximbased diagnoses were quite frequent among the junior professionals, but less frequent among the translation students and the language students. Rulebased evaluations were most common in language students, less common in translation students, and not found at all among young professionals. Intention-based evaluations were found in all subgroups to the same extent. Table 4.26 Evaluations concurrent with revisions in the post-writing phase (categories, mean number and relative proportion), subgroup level. Non- Stylistic Semantic ST- Intention- Maxim- Rulespecified based based based based Senior 0 0 0 0 professionals Junior 8.5 2.0 0 1.0 professionals (45.9%) (10.8%) (5.4%) Translation 25.5 4.0 5.5 8.0 students (45.1%) (7.1%) (9.7%) (14.2%) Language 15.7 3.0 1.0 1.7 students (57.3%) (11.0%) (3.6%) (6.2%)

1.5 (8.1%) 4.5 (8.0%) 2.0 (7.3%)

Evaluation categories

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

0

0

Total

0

0

5.5 0 18.5 (29.7%) (100%) 4.5 4.5 56.5 (8.0%) (8.0%) (100%) 1.3 2.7 27.4 (4.7%) (9.8%) (100%)

Rule-based Maxim-based Intention-based ST-based Semantic Stylistic Non-specified Senior Junior Translation Language professionals professionals students students

Chart 4.8 Evaluation categories concurrent with revisions in the postwriting phase: proportions, subgroup level.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

Semantic evaluations were found in the two student subgroups, but were more frequent among the translation students. ST-based evaluations were found in all three subgroups, but were more frequent in the TAPs of the translation students than in those of the other two groups. Semantic evaluations and ST-based evaluations verbalized during the postwriting phase were of the same nature as during the writing phase. Intention-based evaluations during the post-writing phase very much resemble those from the writing phase, referring either to the possibilities for the (Swedish) reader to understand the TT, or to text-type conventions: (41) Harald (LS)/TAPs: men det var inte snyggt det där andra men tyvärr / det måste bli lite lättare så människor / kan läsa det [but that’s not very neat that other thing but unfortunately / it must be a bit lighter so that people / can read it] (42) Isak (LS)/TAPs (subphase 1): frågan är om man inte ska skriva Sjevtjenko i stället för Taras Grigorjevitj här / som man har gjort i den engelska översättningen / för (3s) det ryska namnsystemet / ja det är lite svårare / ja det är bättre / det är bättre att skriva / ö Sj- Sjevtjenko där (2s) Sjevtjenko (4s) det tror jag [the question is shouldn’t you write Shevchenko instead of Taras Grigorevich here / as they have done in the English translation / since (3s) the Russian name system / yes it is a bit more difficult / yes it’s better / it’s better to write / hm Sh- Shevchenko there (2s) Shevchenko (4s) I think so] (43) Anna (PR/TAPs (subphase 3): ja nu ska jag ha en liten slående inledning [well now I will have a striking little introduction] (44) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs (subphase 1): så här kan man inte skriva på / ehm / en svensk / minnesruna [you can’t write like this in / ehm / a Swedish / obituary] (45) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs (subphase 5): i och med att det här ska då vara på ett museum och / antagligen ska det vara så kort som möjligt och jag såg här att översättningen blir rätt lång ändå men nu är det / ja mellanrad och sådär / så förkortar jag det för ja jag tänkte / folk orkar inte läsa så mycket / det ska gå snabbt att läsa man orkar läsa på / museum / [since this is supposed to be at a museum and / probably it should be as short as possible and I noticed that the translation has become rather long anyhow but now it is / well a line in between and there / so I’ll shorten it because well I thought / people don’t want to read that much / it should be quick to read you can manage to read at a museum]



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Most verbalizations emphasized that the TT should be readable and easy to understand. There are, however, also some examples where participants said more or less explicitly that it did not matter which solution they chose, since Swedish readers would not know the facts behind the text and not understand anyhow. Sometimes, conflicting maxims were verbalized by one and the same participant, even in translating one and the same text segment, as in examples (47) and (48) from Ellinor (TS): (46) Harald (LS)/TAPs: i hans poemer och dikter (3s) hm / varför måste jag skriva poemer och dikter (ohörbart) inte bara skriva poesi (4s) det är väl ingen som vet vad han har skrivit här i Sverige [in his poems and poetry (3s) hm / why must I write poems and poetry (inaudible) not just write poetry (4s) surely nobody here in Sweden knows what he has written] (47) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs (subphase 3): då skriver jag nog / Tjerkassy / oblasten / inom parentes / län / tror jag (3s) (22s) / jag tycker man lika gärna kan använda ordet / oblast och / för det är i alla fall ingenting / ingen som vet / det blir så rörigt ändå så att / man kan lika gärna / sätta in det ryska ordet tycker jag på nåt sätt [then I think I’ll write / the Cherkassy / oblast / within parentheses / district / I think (3s) (22s) I think you could just as well use that word / oblast and / because there isn’t anyhow anything / anybody who knows / it’s so confused anyhow so that / you might just as well / insert the Russian word I think somehow] (48) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs (subphase 3): då måste man ha bindestreck mellan Tjerkassy och oblast annars då vet de ju inte att det / var ordet tar slut nånstans [then you must have a hyphen between Cherkassy and oblast otherwise they won’t know that it / where the word ends]

Maxim-based evaluations verbalized in the post-writing phase are concerned mainly with the need for removing something of which there is “too much” in the TT, e.g., passives, genitives, repetitions, definite forms, or “something that is superfluous since it is self-evident”: (49) Anna (PR)/TAPs (subphase 3): och så ska det vara / inte så mycket passiver här det tycker jag är tråkigt [and I don’t think there should be / so many passives here I think that is boring]

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

(50) Isak (LS)/TAPs (subphase 2): den höga med- / medborgerlighet- / medvetenheten / i hans poem (2s) och / diktverk samt dess kritiska inställning till liv- / och envåldsmakten / drog på sig uppmärksamhet (10s) (ohörbart) mycket bestämd form däruppe / det är bäst att skriva drog uppmärksamhet [the high civ- / civic- / consciousness / in his poems (2s) and / poetry as well as its critical attitude towards serf- / and the autocracy / attracted attention (10s) (inaudible) many definite forms up there / I’d better write attracted attention] (51) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs (subphase 1): stryka / hjälp eftersom det i stort sett blir en (2s) uuää njaa i för sig (2s) det är på gränsen till tautologi [delete / help since it more or less becomes a (2s) ehm we-ell (2s) it is bordering on a tautology]

Gabriella (LS) verbalized a maxim that perhaps could be paraphrased as: if a word (determiner, adjective, adverb) can be understood as referring to two words, e.g., nouns, when it does in fact refer to only one of them, you must change the word order in order to avoid misunderstanding. Ellinor (TS) verbalized the same maxim during the writing phase. (52) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs (subphase 3): redan i barndomen tyckte / Sjevtjenko mycket om att rita / och skriva dikter / ja här / rita / dikter / han/ tyckte mycket om att skriva dikter och rita [. . .] jag sätter rita efter / visserligen så spelar det nog ingen roll (12s) men / i och med att jag reagerade när jag försökte läsa ihop det där / så kanske nån annan också gör det [already in his childhood Shevchenko liked / very much to draw / and write poems / yes here / draw / poems / he/ liked very much to write poems and draw [. . .] I’ll put draw after / I’m sure it probably does not matter (12s) but / since I reacted when I tried to read it together / perhaps someone else will as well]

The maxim most frequently verbalized was “avoid repetitions in the TT”. It was verbalized during the post-writing phase by Anna (PR) in connection with six different revisions, Daniel (PR) in connection with two revisions, Ellinor (TS) in connection with two revisions, and Isak (LS) in connection with one revision. Ellinor (TS) verbalized this maxim twice in connection with revisions during the writing phase as well. Furthermore, the same maxim was verbalized by several of the remaining participants at other occasions in their TAPs, i.e., when making a decision regarding a translational solution that was not a revision. It thus seems that the urge to avoid repetitions is very strong indeed. The omission in translated texts of repetitions which are present in



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

the ST has been claimed to be a universal of translation (Laviosa-Braithwaite 1998). The data presented here (cf. also below Section 5.4.4.1) corroborates the high frequency of this specific feature. The urge to avoid repetitions may originate here in rules and advice on how to write good Swedish that have been internalized by the participants, probably as a result of Swedish lessons at school. Some of the repetitions that participants wanted to avoid in the TTs are actually a consequence of the same word being used several times in the ST. However, in most cases participants did not consider whether the repetition was perhaps a conscious stylistic choice by the ST writer, which should be reproduced in the TT. Only Fredrik (TS) once stated the opposite maxim, that a repetition in the ST should be reproduced in the TT. Rule-based evaluations in the post-writing phase were similar to those from the writing phase.

. Summary and conclusions This chapter has studied aspects of performing a translation task by individuals with varying amounts of experience in translation, ranging from professionals with decades of paid professional experience in the translation of various types of texts; to language students having only limited experience in translation, mainly as part of their language learning process. The different categories of participants have been compared in various respects. Important points of departure were the assumptions that: – – – –

a basic translation ability is concomitant with (some degree of) bilingualism; professional translator competence, although building on translation ability, also differs from it in important respects; expertise in translation is a set of cognitive skills and structures which characterize only a subset of all individuals with translator competence; expertise in translation resembles expertise in other cognitive domains.

I further assumed that, since translators normally produce written texts, the process of performing a translation task can be studied using models of the writing process. Such models, proposed by Hayes and his colleagues (Hayes et al. 1987; Hayes 1996; Hayes & Nash 1996) postulate three main cognitive processes in writing: Planning, Text Generation and Revision (see Section 2.3.1). These processes were assumed here to be relevant to translation as well. This chapter has set out to study how they are applied in the translation process,

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

how they affect the overall time and phase distribution of the task, and what is their nature within each phase of the task. I will now summarize and discuss the results. In doing this, I will pay attention to all the four subgroups of the study. Section 6.2 will more specifically discuss the results from Chapters 4 and 5 in the light of expertise in translation. .. Time, overall approach and distribution into phases In time used for the task (presented in Section 4.2.2), a clear correlation was found between professional experience and faster performance of the task. Thus, professionals spent on the average 136 minutes on the task, translation students 284 minutes and language students 269 minutes. Experience, as expected, correlates with a shorter time to finish the task. The differences are substantial between professionals and students, even when the professionals are divided into the two subgroups of senior and junior professionals: the senior professionals spent on average 90 minutes, the junior professionals spent 184 minutes. In this respect, this study contradicts the findings from earlier TAPs studies of time (Jääskeläinen 1999; Jakobsen 2003a, b; see also Section 2.3.2). The fact that the translation students spent the longest time is hypothetically attributable to them having been sensitized to problems (cf. Jääskeläinen 1999: 118) and therefore spending a lot of time trying to solve them, and, perhaps also to wanting to do the job as perfectly as possible, knowing that they were taking part in a research project led by one of their teachers. It is important to point out that the data used for this analysis was obtained as part of research, and under special conditions. Performing a task with concurrent introspection increases the time for the task (Ericsson & Charness 1997: 10); this has also been shown for translation by Krings (2001) and Jakobsen (2003b). Thus, while the figures given here can be assumed to be indicative of actual differences between subjects with different backgrounds, they should not be taken as accurate measures of the time necessary for a person with a certain background (professional or not) to produce a translation of a ST of a given length. In their task, all participants went through an initial phase of acquainting themselves with the ST. Then followed a phase of writing down a first version of the TT. In all cases, the TT was written down in a mainly linear fashion, starting from the first sentence, and then going sentence by sentence through the text. This phase of writing the TT was then followed by a phase for all participants during which they read through their TT once or several times, evaluating it and making varying numbers of revisions. There were thus three



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

major discernible phases in their task performance, confirming the results from other studies, although in the literature there are also a few reported cases (Krings 1986a; Jääskeläinen 1999; Lörscher 1993) where certain subjects do not go through the third phase. Writing on a computer allows you to make changes in the text, inserting text segments at any time in the text already written, and thus actually makes it possible for translators to work in a non-linear fashion. An alternative way of working would be, for instance, to start from (what seems to be) easier parts of the text, to get into the task, and only then to proceed to the parts which seem to be more difficult. This was not considered by any of the participants, however. A non-linear way of proceeding through the text would probably be considered an unusual way of working with a translation, especially with a shorter text like the one in this task. All the same, in monolingual text production, especially when it is done on a computer, a non-linear approach to the work is probably more the rule than the exception. Writing the introduction after the main body of the text has been written would not be seen as anything odd here, neither would inserting text segments, even whole paragraphs, into an already existing text. The results regarding relative allocation of time for the different phases here also differ from previous studies. The main difference is the relatively large proportion of time spent on the post-writing phase by all participants here. Jääskeläinen (1999: 122) reported similar findings from an earlier study, assuming that a relatively long post-writing phase can be seen either as an individual characteristic (cf. a similar assumption in Jakobsen [2003a: 194]) or as being evidence of a particular phase in the development of translation students, possibly under the influence of translator training. The possibility of an individual characteristic will be further discussed in Section 4.6.6. However, I would also like to point to the length of the ST as another potential contributing factor to the specific pattern of time distribution. In the present study, the ST was quite long for a TAPs study (for instance, almost three times longer than that in Jääskeläinen’s study). Probably, it is more difficult to maintain an overview of a longer text (mentally as well as on paper or the computer screen); therefore revising only during the writing phase will not be sufficient, and more work during the post-writing phase will be required. All professionals and one translation student verbalized how and in what phases they usually work (see Section 4.5.2), indicating an awareness of their own procedural knowledge. Being accustomed to performing translation tasks, it is only to be expected that they should have developed their own preferred working habits and be sufficiently aware of them to be able to verbalize them.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

The other translation student and the three language students did not describe any habitual way of working in their verbalizations. The translation student, being in the middle of a translator training program, was perhaps still trying out different working methods. These differences are hardly surprising, given the fact that only the professionals and to some extent the translation students can be expected to have had the chance to form any set work habits for translation tasks. When comparing the described usual work procedures with the actual approach during this task, it was found that three of the four professionals deviated from their verbalized habits. Although they stated that they would prefer to make a printout of the text, and to let it rest for some time before going back to it for revision, they went through the post-writing phase immediately after the writing phase, working with the TT on the computer screen. Various explanations can be suggested for this deviation. First, it is possible that their stated habitual approach is in fact only one of several, another one being precisely the one they followed in this task. It is also possible that they described an approach in accordance with what they thought a translator should do. However, it is also possible that this deviation is in fact a sign of their flexibility as professionals and translators: to be able to allot an appropriate amount of time and effort to a task, given the actual circumstances. They may simply have wanted to finish the task, feeling that the text and the task (in this case, the task of participating in research rather than the task of translating a text for a museum) did not warrant the extra effort of postponing the post-writing phase to a later point in time. Of course a prerequisite for this would be that they felt that they had been able to produce a translation that was good enough for the translation purpose. The four students who did not state any usual working procedure nevertheless showed indirectly in their verbalizations during the writing phase that they were planning a post-writing phase. This became clear by their postponing decisions for “later on” or “the next time”, an example of what Krings (1986a:179) terms Entlastungsstrategie [relief strategy]. Also, they did not hesitate about wanting to go over the TT again, after having finished the writing phase. The similarities in how the participants approached the task, e.g., its phases and the linearity of writing down the TT, indicate that they all have procedural knowledge on how to do and write down translations. In the case of the professionals, there is also a declarative knowledge about this (as studied in the verbalizations – see Section 4.5.2), an awareness of how they usually work, which they are able to externalize through verbalizations. The students did not

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

verbalize what their habitual way of working is in the same way nor to the same extent, although they showed indirectly during the different phases that they were planning to do more or less the same as the professionals did. Thus, the difference between the participants in this particular respect lies more in declarative knowledge connected to a translation task than in procedural knowledge. .. Initial planning The first main cognitive process studied was planning during the pre-writing phase. The general approach taken in this phase varied considerably between different individuals, for instance, whether the ST was read in its entirety or only partially, whether aids of any kind were used and whether TT generation began during this phase. In this respect, the data presented here confirm the results from other studies, quoted above in Section 2.3.3. It does not seem to be possible to generalize regarding a correlation relation between the amount of (professional or other) experience of translation and any specific approach to the initial reading during the pre-writing phase. In the pre-writing phase, the participants get an overview of the ST and plan the task by creating a task definition (cf. Hayes et al. 1987). In the task definition as verbalized by the participants, there was a correlation between which aspects were focused on in planning and the amount of experience in translation. For professional translators and translation students, the task definition and the overview concern both the content of the text and items at all textual levels, from grapheme to stylistics, mainly from a contrastive SLTL perspective and seen in the light of the future readership of the TT. They set a clear goal for their TT, and are thus able to use task-specific, higher level knowledge in processing linguistic units at various levels (top-down processing; Anderson 1990: 75–76). For the language students, the pre-writing phase first of all gives an overview of the content of the ST and of certain linguistic features at the word level, but not at the text level or related to the purpose of the translation. This could be assumed to mean that when translating, they will not be guided to the same extent by clear principles as the translators and the translation students, for instance in the choice of possible translation variants. On the other hand, it could also mean that they are used to always translating according to the same overall goal, and therefore do not see a need for planning in this respect. For three participants, Anna (PR), Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS), the prewriting phase has a further function. They start their process of text generation

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

already at this stage. They do this by orally producing TT chunks of various size, also orally producing alternative translations. This means that they also start revising during the pre-writing phase. This could be seen as an instance of the application of an Entlastungsstrategie [relief strategy] (Krings 1986a: 179), solving some reception and production problems already during this first phase. As mentioned in Section 2.3.3, this type of pre-writing phase, including the use of aids, can be considered to have a psychological function and give a greater sense of security when facing the task. Isak’s (LS) verbalization after having read the ST and orally translating parts of it (example (18) above) can be seen as a corroboration of this. Contrastive textual features are important in reading for the task of translating: Daniel’s (PR) comment that he can start translating, although he has not read the whole ST, but still understood its style, can be seen in this light. It is thus not important to understand the content in detail before the actual translating, but to understand the style in relation to the translation brief. Translators thus indeed extract translation-relevant information while reading the ST for the first time (cf. Shreve & Diamond 1997: 245–247; cf. also above Section 2.3.3). This would explain the results of the text representation tests in Norberg’s (2003) study, where participants were asked to retell the contents of the short ST, after having read it but before starting to translate it. Even those participants who had shown the most vivid interest in the content of the text, were still not able to retell all the salient parts of it (Norberg 2003: 161). In the light of the results from the present study, I would suggest that if the translator is focusing on linguistic and textual aspects from the perspective of the translation brief, the content of the text is subordinate and processing resources consequently will not be allocated to storing it in LTM. The present study confirms the results of Shreve et al. (1993: 35) regarding the diversity of processing in reading for translation in different subjects but also suggests the further hypothesis that these processes are dependent on amount of experience in translation. To my knowledge, the present study is the first one which analyses in detail TAPs data specifically from the initial phase of task performance to see how translating subjects define and plan their task. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, other TAPs studies (e.g. Fraser 1993, 1996a; Jonasson 1998b; Tirkkonen-Condit 1992) have reported similar observations of translators’ awareness of textual aspects and aspects related to the translation brief, but in those cases based on data from the whole process. This study has shown that experience influences planning from the very first moments of task performance.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

The present study on aspects of initial planning could easily be replicated for other language pairs and other text types; in fact, it would seem that some data already collected in other projects, for other purposes, could also serve that purpose. .. Text generation: Segmentation of the writing process The second main cognitive process, that of text generation, was studied through an analysis of aspects of the segmentation of the writing process. In this process, planning and revising cause pauses. It was hypothesized that more experience in translation would lead to fewer pauses in the writing process, which would show in larger segments written between the pauses, and also to shorter pauses. In most respects, the hypotheses (see Section 4.4.1) are borne out by the data at group level. A correlation was found between professional experience in translation and planning and writing larger chunks of the TT as whole segments, uninterrupted by a pause. Thus, the more experienced participants divide their writing process when translating into fewer segments (as defined here) than the less experienced participants. This holds both for the whole task, and for the writing phase. Also, during the writing phase, the more experienced participants wrote more characters within each segment. These results confirm the findings in Jakobsen (2003b). The very large differences found in many respects between the subgroup of senior professionals, who can be considered experts in terms of their experience (well over 10 years of experience in the profession), and all other subgroups are conspicuous. It was rather unexpected to find relatively small differences between the two subgroups of junior professionals and of translation students for many of the parameters. The analysis of the length of the segment initial pauses did not give the expected results. The pause length in the language students’ log files was the longest, as predicted. However, in the other subgroups, the differences were much smaller, and, more importantly, did not mirror the results from the other analyses, i.e., the subgroup of senior professionals did not differ very much from the other subgroups in this respect. The results also point to facilitation effects of this task during the writing phase, and these were found in all groups and subgroups of subjects. Thus, all groups and subgroups used fewer segments to write the translation of the second half of the ST than they did to write the translation of the first half of the ST. For another parameter, the number of characters per segment, this facilitation effect shows in an increase in the average number of characters

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

written per segment in the second half of the writing phase as compared to the first half of the writing phase. This means that (translating the ST and) writing the TT gets easier for the participants towards the end of the writing phase. As outlined in Section 2.3.4.3, the facilitation effects found may be due to several concurrent factors. A number of decisions are made during the first part of the writing phase that influence later decisions (cf. Levý 1989) and hence facilitate processing. Certain linguistic material may be repeated in the ST, which will potentially facilitate retrieval of TL material. The growing text representation, both the ST and the growing TT, increasingly will provide more context, also facilitating decision-making and processing. The results regarding facilitation are indirectly confirmed by Krings (2001), where processing speed, measured as words processed per minute, was higher for longer than for shorter texts. Krings attributes this result to a habituation effect, considering that subjects need some time to get used to the text. After that, processing speed can increase (Krings 2001: 282). However, no facilitation effect was found on pause length during the writing phase, i.e., there was no clear tendency for it to decrease. Perhaps the increase in mean pause length which is instead found in the logs of several of the participants reflects the fact that there is also an increase in the number of characters written in each segment: more linguistic material is included in each segment, requiring more time for processing. There is an alternative tentative explanation for those parameters which are attributed here to a facilitation effect, namely that the second part of the ST might perhaps be easier linguistically to translate. Since no parameters for text difficulty have been applied here, such an explanation cannot be completely excluded, although the character of the text (syntactically, lexically, etc.) seems quite homogenous. Obviously, further research testing facilitation effect in translation is needed. Although segmentation patterns at group and subgroup level generally confirmed the hypotheses, at the individual level this was not always so. The three participants with the highest number of segments for the writing phase, Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS) and Harald (LS), are not homogenous in translation experience. Their very similar segmentation pattern shows that professional experience does not necessarily correlate with fewer and larger segments in the writing process at the individual level. An important reason for their relatively fragmented writing phase and process seems to be that they tend to do dictionary searches mainly as they “happen on” the need for them, often in the midst of writing down a sentence. It can also be argued that dividing the translation and writing process into many and small segments is a rational and



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

efficient way of working for a translator who wishes to stay close to the ST, as is the case with Ellinor (TS). Since planning is one of the processes leading to segmentation, the number of segments during the writing phase can be assumed to depend also on how the task has been planned initially and how the ST has been read and approached in the pre-writing phase. Anna (PR) and Fredrik (TS) both have a relatively low number of segments in the writing phase, and both start by reading the ST, combining this reading with a partial, oral translation into Swedish (see Section 4.3). There is thus a correlation between a full reading of the ST with goal-setting in the pre-writing phase and fewer and larger segments in the writing phase. The case of Gabriella (LS) is especially intriguing in this respect. Her very short and incomplete reading of the ST in the pre-writing phase, without any verbalization of planning aspects, as well as her lack of professional experience, could be expected to lead to many and very small segments, but this is not markedly so. The reason for this is, paradoxically, her comprehension difficulties. She often did not understand enough even to make a very literal translation when first reading a sentence from the ST during the writing phase. Instead, she had to read the whole sentence through thoroughly, looking up words in the dictionary, and after that, she was often able to write down relatively large segments. As a consequence of this, her pauses during the writing phase were on the average very long (see Section 4.4.2). Thus, these results indicate that professional experience in itself does not necessarily correlate with larger segments, and conversely that a lack of experience does not necessarily correlate with very small segments. Important factors are also how the ST is read, especially before the writing phase, but also during it, and how the task is planned. These assumptions could be further tested empirically, by allowing subjects with varying amounts of translation experience different conditions for planning a translation task, including the reading of the ST. .. Revising The third main cognitive process studied here was revising. Section 4.5 studied how the participants in this study revised their TT, i.e., how they made changes in the TT which was written down, both while they were still in the process of producing the TT, during the writing phase, and when they were working on their TT after having written down a complete text, during the post-writing phase. The chapter looked at this from different perspectives and based on

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

different data (both the TAPs and the computer logs). In this way, the processes involved in revising have received quite a lot of attention in this study, which is justified, since they occur both in the writing and the post-writing phases, the latter taking up quite a large proportion of the total time for the task. Revising is thus an integral part of the translation process, and has important functions in shaping the final TT. All participants, regardless of their previous experience in translation, did a number of revisions in their TT both during the writing phase and during a separate post-writing phase. In this respect, the evidence here differs from that given in some earlier studies. One reason for this might be the medium of writing. As mentioned in Section 2.3.5, the mode of writing influences revising patterns, at least in monolingual writing. Thus, the participants in the studies of Jääskeläinen (1999) and Krings (1986a) wrote their TTs by hand. It can be assumed that, whatever the translation brief, a participant may feel that a hand-written version can be delivered in a less polished form linguistically too, and therefore possibly not subject it to any post-writing phase, as is indeed the case for some of the participants in those studies. Furthermore, in the study by Lörscher (1991; 1993), students tended to check only those passages that caused them problems during translation. However, the participants did not write their TT, but produced it orally. Systematically evaluating and revising in retrospect your own oral discourse would be a highly unusual and indeed unnatural activity, putting extraordinary demands on memory capacity, which could be the explanation for those findings. Very few verbalizations stated any plan specifically for revising as part of the writing phase. The conclusion is that revising is an integral part of the writing phase and that monitoring and evaluating the TT while it is being produced, and making revisions that are considered necessary, is to some extent an automatic process. In other words, it is a process that is not planned or focused on as such, as a separate component, in the writing phase. The analysis of revisions from a product perspective provided evidence of this. All participants made a number of revisions. In most individual cases, the number of revisions actually made was rather evenly distributed over the writing phase and the post-writing phase. The fact that all participants do revisions during the writing phase is evidence that an important component of the translation process is monitoring and evaluating the product in relation to the goal of the text and the task, and taking the action that is considered necessary in relation to the result of the evaluation. It can be concluded that all text segments that are written down are subject to evaluation, and that, if no revision is made, the result of the evaluation is either that the segment is in accordance with the set

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

goal or standards, or that it will do as a provisional solution. This study thus indicates that writing down a translated text is characterized by the processes of evaluation and revising, which are identical to or very similar to those found in monolingual writing. Textual segments are generated and evaluated, and a segment is often revised before going on to the next segment (cf. the similar conclusions regarding monolingual writing in Kaufer et al. [1986: 130]). In this respect, the present data do not indicate any differences between participants with different amounts of experience in translation. It can be assumed then that the processes of revising are part of competence in writing and transferred to the task of translation. For revising as a process within a translation task, two key concepts emerged from the verbalizations mainly by the professional translators: text and distance. The purpose of the task is to produce a text. Being a translation, this text is quite closely determined by another text, the ST, both structurally and semantically, but the translator also sees it as necessary to evaluate it as a coherent, complete text in the TL. This is more easily done on a printout, a form which makes the textuality more apparent than when it appears on a computer screen. The existence of a complete text, the TT, also allows the translator the necessary distance. It can be a distance in time, between herself/himself and the text (to let the text rest, to take a break), and distance in space (to let someone else read and check the TT). But underlying all this is the necessity and difficulty of finding the appropriate linguistic distance to the ST. In the TAPs, mostly from the writing phase, there are quite a few verbalizations by several participants to the effect that at some point in their process, they do not know any more what is Russian and what is Swedish (cf. example (27) from Gabriella [LS] above). Drafting a preliminary version of the TT to work from is one way of solving such problems in the translation process. The fact that so many of the participants tended to do their post-writing phase based almost exclusively on the produced TT can be seen as a strategy to reduce the number of text representation s in the revision process. This will further make the process and its relevant components more familiar, being more similar to monolingual text production. The total number of revisions made by each individual (writing phase + post-writing phase) varies considerably, Berit (PR) making the fewest and Fredrik (TS) the most revisions, both overall and during each of the phases. According to the total number of revisions made, participants could tentatively be divided into three groups:

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

1. Participants making in all fewer than 50 revisions: Berit (PR) and Christian (PR). 2. Participants making between 50 and 100 revisions: Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Harald (LS). 3. Participants making more than 100 revisions: Anna (PR), Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS). With the exception of the first group, there is no homogeneity within these three groups regarding translation experience. It is noteworthy, however, that the three participants forming the third group also showed considerable similarities in their approach in their pre-writing phases (see Section 4.3 above). Furthermore, in Section 4.4, we saw similarities in the segmentation pattern during the writing phase between two of them,9 Anna (PR) and Fredrik (TS). This indicates the existence of different process profiles, which are not dependent on amount of translation experience. This will be further discussed in Section 4.6.6. The revisions made were classified into different categories, the two most frequent being syntactic and lexical revisions. The predominance of syntactic revisions during the writing phase and of lexical revisions during the postwriting phase permits the tentative conclusion that the writing phase is devoted more to finding the TL syntactic patterns, whereas the post-writing phase is devoted to filling the “slots” offered by the syntactic patterns with the appropriate lexical material. In the frequency of different categories of revisions, some tendencies were noted which seem to correlate with amount of experience in translation. One is that morphological revisions are absent from the data of the senior professionals. There are important differences between the SL Russian and the TL Swedish both in the structure of the NP and in the verb. Russian has a more elaborate case system than Swedish, whereas Swedish has, for instance, obligatory morphological marking for definiteness/indefiniteness, which is not found in Russian. In the verb system, in contrast to Swedish, Russian has grammaticalized aspect; furthermore, the Russian tense system has fewer tenses than Swedish (see also Section 5.2). All this means that often, there is no “default translation” or literal translation of morphological forms, but the choice of for instance definiteness and tense depends on factors such as context and word order. It is not surprising that professionals who have been working with Russian-Swedish translation for many years can make swift decisions regarding the choice of Swedish morphological forms and find them correct when monitoring and evaluating them, and thus not in need of revision.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Judging from the revisions made, all other participants seemed to experience at least some problems in this respect. The other, more important tendency, is found in all the professionals and one of the translation students. They worked in steps syntactically, writing a literal translation as the first step, then changing it into a less similar structure. Most did this revision immediately, during the writing phase, before continuing to write down the rest of the sentence. For the students as well, there were some revisions removing literal translations, but they did not have the same systematic character. The question then arises why the professional translators do not write the non-literal version straight away, i.e., why they go via a literal translation. Different tentative explanations can be suggested. It is probable that evaluating a tentative translation solution is facilitated by seeing it in written form. Perhaps it is only then that the translator realizes that a literal translation is not appropriate, either for the structure as such, or in view of the planned translation of the rest of the sentence. It may also be that by writing down a provisional, tentative translation, the translator overcomes limitations in STM capacity in the translation process. What has been written down is available on the computer screen and thus does not have to be kept in the translator’s STM in the further processing of the following segment of the sentence to be translated. Krings observes that subjects tend to write down text segments quickly, thereby accepting frequent revisions, and assumes that this is done in order to prevent forgetting (Krings 2001: 403). Translating quickly and literally can also be a method for the translator to make certain that nothing from the sentence is missed, and thus can be used to increase speed without having to worry about reducing accuracy. Subsequent revisions can then make the text into proper TL (Katherine Stuart, personal communication; see also Mossop 2001: 137). Analyzing revisions actually made gives an important but still incomplete picture of the role that literal translations can play in the translation process. Although this has not been analyzed systematically here, it is obvious from TAPs that literal translations are also often verbalized as the first tentative translation solutions, although they are not always written down. Krings (1986a: 304) notes a similar tendency in his data. The present data seem to corroborate Tirkkonen-Condit’s (2002: 14) assumption that in the process, the translator replaces ST chunks by default TL equivalents, followed by immediate monitoring and, if necessary, revision. An analysis of the verbalizations concurrent with each documented revision, i.e., of the problem representations, revealed that most verbalized problem representations took the form of non-specified evaluations, although their rela-

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

tive proportion diminished in the post-writing phase. In monolingual revising, Hayes et al. (1987) concluded that verbalizations of this type indicate that the subjects have “limited information and an unelaborated representation of the problem. He or she has an ill-defined problem to solve” (p. 211). It is not possible, however, to apply this conclusion indiscriminately to the results in this study. The subjects in Hayes et al. (1987) revised a text written by someone else. When revising your own writing, either a translation or your own text, your problem representation can be assumed to be, in many cases, richer than the verbalization concurrent with the revision might indicate, since any previous processing of the relevant text segment must be assumed to be to some extent part of the problem representation, even if not verbalized when revising. Professional experience was found to correlate with higher proportions of more varied and more specified problem representations. This corroborates the findings in Tirkkonen-Condit (1997), where the specificity of TT evaluations was found to grow with increasing translation experience. In this study, it was also found that problem representations were more specified in the postwriting phase, thus showing a development towards greater specificity as the translation task progresses. Thus, each subsequent run-through of the text potentially makes it possible for the participants to deepen their representation of it and of problematic segments. Interestingly, there is such a tendency during the progression of the task also for the students. Thus, more or less the same relative proportions of the different categories of verbalizations which are found among the professionals during the writing phase, are found among the students during the post-writing phase. At the individual level, it can be noted that almost all participants have verbalizations of all categories if both phases are taken into consideration. Thus, even the least experienced, the language students, have a number of more specified verbalizations of the categories Intention-based and Maximbased evaluations. This shows that if a translation task is realistic, in the sense that a translation brief is specified, students will take that purpose into account in their work process, although at a later stage in the process than professionals, and perhaps not as consistently as the professionals. Thus, the goal for the task and for revising can be modified and specified during the task and as a consequence of it (cf. Figure 2.1 and Section 2.3.5 above). This is one important difference in the translation process between professionals and students: professionals are able to take into account more varied and more specified task requirements in their process at an early stage. This is a consequence of their initial planning and goal-setting in the pre-writing phase. They are therefore able to deal with problems earlier, to their own satisfaction.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

This is one important aspect of expertise in translation. However, it was also shown that the problem representation in connection with revisions, as shown by the verbalizations, deepens and becomes more diverse and specific in the course of the task for the less experienced subjects. Thus, they are also taking into account aspects of the translation brief in their process. It seems that in two cases (the senior professionals), the writing phase is actually a convergence of writing and revision, since the number of revisions made during the post-writing phase is so small, and that phase is very short. They seem thus to be able to merge different phases into one. Finally, a few suggestions for further research into revising as part of the translation process. The results in this study suggest that translators use literal translation as part of their translation process, as a step in a process. I assume that this is a phenomenon that is widely found in translation, in different language pairs and in the translation of various text types, but further studies are needed to corroborate this assumption. Furthermore, literal translation and its revision were studied here only on the basis of syntactic structure, but it would also be highly relevant to study the use of literal translation and its revision in the semantic field. Further studies could also see to what extent translators actually return to the decisions that they have postponed (cf. Krings 2001: 168). In most such cases in the present study, participants did not leave a blank space in the text, but wrote a provisional solution stating that they would think more about it later. Whether they really did this, or whether the problems and revisions dealt with later on actually concerned other text segments, has not been studied here. It would also be interesting to see whether the different categories of verbalizations (see Section 4.5.4) are related in a consistent way with the different types of revisions (see Section 4.5.3). This study concerns evaluating and revising your own translation. The proposed models for analysis could certainly be used also in a study of the revising of translations made by other translators. A common phenomenon in professional translation is precisely that translations are evaluated and revised by someone other than the translator, often another translator (cf. Krings 2001; Künzli forthc.; Mossop 2001). See in this context Christian’s (PR) comment, mentioned above, that someone else usually reads his translations before he delivers them.

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task 

.. Norms in the process In Section 2.4.3.1, norms were described as values shared by a community, serving as criteria for evaluation. Norms were further assumed to be a guiding factor in the translation process, for instance when deciding between alternative options. A revision is an outcome of a choice between (at least) two alternatives, and Section 4.5.4 presented the verbalizations concurrent with revisions. I will now discuss whether these verbalizations, as well as those from the pre-writing phase (see Section 4.3) can be seen as indicative of norms. The evaluative verbalizations concurrent with revisions were analyzed into a number of categories according to both how much information they contained about the nature of the perceived problem in the text, and how specific that information was in terms of how to fix the problem (see Section 4.5.4.1). The categories that seem most “norm-like” are the most specific ones, that is, the Maxim-based and the Rule-based evaluations. They refer either to codified (linguistic) rules or to more or less set guidelines that are drawn into the decision process. They were predominantly oriented towards the TL, only in some rare instances having a contrastive Russian-Swedish character. As shown in the examples in Section 4.5.4.2–3, such evaluations can be formulated in a variety of ways. What could be called prototypical statements of norms can be found, such as “you should do X” or “when in situation Y, I/you (regularly) do X” (cf. Section 2.4.3.3), but are not very common. Instead, participants can refer to some guideline, claiming that it is better in their opinion (see examples (38) and (39)). This may be an indication that those guidelines, which have most probably been learnt at school for instance, have been internalized. The other categories of evaluations permit some conclusions regarding underlying values, based on the predominant tendencies in the data. Intentionbased evaluations often refer to the future TT readers. The predominant tendency here is that participants evaluate positively solutions that, according to them, take those needs into consideration, although there are also some exceptions (see above). Acceptability and readability in the TL are thus highly valued. The same tendency also emerges from the stylistic evaluations. Nonspecified evaluations are the most general category, but the TL perspective implicitly underlies evaluations of this type as well. ST-based evaluation and Semantic evaluation as categories are concerned to a large extent with the precision and the fidelity of the TT in relation to both the ST and reality. They do not constitute a very large proportion of all verbalizations, but they seem to be over-represented in the verbalizations of

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

the translation students, in comparison with the other groups. This is perhaps due to the fact that they are studying translation, and that one of the many aspects focused on in their course might have been precisely how to find the appropriate nuances when translating. Perhaps the fact that I, the researcher, was also one of their teachers might also have contributed to the relatively high proportion of these categories in their verbalizations. It thus seems that overall, the predominant values underlying the evaluations are concerned with TL linguistic correctness and pragmatic adaptation of the TT. To achieve a TT answering to those criteria, Intention-based and Maxim-based evaluations play an extremely important role in the revisions and in the whole translation process, since they can be said to be used by the participants to mediate the TT between SL norms and TL norms. It thus seems that all participants, regardless of previous experience, subscribe to more or less the same initial norm (in Toury’s [1980, 1995] sense, see Section 2.4.3.1), namely that of acceptability. However, although all subscribing to the same initial norm, the data has shown that the professionals have an advantage in this respect in the process of task performance. As shown in Section 4.3, there are differences in the initial planning which correlate with experience. The professionals set from the start a clear goal for their TT, to adapt it to its future readers, and this early-stage planning enables them to activate their knowledge of the relevant sets of translation principles (Jääskeläinen 1999; Künzli 2003) or translation norms (see Section 2.4.3 above) to guide their decision-making processes. The translation students occupy an intermediate position on the road to professional experience, which is clearly reflected in their planning of the task and its subsequent implementation in the actual task performance. They also showed a consciousness of the purpose of the translation at an early stage and the potential conflict between this purpose and some of the properties of the ST, and this is no doubt thanks to their training. However, due to their relative inexperience with professional translation, this consciousness did not in itself, at this stage, necessarily help them to make decisions swiftly. For one of them, Fredrik (TS), this led to the generation of a huge number of tentative translation solutions (as evidenced by his TAPs, and also by the large number of revisions – see Section 4.5.3), from among which he found it difficult to choose. He thus had difficulties in generating an appropriate plan to reach the goal that he had set (see a similar conclusion regarding translator students in the study by Künzli [2003: 210]). This is also clear from the fact that he made many revisions with the motivation that he had distanced himself unnecessarily from the ST, although he had actually stated as a goal to distance the Swedish

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

text from the Russian text. The other translation student, Ellinor (TS), also showed an awareness of the differences between the ST and its structure, and its appropriateness for the intended translation purpose. However, her solution to this conflict was to set a different goal: she considered it not her business to change or adapt the text, to make it more suitable for the purpose. Although this goal did make her task easier, it also meant that her goal for the task differed from that set by all professionals and the other translation student (see Section 4.3). The discussion of norms in this section draws on analyses of only parts of the verbalizations: those from the pre-writing phase and those concurrent with revisions. In the collected TAPs data, there are a large number of different types of evaluative utterances and principled statements, which can be seen as indications of norms. My impression is that their frequency is much higher in the TAPs of the professionals, which might be expected, and also that there is a rather high degree of consensus in such verbalizations in the TAPs from different translators – as also might be expected. In Chapter 5, we will return to the question of norms in the translation process. .. Process profiles Concluding this chapter, I would like to discuss the possible existence of different process profiles, depending on how the postulated main processes of planning, text generation and revising are applied and distributed during the task, but supposedly more or less independent of experience in translation. The concept of process profiles may be understood either as referring to a stable set of process characteristics at the individual level, or to more general profiles where the process characteristics of a given individual may vary between different tasks and modalities (cf. van Waes 1991) and thus coincide with different profiles. I assume that the second alternative is more likely, although there is probably a certain degree of stability in characteristics across tasks at an individual level (cf. Levy & Ransdell 1996). In the following, the process profiles that can be distinguished in this study are sketched out and exemplified by actual participants. There is of course no way of saying, on the basis of the present data, what their process profiles in other translation tasks might be like. Furthermore, since the analysis is data-driven, the profiles sketched out are limited to those discernible from the data. Jääskeläinen (1999) and Norberg (2003) also discuss different process profiles, but since the parameters investigated by them differ in many respects from those analyzed here, the profiles are not readily comparable.





Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Profile 1 – – –

Extensive planning in the pre-writing phase, with goal-setting. Text generation starts during this phase. Relatively short writing phase (less than 40% of total time), with relatively few and large segments. A number of revisions are made. Extensive post-writing phase with a large number of revisions.

Anna (PR) and Fredrik (TS) are examples of this profile. Profile 2 – – –

Extensive planning in the pre-writing phase, with only minimal goalsetting. Text generation starts during this phase. Relatively short writing phase, about 50% of total time, with many revisions. (Segmentation data not available). Extensive post-writing phase with a large number of revisions.

Isak (LS) is an example of this profile, which differs from the first only in the amount of goal-setting in the pre-writing phase. Profile 3 – – –

Extensive planning in the pre-writing phase, involving goal-setting. Relatively long writing phase with many revisions, few and large segments. Relatively long post-writing phase with very few revisions.

Christian (PR) is an example of this profile. Profiles 1, 2 and 3 are all examples of correctional planners in the terminology of Krings (2001: 530), characterized by writing down solutions to a large extent and then revising. The difference between the profiles is that in Profile 3, practically all revisions are done immediately, whereas in Profiles 1 and 2, they are more evenly distributed over the whole task. Profile 4 – – –

Extensive planning in the pre-writing phase, involving goal-setting. Fragmentary text generation (dictionary searches). Long writing phase with few revisions, relatively few and large segments. Short post-writing phase with very few revisions.

Berit (PR) is an example of this profile. This profile differs from Profile 3 in mainly one respect: the low number of revisions during the writing phase. This is important, however, since the TT produced by Berit (PR) is, formally and semantically, the most distant from the ST of all the TTs. The small number of

Chapter 4. Performing the translation task

revisions implies that she achieves this to a large extent by planning mentally, without necessarily going via a written, more literal version as an intermediate step. She is, in Krings’ terminology (2001: 530) an anticipatory planner. Profile 5 – – –

Short pre-writing phase, with or without planning and goal-setting. Long writing phase with, in most cases, many revisions, many and short segments. Relatively long post-writing phase, with many revisions.

Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Harald (LS) all represent this profile.

Notes . See Section 3.4.1. . Parts of this section are also published in Englund Dimitrova (forthc. a). . This is also borne out by the length of the TTs of the 9 participants in this project, which varies between 473 and 565 words (and the shortest TT is not the one produced by Harald (LS) who skipped one sentence); counted in characters (including spaces) they vary between 3,180 and 3,745. . Only those data of Jakobsen’s that were collected under the same experimental conditions as in the present study are taken into account, i.e., translation from L2 into L1 under conditions of concurrent verbalization. . The figures given in Section 4.5.3.3 show that he did indeed do a very large number of revisions. . Cf. similar observations on lack of verbalizations reflecting a choice between translation variants in Krings (2001: 417) and Tirkkonen-Condit (1992: 435). . Another possible approach would have been to take the think-aloud protocols as the point of departure, and instead study all verbalizations reflecting the translator’s monitoring and evaluation of his/her TT (cf. Krings 2001; Tirkkonen-Condit & Laukkanen 1996). . As is clear from the Table, there are no verbalizations in the group of senior professionals. . Unfortunately, Isak’s (LS) data could not be analyzed for segmentation (see Section 4.4.1).



Chapter 5

Explicitation in the translation process

. Research questions, data and methods This chapter will look at the participants’ translation process taking as the point of departure one textual feature: logical links that are not explicitly expressed by a connective in the ST. The main research questions are: 1. How do participants with differing amounts and type of translation experience process implicit logical links in their translation process? 2. To what TT solutions does their processing lead? Question 1, the process related question, has a number of subquestions: 1a. Does the implicit link constitute a problem in the individual’s translation process (irrespective of a decision to explicitate or not)? 1b. If explicitation is decided on, when in the overall process is that decision made? 1c. Are there differences between professionals and students in when and how explicitation is decided on in the translation process? 1d. Can process data shed some more light on why explicitation is decided on, or not decided on? Question 2, the product related question, also has a number of separate subquestions: 2a. Are there explicitations in the TTs? 2b. Are there explicitations in the TTs of all participants? 2c. If the answer to question 2b is negative, can the pattern of explicitation/nonexplicitation be related to amount of experience? The data for the analyses is comprised of the ScriptLog logs and TAPs. The ScriptLog logs provide the textual information. From these files are derived: a. The final TTs of the participants, providing data for answering questions 2a, b and c.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

b. Files that show the temporal pattern of the writing and post-writing phases, as well as revisions made. These files make it possible to establish exactly when an implicit logical link was explicitated in writing and whether a decision to explicitate was later changed. This will provide part of the answer to research question 1b. TAPs will complement this data in this respect, since a particular translation solution can be verbalized before it is written down. Such verbalizations can be made shortly before the translation solution is written down, but there can also be a considerable temporal distance between the first verbalization and writing it down in the TT. TAPs provide the data on which aspects of the process are focused on in the process by the participant. For this, the segments of the TAPs that pertain to a ST segment under study are extracted and analyzed in comparison (being aligned) with the ScriptLog logs. To determine whether a certain text segment with an implicit logical link poses a problem in the process (research question 1a above), I apply the problem indicator model proposed by Krings (1986a: 121) to operationalize the concept of ‘problem’:

Primary problem indicators 1. Explicit or implicit problem identification by the translator; 2. Use of aids; 3. Leaving a gap in the translated text. Secondary problem indicators 1. Competing tentative translation equivalents; 2. Changes in the TT; 3. Underlinings in the ST; 4. Negative evaluation of the TT; 5. Metaproblematization; 6. Unfilled pauses longer than 3 seconds; 7. Paralinguistic indicators; 8. The lack of a primary equivalent association (cf. Section 2.4.4.2). In the original model, primary indicators are seen as stronger, and the presence of only one of them in the TAPs suffices for the classification of the particular verbalization as indicating a problem. Secondary indicators are weaker, and at least two have to be simultaneously present for the classification of a segment as indicating a problem (ibid.). Krings (1986a: 139–140) further gives an overview of the types of verbalizations not considered as indicators of problems:

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

– – – – – –

Reading the ST aloud Repeating ST units while translating Repeating TT units that have just been written down Reading a TT segment aloud while writing it down Comments on the linguistic operations done in the transfer of the ST Spontaneous TT related self-corrections.

Since this is a case study, both primary and secondary indicators are taken into account, and in some instances I will discuss in quite some detail the processes involved. From this point of view, all kinds of verbalizations are potentially of interest, even in some cases those which, according to the model, do not contain problem indicators (see research question 1d above). I will look for verbalizations that indicate that inferences regarding the implicit link have been drawn, even if it is not explicitated in the TT. I will also look for verbalizations that indicate what could be called a “contrastive awareness”, that is, an awareness of differences between the SL and the TL; such utterances might also refer to statements in grammars, contrastive linguistics studies, advice given by teachers, and also the subject’s own intuition. Furthermore, verbalizations may reveal a concern for the TT reader, as motivation for explicitation. The analysis consisted of the following steps: a. Extracting from the participants’ TT the translation variant chosen. If several versions of the TT exist for one and the same participant, the variant(s) are extracted from all versions. b. Identification and extraction from the TAPs of the segments that are verbalized during the work on the selected passages. This includes all instances when a participant works on the text segment in question, during pre-writing, writing and post-writing phases. c. Identification and extraction of the writing logs of the text passage. d. A close reading of the TAPs and writing logs from the selected passages, including identfication of any problem indicators. When necessary, the data from the TAPs and the writing logs were aligned chronologically, for a closer analysis. e. If necessary, the information found and analyzed was complemented by data from the video-recording of the participant.



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

. Russian and Swedish text connectives .. Cohesion in Russian and Swedish It is well established by research in contrastive text linguistics that languages differ in their textual patterns. Such differences in terms of degree of cohesive explicitness are quite often referred to in studies on explicitation in translation. Hinds (1987) suggests that languages differ in where they place the responsibility for effective communication and how a text will be understood and interpreted: with the writer or with the reader. In languages characterized by writer responsibility, the writer is expected to provide explicit markers of cohesion through what Hinds terms transition statements: It is the writer’s task to provide appropriate transition statements so that the reader can piece together the thread of the writer’s logic which binds the composition together. (Hinds 1987: 146)

English is, according to Hinds, a writer responsibility language. He compares with Japanese, which he sees as a reader responsibility language, which means that the Japanese reader must determine the textual relationships without the help of overt markers to a much greater extent than an English reader (ibid.).1 These or similar ideas have been taken up in studies of explicitation in translation, for instance by Sidiropoulou (1995), who claims that Greek is characterized by an even higher degree of writer responsibility than English. The argument then is that the translation is explicitated, since this will make it conform to the norms of TL usage. For the present study, it is necessary to look at Russian and Swedish in this respect. Therefore, a background of contrastive text linguistics and of cohesion in Russian and Swedish is given. By necessity, this is short, and concentrates on the types of cohesion that are taken up later in the analyses. Cohesion is a semantic relationship between two elements in a text, whereby one element is interpreted with reference to the other. Cohesive ties are the different devices that link, for instance, a sentence to what has been mentioned before in the text. Cohesion as such does not have anything to do with sentence boundaries, but operates also within the sentence. However, it is more commonly studied at text level, for instance, as sentence linking devices, due to the fact that: cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly because they are the only source of texture, whereas in the sentence there are the structural relations as well. (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 9)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Although the linguistic means for cohesion available are more or less the same for all languages, their application and distribution differs. For this study, an important question is then whether Russian has a higher frequency of implicit linking than does Swedish, especially links of the logical relations and types to be studied here. For the languages in this study however, there are few contrastive studies, and virtually none to address cohesion, especially the particular type in focus here. This chapter is mainly about what Halliday and Hasan call conjunction. This, which is not identical with the grammatical term conjunction, is a specification of how what follows is systematically connected by certain elementary logical relations to what precedes it in the text (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 227, 320). The number of such logical relations is limited, although their classification, and hence number, varies. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 238) include four relations: additive, adversative, causal and temporal. Knott and Sanders (1998: 140) propose that coherence relations should be categorized in relation to four basic notions: basic operation (either additive or causal), source of coherence (semantic or pragmatic), polarity (positive or negative) and order of segments. These relations can be signalled explicitly in the text by various cohesive devices, such as conjunctions, adverbials, particles, etc. In the following, such cohesive devices will be called connectives (cf. Breuer 2002: 78). Different connectives can be used to signal the same relation, and many connectives signal different relations; there is thus no one-to-one-mapping between relations and connectives (Knott & Sanders 1998: 142). It has been pointed out in several studies on various aspects of Russian that it has a large potential for various types of implicit linking. Thus, coordination and subordination without a conjunction is quite common in Russian, and possible with most kinds of coordinate and subordinate relations (Breuer 2002: 113; Grenoble 1998: 295; Mendoza 1996: 53; Weiss 1993: 74; see further Širjaev 1986). Weiss considers that implicitness is characteristic for several linguistic levels of Russian, concluding: im Russichen werden uns signifikant häufiger grammatische bzw. lexikalische Informationen verschwiegen bzw. indirekt übermittelt als in anderen Sprachen. (Weiss 1993: 79) [grammatical and lexical information in Russian is significantly more often concealed from us or indirectly transmitted than in other languages].

There are important structural and typological differences between Russian and Swedish that have an impact on cohesion. These differences in cohesion are connected with the more synthetical character of Russian versus the more

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

analytical character of Swedish. One important difference is that Swedish word order is more fixed than in Russian. In Swedish declarative main clauses, the verb is obligatorily placed in the second position in the clause. This means that certain cohesive functions, which in Russian can be achieved by aspects of word order (Komissarov 1988: 8), cannot be so achieved in Swedish to the same extent. For instance, parallelism is an important cohesive device in Russian (Breuer 2002: 189), but it cannot be used to the same extent in Swedish. See further the examples given below in Section 5.2.3. Another important difference between the languages resides in their verb systems. On the one hand, Swedish has a more differentiated tense system than Russian; on the other hand, the Russian verb has a grammaticalized aspect, as well as certain forms which the Swedish verb lacks, such as the gerund (see further Schmidt forthc.). These factors also potentially influence cohesion (see Sections 5.2.4 and 5.5). There are also few contrastive studies of Russian and any other language, involving cohesion.2 Vehmas-Lehto (1989) deals with journalistic texts in Russian and Finnish, and also with aspects of cohesion. She finds that Russian journalistic texts contain fewer explicit cohesion devices than Finnish journalistic texts (Vehmas-Lehto 1989: 201). This is in line with Sirotinina’s (1968: 111) observation that in journalistic texts, most sentences did not contain any explicit device connecting them with the previous context. Sirotinina sees this as a colloquial feature. In Vehmas-Lehto’s corpus, the Russian journalistic texts had intersentential connectives 0.1 times per sentence, whereas the figure for authentic Finnish texts of the same type was 0.3, i.e., three times as many (Vehmas-Lehto 1989: 202). The difference was even more accentuated when given not as a figure per sentence, but as a relative frequency of intersentential connectives in relation to word number (Russian 0.6%, Finnish 2.3%); this is due to the fact that there are fewer sentences in the Russian than in the Finnish texts. In other words, sentences were longer in the Russian texts, and also to a lesser degree explicitly connected to the previous context. Mason (2001) shows (albeit for another language pair than Russian – Swedish) that any statements regarding differences between languages may be far too general, and that it is necessary to take into account the conventions within different genres and registers. Thus, even one and the same author (Camus) uses a variety of explicit logical links in one type of text, but implicit links to a large extent in another text type (Mason 2001: 74). He furthermore points out the importance of the purpose of the translation, and which norms the translator adheres to for the decisions made during the process, including explicitation. To this can be added that even if a text type is “more explicit” in

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

the TL than in the SL, this does not mean that a translation will by necessity be so. First of all, the translator must know the text type in the TL, and second, he/she should strive to come close to the patterns of the TL. It is not possible to resolve the issue of the relative degree of explicitness of cohesion in Russian and Swedish without a large-scale contrastive study,3 something which is, however, beyond the scope of the present work. Furthermore, how a text is written, including whether and how logical links are explicitly expressed, depends not only on the structural aspects of the two languages. We must also take into account factors such as the writer’s intentions, as well as his/her competence in writing. If, for instance, the writer’s primary aim is to provide information about facts as such, making any links between these facts explicit may be of secondary importance (cf. Rudolph 1985: 81, quoted in Breuer 2002: 62). Furthermore, even when a relation is signalled by a connective, the particular connective chosen may have a more specific or more general meaning. The Russian connective i [and] can thus signal both additive and temporal and/or causal relations (Zolotova, Onipenko, & Sidorova 1998: 345), and this is of course also true of the same connective in other languages. Knott and Sanders (1998: 172) point out that the simplest connectives lexically, such as (English) ‘and’ or ‘but’, tend to be very general in meaning, and they see their use as a tendency to speaker economy, where the listener is required to draw implicatures to disambiguate. Furthermore, logical relations can also be expressed in a variety of other ways than by sentences with an explicit connective (cf. Lehmann 1988). Instead of a contrastive Russian-Swedish study, here, another, processbased approach has been chosen. Segments were chosen for analysis which represent different logical relations: additive, contrastive and temporal/causal, and furthermore fitted the following criteria: 1. A non-explicitated, literal version would be possible in Swedish; it would not be totally ungrammatical, at least not within the framework of the isolated sentence; 2. However, on a textual level, taking into account the stylistic or text binding properties of the TL, more explicit linking would, in most cases, be expected. In Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, the relation types will be presented and some contrastive aspects discussed.



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

.. Implicit (asyndetic) additive coordination in Russian and Swedish The first category chosen here for the investigation of explicitation is the implicit (asyndetic) additive coordination of two or more sentence constituents with the same syntactic function. An English example of this type is the following: (1) They searched everywhere – in the attic, under the floorboards, down in the cellar. (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1994: 763)

In this example, the three conjuncts in the attic, under the floorboards, down in the cellar are conjoined without any connective, such as for instance a conjunction. Coordinate structures can be defined as: ...a syntactic structure in which two or more constituents are joined (‘conjoined’) in such a way that each of them has an equal claim to be considered the head of that structure. In a typical coordinate structure, all of the conjoined constituents (the conjuncts) are of the same category, and the whole structure is an instance of the same category; often a conjunction (such as and or or) is present as an overt expression of the coordination. (Trask 1993: 63)

Conjuncts share both syntactic and semantic features, which is a necessary prerequisite for coordination to be possible. Coordination can be achieved by intonation only vs. by punctuation (asyndetic coordination); or by one or several connectives, usually conjunctions. Conjunctions, and the coordinate relations between the conjuncts from a semantic point of view, are usually divided into copulative or additive (e.g. and), adversative (e.g. but), disjunctive (e.g. or) and causal (for). Seemingly simple, coordination and its nature and description is by no means an issue on which there is agreement among linguists (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1994: 762–763; Teleman, Hellberg, & Andersson 1999b: 879; cf. also Sannikov 1989: 32ff.). Accordingly, the linguistic journal Lingua has devoted a recent issue (number 115, 2005) exclusively to syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of coordination. In Russian, additive conjunctions, which conjoin sentence constituents, are i [and], da [and], and i....i [both. . .and] (Russkaja grammatika 1980b: 169), but asyndetic conjoining of additive conjuncts is also quite common. Semantically, coordinate structures can form either open or closed series or sequences. In a closed series, the conjuncts stand in different relations to each other, and their internal order cannot be changed, whereas in an open series, the order of the elements is free (Russkaja grammatika 1980b: 167). Asyndetic constructions of this kind in Russian denote “non-exhaustive enumeration”

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

(Rus. neisˇcerpyvajušˇcee pereˇcislenie) (Rozental’ 1997: 310; Sannikov 1989: 231; Solganik 1973: 98). In open series, it is thus not logically impossible to add yet another member to each structure. In such cases, according to Russkaja Grammatika (1980b: 169), two different types can be distinguished: 1. The enumeration of different objects or qualities; 2. The enumeration of qualities that intensify or complement each other. Such constructions are common in many types of texts; for instance, they are used in Russian journalistic texts “with the aim of impressing the readers” (Vehmas-Lehto 1989: 88). With this construction, long lists can be built, enumerating (in Vehmas-Lehto’s corpus) the achievements of Soviet economy, for instance. There can be an emotive element in such lists, most evident “when the list is not intended to be exhaustive” (Vehmas-Lehto 1989: 88), a clear parallel to at least some of the implicit additive constructions from the ST in this study (see further Section 5.3). The additive relation represents the simplest form of cohesion (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 28). For Russian, Breuer, discussing cohesion between sentences, finds a strong similarity between asyndetic (implicit) linking and linking with the connective i [and] (Breuer 2002: 171). In Swedish, additive conjunctions which conjoin sentence constituents are och [and] and samt [and]. The connective både [both] only occurs together with och, resulting in an emphasized additive link between the two conjuncts. Samt is a stylistical variant, typical of written language and mostly used in formal style (Teleman, Hellberg, & Andersson 1999a: 731). Asyndetic additive coordination, although possible in Swedish, is much less frequent than in Russian. According to Teleman et al. (1999b: 888), asyndetic additive coordination of clauses is rare in neutral style. This is probably also valid for asyndetic additive coordination of sentence constituents. In stylistic manuals of Swedish, asyndetic coordinate structures of this type, involving the enumeration of several conjuncts from the same semantic area, are identified by a special term called hopning [accumulation ]. The construction permits concentration, and a cumulative effect is achieved. This construction type can be found in fiction, as well as in modern poetry and the language of advertising (Liljestrand 1993: 83; Teleman & Wieselgren 1990: 62). There is a difference in the stylistic value and frequency of these asyndetic constructions in Russian and Swedish, but it is difficult to find written confirmation of this in any contrastive study of the two languages or grammar. Traditional Swedish grammars of Russian like Ekblom (1960), Fält (1994), Gunnarsson and Jacobsson (1962) and Wikland (1974) are built on a mor-

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

phological principle, basing the description of the grammar on morphological categories; the “non-use” of a certain category, as in this case the “non-use” of conjunctions in an asyndetic coordination, does not fit easily into such a description. Russian differs in this respect not only from Swedish, but also from Finnish. Vehmas-Lehto found that coordinate structures like these (both constructions with the connective i [and] and asyndetic constructions) are in fact much more frequent in Russian journalistic texts than in the corresponding type of Finnish text. In her corpus, the Russian texts contained as many as 10.4 coordinations per 100 words, against only 2.5 coordinations in authentic Finnish texts (Vehmas-Lehto 1989: 89). Although the ST in this study is not journalistic, it seems to share many stylistic features with this style. It can be noted that English, too, differs from Russian in this respect, as confirmed by the following quote: in lists, in which in English and is placed as a rule before the last member, i may be omitted in Russian, particularly in sedate narrative style: Prodavali obuv´. Tufli, krossovki, sapogi, valenki. They were selling footwear. Shoes, trainers, boots and felt boots. Inclusion of i in a list might give the list an exhaustive air (. . .) (Offord 1996: 375)

Asyndetic coordination is thus a likely candidate for explicitation in translation from Russian into Swedish,4 due to the differences in frequency and stylistic marking of this kind of structure in the two languages. This is not a logical link between sentences, and it might be argued that this type is therefore not relevant for a discussion of explicitation of logical links. Also, the additive connectives are semantically quite weak, making the difference between a construction with and without a connective very small (cf. above). In view of this, it might be argued that the addition of a connective does not really constitute an explicitation. However, there are two important reasons why this type is relevant for the present study: (1) the similarity in the principle of cohesion and cohesive properties within and between sentences; (2) the postulated differences in processing implicit logical links within the sentence and between sentences in translation, potentially correlating with amount of experience in translation (see above Section 2.4.4.3).

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

.. Implicit contrasts in Russian and Swedish The source text describes a life with some unexpected turns of events and reversals of fortune (see further Section 5.2.5). Hence, in the text there are examples of segments of two adjacent sentences, where the content of the second sentence is in some way unexpected in relation to that of the first sentence. However, there is no overt marker of contrast to guide the reader’s interpretation process. Naturally, the Russian language, similar to other languages, has a repertoire of connectives to mark a contrast between clauses or between sentences. Examples (2) and (3) are similar to the ST segments that will be analyzed in Section 5.4, but do contain explicit markers of contrast: (2) Ge provodil bol’šuju cˇ ast’ svoej žizni v derevne. No k koncu zimy on obyknovenno ezdil v Peterburg na otkrytie peredvižnoj vystavki. [Ge spent a large part of his life in the countryside. But towards the end of winter, he usually went to Petersburg to the opening of the travelling exhibition] (L. N. Suchotina-Tol’staja, example quoted from Ljapon 1986: 153) (3) No vot drugoj sluˇcaj. Situacija vas javno ne ustraivaet. Tem ne menee, vy ne delaete nikakich usilij, cˇ toby chot’ kak-to izmenit’ ee. [But here is another case. You are clearly not satisfied with the situation. Nevertheless, you do not make any efforts to change it, at least to some extent.] (from the press, quoted from Ljapon 1986: 154)

It is, however, not difficult to find Russian examples of a clear contrast without any marker: (4) Vse sˇcastlivye sem’i pochoži drug na druga, každaja nesˇcastlivaja sem’ja nesˇcastliva po-svoemu. [All happy families resemble one another, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way] (Tolstoy, quoted from Zolotova et al. 1998: 443.) (5) On sidel na lavke zdorovyj, cˇ istyj takoj, radostnyj, sidel i vse chochotal. My molˇcali. Nam poˇcemu-to on byl neprijaten v etot raz. [He was sitting on the bench, healthy, kind of clean, happy, sitting and laughing all the time. We kept silent. For some reason, he was unpleasant to us at that time.] (Example quoted from Breuer 2002: 239)

(4) is the famous first sentence from Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina, (5) is by Maxim Gorky. In both cases, cohesion is achieved through parallelism. In the Tolstoy example, there is semantic and structural parallelism, through

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

the use of the same syntactic structure twice, with the same word order, in combination with differences in structure: a plural subject in the first clause, a singular subject in the second clause, as well as the contrast between the attributes: happy – unhappy. In the example from Gorky, there is a parallelism in structure and word order (on sidel – my molˇcali). The following is an interesting example of a lack of contrastive marking in a linguistic text dealing with cohesion. The second and the third sentences involve a clear contrast between two different student groups and how they should be taught the subject of cohesion. Cohesion in this text segment is achieved through parallelism – not structurally but only as regards lexical semantics and word order: (6) Kakim obrazom prepodavatel’ soobšˇcit uˇcašˇcemusja eti znanija, zavisit ot konkretnoj auditorii. Filologi – budušˇcie rusisty ili prepodavateli russkogo jazyka – koneˇcno že, v predelach teoretiˇceskogo kursa dolžny byt’ oznakomljeny s kategoriej posledovatel’nosti i ee cˇ astnymi znaˇcenijami. Specialistam-nefilologam, požaluj, dostaˇcno liš’ praktiˇceskich umenij v etoj oblasti. [In what way the teacher gives the learner this knowledge [i.e. how to link sentences in a text], depends on the concrete audience. Philologists – future specialists in Russian or teachers of Russian – must of course, within the framework of the theoretical course, become acquainted with the category of posledovatel’nost’5 and its different meanings. For specialists who are not philologists, practical skills in this area will probably suffice.] (Zarubina 1981: 51–52)

In Swedish, there is a tendency for contrasts, i.e., adversative relations, to be signalled explicitly by a connective if they are intended, since they are difficult to imply (Källgren 1979: 88). Swedish textbooks and manuals on writing mostly tend to recommend the explicit marking of contrasts (see for instance Strömquist 1989: 88), especially if the contrast is unexpected (Wikborg & Björk 1989: 70–71). However, it is not impossible to leave the contrast implicit, at least within a sentence, as claimed by a textbook on academic writing, which gives the following example: (7) Den äktenskapliga fruktsamheten tenderar att minska; den utomäktenskapliga ökar. [Marital fertility tends to decrease; extramarital increases.] (Jarrick & Josephson 1996: 82)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

It seems probable that there is an overall difference between Russian and Swedish in this respect, so that Russian to a larger extent can utilize cohesive devices other than connectives in this type of relation, and leave the nature of the relation implicit. This would mean a potential tendency to explicitation of these logical links in translations into Swedish. And indeed, translations into Swedish of Tolstoy’s novel explicitate the contrast in the first sentence by a connective (conjunction or adverbial): (8) Lyckliga familjer äro varandra alla lika; de olyckliga däremot äro olyckliga var och en på sitt särskilda sätt. (Tolstoy 1914: 3; transl. by Walborg Hedberg) [Happy families all resemble each other; the unhappy ones on the contrary are unhappy each in its special way] (9) Alla lyckliga familjer likna varandra, men varje olycklig familj är olycklig på sitt särskilda sätt. (Tolstoj 1928: 9; transl. by Oscar Nachman) [All happy families resemble each other, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its special way.] (10) Alla lyckliga familjer är varandra lika, men den olyckliga familjen är alltid olycklig på sitt speciella sätt. (Tolstoj 1958: 9, transl. by Sigurd Agrell, revised by Gunilla Nordlund) [All happy families resemble one another, but the unhappy family is always unhappy in its special way.]

Incidentally, the contrast has also been explicitated in at least one of the translations into English: (11) All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. (Tolstoy 1965: 1)

For the text segments that will be analyzed in Section 5.4, we may thus assume that the implicit link is acceptable in the SL, although explicit marking of the contrast would have been quite possible (see Section 5.4.1). The linguistic make-up of these sections in the Russian ST may be due to the special character of this particular text. The text is a resumé of a longer text, written in Ukrainian. The aim of the author of the Russian resumé has most probably been to convey facts in the first place, maybe seeing them as an enumeration more than anything else. For a Swedish text of this type, a more explicit linking would probably be expected.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

.. Expressing anteriority in Russian and Swedish and implicit temporal and causal linking The last type of implicit ST link to be analyzed is temporal and potentially causal linking. Two ST segments will be in focus, each consisting of two sentences, where the event/action of the second sentence either is or can be understood as being anterior to that of the first sentence, being its cause. This has a bearing on the tense systems of Russian and Swedish, which naturally is a very complex issue, in the case of Russian further complicated by the existence of the verbal aspect system, which interrelates with the tense system. Here, I will only discuss the specific question of how the two languages denote anteriority of a past action in relation to another past action. This discussion, too, will be given only in very general terms. The Russian verb has one past tense, the preterite. Distinction between various types of past actions is made by aspect, the imperfective aspect and the perfective aspect (cf. e.g. Maslov 1984). The perfective aspect views the event or situation as a whole, from the outside as it were. Therefore, when there are several successive verb forms in the preterite of the perfective aspect in a narrative, they are normally understood to refer to successive events or situations, i.e., following after one another in time, in the same chronological order as the verb forms appear in the text (Grenoble 1998: 232; Paduˇceva 1996: 362). The imperfective aspect, on the other hand, views events or actions as unbounded. Therefore, analoguously, preterite verb forms in the imperfective aspect that appear together in a narrative generally denote simultaneous processes or states. However, in certain cases verb forms in the perfective aspect can denote actions or events that are more or less simultaneous as well. An example of this is the following: (12) Gde-to okolo cˇ asa on prosnulsja. (i) TELEFON zazvonil. (ii) Zazvonil TELEFON. ‘About one o’clock he woke up. The telephone rang.’ (Example quoted from Nørgaard-Sørensen 1992: 164)

Nørgaard-Sørensen claims that in some cases, word order can decide the temporal interpretation. In this example, the two verbs prosnulsja [woke up] and zazvonil [rang] are in the preterite of the perfective aspect. Therefore, they do not denote simultaneous actions. However, this does not say anything about the order in which the events are to be seen as occurring. In the first case, there is no doubt a causal relation between the first sentence and the sentence

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

marked (i), so that in actual fact, the ringing happened first and caused his awakening. In this case, there is thus no marking whatsovever of anteriority, although the verb in sentence (i) denotes an anterior event. The reason for this is that sentence (i) has a word order of non-final prominence, which has causality as a frequent implicature (Nørgaard-Sørensen 1992: 168). What has been said applies to preterite verb forms in main clauses. Thus, normally in a narrative when two perfective verbs appear in the preterite in two successive main clauses, the action denoted by the first verb will be understood to have occurred before the action denoted by the second verb, according to the principle of natural chronology or the principle of iconicity. Such a “natural order” or ordo naturalis of events in a narrative is generally considered easier to understand (Brown 1994: 17) when processed for comprehension, regardless of language. There are various grammatical and lexical means available in Russian to show explicitly the anteriority of an action/event in relation to another past action/event, for instance, a subordinate clause with a subordinate conjunction, participle phrases and gerund phrases (see Schmidt forthc). To express that an event or action is viewed as temporally anterior in relation to a past point of orientation indicated by another verb, termed regress by Maslov (1984) or backtracks (Grenoble 1998: 233), Russian can use preterite forms of either the imperfective or the perfective aspect, as well as the forms of “dependent taxis”, viz. gerunds of the perfective aspect, and participles of perfective aspect (Maslov 1984: 196). Often, lexical means will also point to regress. However Russian lacks a tense that is specifically marked for anteriority in the past, such as the pluperfect, and thus, unlike many other languages, does not have any tense which shows the nature of the connection with the preceding, left, context (Grenoble 1998: 233; Zarubina 1981: 23). In translation into Russian from a language that has a special form for marking anteriority in the past, such as the pluperfect, lexical additions can be necessary, as shown in the following example from translation into Russian from English: (13) a.

No one would think now that Millicent had been the prettier of the two. b. Nikto by teper’ ne poveril, cˇ to iz dvuch sester bolee chorošen’koj vsegda byla Millisent. [No one would have believed that of the two sisters, the prettier one was always Millicent.] (Example quoted from Komissarov 1990: 203)

Swedish has several past tenses. Of special interest to this study are the preterite and the pluperfect. The preterite denotes an action/event whose point of ori-

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

entation or thematic time is past in relation to the moment of speech, and not including the moment of speech (Teleman et al. 1999b: 223). In a narrative, several successive preterite verb forms normally denote successive actions/events, if the actions are bounded. In this respect, there is thus similarity with the Russian preterite of the perfective aspect. The Swedish pluperfect denotes anteriority in relation to a past thematic time, given by a verb in the preterite, for instance. It should be used when the action is in fact anterior to the one denoted by the preterite, unless the narrative switches its focus from the point of reference of the (first) preterite; if in fact the anterior action will become the focus of a new point of reference, it can be denoted by the preterite (Teleman et al. 1999b: 225). When a single event or action is presented as anterior to the main line of a narrative, it is quite often implied as the cause of a subsequent event or action. Causal relations are often left implicit in texts (Källgren 1979: 89; Wikborg & Björk 1989: 71), since they are particularly easy to infer, if the text is well formed (cf. also Breuer 2002: 231) and the reader has the necessary background knowledge. It follows from this that the Russian preterite should be translated by the Swedish pluperfect when it denotes an event/action that is anterior to the main line of event(s) in a narrative. I must emphasize that it cannot be considered an explicitation to translate the Russian preterite with a Swedish pluperfect to denote anteriority. It is, as a matter of fact, more or less obligatory, and thus it would seem to fall outside the scope of the present investigation. However, if the translator chooses to translate it with a temporal or causal subordinate clause for example, that would be considered an (optional) explicitation, and also if temporal and/or causal connectives are added. Furthermore, the following analyses will show that even (seemingly) obligatory choices are not always made in translation, and that this in fact may cause other, optional explicitations. .. Textual characteristics of the Russian ST The content of the ST is an account of the life of the Ukrainian 19th century poet and artist Taras Shevchenko and of the most prominent events in it (see the Russian ST in Appendix 1 and an English translation in Appendix 2). It is a narrative text, recounting events mainly chronologically. Only the first paragraph is an exception to this to some extent, providing a very general historical-cultural background to the content of the text. Shevchenko is here said to be one of the most prominent figures in Ukrainian culture, and his role as a revolutionary minded thinker is also mentioned. His life is claimed to have

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

been very dramatic. The rest of the text elucidates these points. Shevchenko’s life can be seen as a drama with strong contrasts: born a serf and gifted with artistic talent, he was eventually bought free. He then received his education at the Academy of Fine Arts, and this was followed by work as an artist combined with subversive activity. This led to his arrest and being sentenced to a long period of inner exile. After returning to artistic work in the Russian capital and enjoying some success, he fell ill and passed away. His life was thus a mixture of light and darkness, positive and negative events, and the contrastive element is strong in this. However, the text has more the character of a dry enumeration of facts than a dramatic narrative, and almost none of these contrasts is highlighted as such or marked explicitly in the text. The ST presupposes that the reader has historical, geographical and cultural knowledge. Written in Russian and published in 1984, it was obviously primarily intended for a Russian-speaking reader in the USSR, a union which was at that time still in existence without any apparent indications of future changes in this respect. Facts that are alluded to or presupposed in the text are the Ukraine’s political status in the 19th century, viz. that the Ukraine was then a part of the Russian Empire, not an independent country; facts about serfdom, which was abolished in Russia as late as in 1861, the year of Shevchenko’s death; and political facts about Russia in the 19th century, such as the system of government, the role of the tsar, the existence of political opposition against him and the often violent repression of this opposition. This important background knowledge can be supposed to be known by the Russian reader. This is one reason why these facts are only alluded to in the text. However, there is another reason as well: when this text was written, the situation in the Ukraine was in many respects similar to the 19th century situation described, with the difference only that in 1984, the Ukraine was not part of the Russian Empire, but of the USSR. Censorship necessitated cautiousness in expression. Stating explicitly that the Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire in the 19th century might have made the parallel with the 20th century situation dangerously obvious. The general Swedish reader in all likelihood will know less about the historical facts than the general Russian reader. Had the text been written in Swedish as an original Swedish text, with a Swedish readership in mind, by a competent writer of this text type, it would probably have stressed and made explicit the background factors, maybe even focusing on them, instead of focusing on the events from Shevchenko’s life, seeing these events more as instantiations of important processes in the society at that time, than as the main purpose of the text.



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

. Implicit additive links in the ST .. The ST segments Four ST segments characterized by asyndetic coordination of sentence constituents, in sentences A4, C11, C13, and C15,6 form the basis for this section. The sentences are presented here in Russian as examples (14a)–(17a), together with a gloss translation. In (14b)–(17b), the corresponding sentence from the English translation is reproduced verbatim (see Appendix 2), as found in the book on Shevchenko (Stepovik 1984). Sentence A4 contains a multiple asyndetic coordination with three NPs which determine the subject of the main clause: Poet, chudožnik, myslitel’ revoljucionno-demokratiˇceskogo napravlenija: (14) a.

Poet, chudožnik, myslitel’ revoljucionno-demokratiˇceskogo ‘poet artist thinker revolutionary-democratic napravlenija, on strastno borolsja protiv social’nogo i tendency he passionately fought against social and nacional’nogo ugnetenija svoego naroda. national oppression his people’s’ b. As a poet, artist and thinker of a revolutionary-democratic trend, Shevchenko ardently fought against the social and national oppression of his people. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

Sentence C11 also has multiple asyndetic coordination with three NPs, here functioning as prepositional attributes: (sposobnosti) v živopisi maslom, v akvareli, risunke karandašom: (15) a.

S 1838 po 1845 god Ševˇcenko uˇcilsja v ‘From 1838 until 1845 year Shevchenko studied in Peterburgskoj Akademii chudožestv, projaviv nezaurjadnye Petersburg’s Academy of.arts showing extraordinary sposobnosti v živopisi maslom, v akvareli, risunke talents in painting oil in water-colour, drawing karandašom. pencil’ b. From 1838 to 1845 Shevchenko was a student at St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts where he showed an unusual aptitude for oil and watercolour painting and pencil drawing. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

Sentence C13 contains a binary asyndetic coordination, with two nouns functioning as direct objects in a participle phrase. Together, the nouns are the head of a genitive phrase: (podnjavšij) krasotu, zvuˇcnost’ (ukrainskogo narodnogo jazyka): (16) a.

V eti že gody Ševˇcenko sformirovalsja kak ‘in those same/very years Shevchenko was.formed as vydajušˇcijsja narodnyj poet, podnjavšij krasotu, zvuˇcnost’ prominent people’s poet, who.has.lifted beauty sonority ukrainskogo narodnogo jazyka na nevidannye dosele Ukrainian people’s language’s to unseen hitherto poetiˇceskie vysoty. poetic heights’ b. It was also at that time that Shevchenko became a poet of national recognition who raised the beauty and melodiousness of the Ukrainian language to unprecedented heights of poetic art. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

Finally, sentence C15 contains a binary asyndetic coordination, with two noun phrases functioning as the subject: Vysokaja graždanstvennost’ ego poem i stichov, ich kritiˇceskaja napravlennost’ protiv krepostniˇcestva i samoderžavija: (17) a.

Vysokaja graždanstvennost’ ego poem i stichov, ich ‘high civic.spirit his poems and poems their kritiˇceskaja napravlennost’ protiv krepostniˇcestva i critical tendency against serfdom and samoderžavija obratili na sebja vnimanie peredovoj ˇcasti autocracy turned on them attention progressive part obšˇcestva. society’ b. Filled with feelings of civic duty and directed against serfdom and autocracy, his poems attracted the attention of progressively-minded people in Russia. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

Semantically, the four examples are open series (cf. above Section 5.2.2), and at least sentence A4, and perhaps C13, can be interpreted as sequences where the meaning of the conjuncts reinforce each other. A certain “upgrading” (Rus. gradacija) can be observed, in that every new conjunct denotes an object or quality that is in some sense superior to the former one(s).7 Sentence C11 is neutral in this respect, and the order of the three conjuncts is probably random, or possibly, there is even a semantic downgrading, since a talent for oil painting may be seen as finer or more important than a talent for water-colour or pencil



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

drawing. As for sentence C15, there is an explicative nuance, in that the second conjunct explicates, or perhaps exemplifies, the nature of the quality denoted by the first conjunct. This kind of relation might be said to hold between the two constituents in sentence C13 as well. Since such asyndetic coordinate structures are quite a common phenomenon in different kinds of Russian texts (see Section 5.2.2), it can be expected to be well-known by anyone who has reached a certain level of proficiency in Russian as their L2. At least the professional translators and the translation students must certainly be assumed to have attained that level. Asyndetic coordinate structures as such should also be familiar to the language students, who have most certainly encountered such structures in texts that they have read in the course of their study. Thus it is likely that no category of participant will have comprehension problems caused by the implicitness of the link. As for translating the structures into Swedish, the professional translators and the translation students can be expected to follow the TL norms, which would lead to explicitation; this can be assumed to be a translational norm in Russian-Swedish professional translation (cf. Section 2.4.3.2). For the language students, opposite assumptions can be made: on the one hand, they may be aware of the contrastive differences and the translational norm and therefore explicitate; or, on the other hand, they may reproduce the asyndetic patterns of the ST. Regarding the translation process, it can be assumed that since the asyndetic coordinate structures in the ST are at clause level, within a sentence, the decision regarding the treatment of the implicit link will in most cases already have been made when the first version of the TT is written down. Possible exceptions to this could be the language students. It can further be assumed that there will be few verbalizations with problem indicators (cf. Section 5.1) pertaining to the asyndetic coordinate structures and their translation; if there are such indicators, they will more likely concern various production problems than comprehension problems. Indicators of problems in connection with translating these structures can be expected mainly in the protocols of the language students. .. Analysis of product data The solutions chosen by the participants are found in Appendix 4. The different translational solutions are summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. The tables show the strong tendency towards adding a connective, mostly a single conjunction, in accordance with the prediction. Of the in all 36 cases (4 sentence fragments,

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

Table 5.1 Asyndetic coordination in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level. Sentence Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gariella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

A4

C11

C13

C15

restructuring och. . .och och och och och och och och

och både. . .och och och och. . .och och samt och. . .samt och

och restructuring och och och och och och och

och restructuring no connective och no connective och samt och samt

Table 5.2 Asyndetic coordination in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level.

Sentence

Single connective och samt

Double connectives

Other solution

ochoch

ochsamt

bådeoch

no connective

restructuring

A4 C11 C13 C15

7 5 8 4

0 1 0 2

1 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 2

1 0 1 1

Total

24

3

2

1

1

2

3

9 TT versions of each), this solution is found in 27 cases. Double conjunctions are found in 4 cases, restructuring in 3 cases, and no connective, thus a reproduction of the ST pattern, in only 2 cases. All conjunctions added are additive. The tables show that och [and] is the single connective that is most frequently added (24 cases). The three cases of addition of the stylistically less appropriate single connective samt [and] are found in the language students’ TTs. The four cases of double connectives are found in the TTs of Berit (PR; twice) and Ellinor (TS) and Harald (LS). In sentence C11, Harald (LS) and Ellinor (TS) do some restructuring within the coordinate structure, which in both cases entails using more than one connective (see further Section 5.3.3.2 below). Examples of larger restructuring are found in the TTs of Anna (PR) and Berit (PR). In A4, Anna (PR) changes a subordinate link in the ST to a



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

coordinate link in the TT. She does add the connective och, however, due to this restructuring, after the third NP, i.e., after the final boundary of the original coordinate structure. Berit’s (PR) translational solution of sentence C13 involves a complete restructuring syntactically and semantically, in which the two NPs of the ST are rendered by only one NP, which eliminates the coordinate relation. Her version of sentence C15 also involves a restructuring, whereby the ST sentence, which in Russian contains only one finite verb, is made into three finite clauses in Swedish. The two clauses that render the two NPs are conjoined with, or perhaps rather separated by, a semicolon. Only two examples, both from sentence C15 and from the TTs of Christian (PR) and Ellinor (TS), preserve the pattern of asyndetic coordination from the ST. In terms of variety in the chosen solutions in different sentences, sentence C13 is the most homogeneous, with only two different solutions, and C11 the most heterogeneous, with 5 different solutions. C15 offers fewer different solutions (4), but on the other hand this is the only sentence that elicits both different single conjunctions, and restructuring, and preservation of the asyndetic construction. A few words might also be said as to the variation in chosen solutions intra-individually. At the one end of the scale is Berit (PR), who shows the largest variation with four different solutions, and at the other end are Daniel (PR) and Fredrik (TS), who choose one and the same solution in all four sentences. The remaining participants choose either two or three different solutions. At group level (professional translators vs. students) the only notable differences from a product perspective are that restructuring is only found in the professional translators’ TTs, and the conjunction samt is only found in the language students’ TTs. .. Analysis of process data We have seen that in most cases, there is an explicitation in the TT – a connective is added. Our next task will be to determine whether the available process data can lend support to the assumptions presented above, that the explicitation is decided at an early stage of the whole process, and that the implicit additive link and its potential explicitation is not a problem for most participants in the translation process. It will also be discussed whether the available data can elucidate why a certain solution is chosen and whether the participants consider different solutions before reaching a decision. Special attention will be given to the less frequent types of solutions (see Table 5.2).

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

... Deciding to explicitate In the majority (29) of cases (A4 = 9, C11 = 7, C13 = 8 and C15 = 5), the first evidence of explicitation is found in the data from the writing phase. Typically, the connective is verbalized for the first time in the TAPs at the same time as it is written down. Thus, the writing down of the connective is usually not preceded by any verbalization of it, nor of different, alternative connectives. This is a first indication that the decision to add a connective, as well as which one to add, is made as part of unmarked, automated processing. In some cases, participants first decided how to translate the conjuncts, but without a connective, formulating the translation of the whole coordinated structure, including the connective, only after this. Examples of such verbalizations are found during the writing phase, immediately preceding the verbalization and writing down of the explicitated structure (see Example (18)), and also from the pre-writing phase in the verbalizations of those participants who did a partial translation during that phase: (18) Berit (PR)/C11/TAPs: nu kommer det litet konstnärliga / termer här / oljemålning / akvarell (2s) heter det blyerts / blyerts / det tittar jag i / om det står nåt trevligt med blyerts här (2s) (bläddrar) / i / svenska akademins ordlista [. . .]/ han (3s) (ohörbart) arbeten (3s) inom oljemålning / usch / oljemålning (2s) akvarell och / blyerts- (3s) teckning [here are some artistic / terms / oil painting / water colour (2s) is it called pencil / pencil / I’ll look in / if there is anything nice written about pencil here (2s) (looks in dictionary) / in / the wordlist of the Swedish Academy [. . .]/ he (3s) (inaudible) works (3s) in oil painting / ugh / oil painting (2s) / water colour and / pencil- (3s) drawing]

Only in two cases was the decision to explicitate made later than during the writing phase. The first case is from Gabriella’s work with sentence C15 and will be presented in Section 5.3.3.2. An interesting case is the following, where, during the writing phase, Fredrik (TS) verbalized a translation of sentence A4 with a connective; however, his logs show that he actually did not write it, simply reproducing the Russian coordinative structure with a comma mark: (19) Fredrik (TS) /A4/TAPs: som / poet (ohörbart) / ehm (3s) konstnär (5s) tack? / myslitel’ det är / här kommer första / (bläddrar) (2s) / kruxet [. . .] som poet konstnär och (8s) demokrat (19s) revolutionärdemokratisk (2s) tänkare [. . .] jag tar det så länge [as / poet (inaudible) / ehm (3s) artist (5s) thanks? / myslitel’ that is / here comes the first / (looks in dictionary) (2s) / problem [. . .] as poet artist

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

and (8s) demokrat (19s) revolutionary democratic (2s) thinker [. . .] I’ll take that for the time being]

After having written his translation of chudožnik, konstnär [artist], Fredrik (TS) starts considering the translation of the following NP. This takes almost four minutes (a pause in the writing process of 228.3 seconds). Although the connective was verbalized once during this pause in the writing process (see Example (19)), it is possible that by the time he had decided on the translation of the third NP, he had forgotten about the connective, and therefore only wrote a comma. The connective was eventually inserted, but only in the postwriting phase. The strong tendency for Swedish L1 speakers to add a connective in these cases is further evidenced by the following example from Christian (PR), whose TT sentence C13 has an added connective. In the TAPs from his work on this sentence, he quoted the relevant segment of the ST in Russian, inserting the Russian connective i [and] into the Russian structure as well, which thus became, as it were, a back-translation of his own translation: (20) Christian (PR)/C13/TAPs: för det första är den / är / en väldigt dum formulering / ehm att han podnjal krasotu i zvuˇcnost’ ukrainskogo jazyka na nevidannye dosele poetiˇceskie vysoty [first of all it is / is / a very stupid formulation / ehm that he podnjal krasotu i zvuˇcnost’ ukrainskogo jazyka na nevidannye dosele poetiˇceskie vysoty]

In a similar vein, Ellinor (TS) also inserted the Russian conjunction i [and] into the Russian construction when reading the sentence during the writing phase. Thus, when the translation is explicitated by a connective, this decision is made, as a rule, at the latest during the writing phase. Furthermore, the logs show that when participants added a connective during the writing phase, the connective was written down before starting to write the following NP. Thus, there are no examples of a participant first writing all the conjuncts without a connective, only afterwards adding one after having seen the written variant on the screen.8 When there are tentative translations of the conjuncts without a connective, these are only verbalized, not written down. Furthermore, once the first TT version had been written into the computer, there were very few changes regarding the connectives, whatever the solution used. With some exceptions, which will be discussed in the next section, the coordinate structure was either not considered at all, as a whole, or the participants discussed and sometimes revised their translation of the

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

conjuncts, however keeping the chosen solution as far as the connective was concerned. ... Is the implicit additive link a problem in the translation process? The implicitness of the additive links in the four sentences and the task of translating them into Swedish can potentially present different kinds of problems in the translation process: 1. Comprehension problems: Since there is no explicit connective, the nature of the relation between the conjuncts in the ST might not be understood at all, or be understood to be coordinate, but assigned an erroneous interpretation, for instance, adversative or disjunctive; 2. Rendition problems from a contrastive translation point of view: The nature of the link being understood, it might be a problem whether it is necessary, “correct” or “allowed” to add a connective, i.e., whether to explicitate or not; 3. Rendition problem from a target language perspective: The nature of the link being understood, the possibility of adding a connective being perceived as allowed, it might be a problem which TL connective to choose. Only in one case did a participant have a comprehension problem that also involved working out the nature of the link between the conjuncts: (21) Gabriella (LS)/C13/TAPs: podnjavšij krasoty [. . .] som förstod skönheten (8s) (8s) som förstod skönheten / zvuˇcnost’ ukrainskogo narodnogo ja/ ehm [. . .] ljudet av det ukrainska (3s) / s-s- / språkets (2s) på ett hittills (7s) vad står här / hittills / o- (2s) nevidannye / (ohörbart) (12s) poetiˇceskie vysoty (bläddrar) (3s) hmm (bläddrar) (14s) / poetisk nivå (2s) som förstod skönheten (10s) zvuˇcnost’ undrar om det är maskulinum (bläddrar) (23s) jaha (bläddrar) (47s) ja (2s) som förstod hm (2s) som (12s) (27s) / språk [podnjavšij krasoty [. . .] which understood the beauty (8s) (8s) which understood the beauty / zvuˇcnost’ ukrainskogo narodnogo ja- / ehm [. . .] sound of the Ukrainian (3s) / l-l-- / language’s (2s) in a hitherto (7s) what does it say here / hitherto / o- (2s) nevidannye / (indaudible) (12s) poetiˇceskie vysoty (looks in dictionary) (3s) hmm (looks in dictionary) (14s) / poetic level (2s) who understood the beauty (10s) zvuˇcnost’ I wonder whether that is masculine (looks in dictionary) (23s) well / (looks in dictionary) (47s) yes (2s) which understood hm (2s) which (12s) (27s) language]

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Gabriella (LS) had considerable problems in translating this sentence. The first one is that she mistakenly understood the participle podnjavšij [who has lifted], formed from the verb podnjat’ [lift], to be formed from the verb ponjat’ [understand]. Also, although she had understood the general meaning of the second conjunct zvuˇcnost’, she seemed to have problems in understanding the relation between the two conjuncts and their role in the clause and the sentence. This is indicated by her tentative verbalized translation ljudet av det ukrainska språkets [the sound of the Ukrainian language’s], which requires another noun as the head of the genitive phrase det ukrainska språkets. Possibly, at this stage she was considering making only the first noun, krasotu [beauty], the head of the genitive phrase, to yield a translation like ljudet av det ukrainska språkets skönhet [the sound of the beauty of the Ukrainian language]. Her comment “zvuˇcnost’ I wonder whether that is masculine” is another indicator of her having some problems in determining the relation between the NPs. However, after checking in several dictionaries, she succeeded in making out the relations between the NPs, shown by the fact that she wrote her translation with an added connective, expressing no hesitation regarding this addition. There is only one example of a verbalization explicitly commenting on the nature of the implicit link, however, in this case clearly not an indication of any problem: (22) Berit (PR)/TAPs: oj / här kom graždanstvennost’ ja / jaha / det hänger ihop med att han är kritisk mot livegenskapen [oh / here comes graždanstvennost’ yes / oh yes / it is linked to him being critical against serfdom]

Theoretically, the three cases of larger restructuring could be due to a problem in comprehending or rendering the additive link. The fact that these cases are found in the TTs of the professional translators Anna (PR) and Berit (PR) makes such an assumption rather unlikely. Furthermore, the relevant TAPs show that the restructurings were done to solve other translation problems not connected with the coordinate link as such. Thus, in Berit’s (PR) two cases of restructuring, the verbalizations indicate that the reason was her endeavour to make the Swedish text “easier”, “more normal”, which entailed changing some of the typically Soviet Russian ways of expression, but had nothing to do with the additive links as such. Furthermore, in the course of her work with sentence C13, at one point she contemplated returning to a more literal translation, which included the conjunction och:

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

(23) Berit (PR)/C13/TAPs: det här måste jag skriva om helt / på svenska / podnjavšij krasotu zvuˇcnych / ukrainskogo narodnogo jazyka / na nevidannye v- dosele poetiˇceskie vysoty / det måste jag göra normal / svenska av [. . .] han lyckades ge det / ukra- inska folkspråket (3s) dittills (2s) osedda poetiska kvalitet- / kvalite- ter / hur ser det ut då / han lyckades ge det (3s) a-a-a förläna (8s) det (3s) det vackra (7s) det vackra och (3s) det vackra äsch (4s) äsch jag ser på det sen [I’ll have to rewrite this completely / in Swedish / podnjavšij krasotu zvuˇcnych / ukrainskogo narodnogo jazyka / na nevidannye v- dosele poetiˇceskie vysoty / I have to make normal / Swedish of it [. . .] he managed to give / to the Ukrainian people’s language (3s) hitherto (2s) unseen poetic qualiti- / qualities / how does that look then / he managed to give (3s) a-a-a bestow upon (8s) the (3s) the beautiful (7s) the beautiful and (3s) the beautiful oh bother (4s) dash it I’ll look at it later on]

Naturally, of special interest are those two cases, both in sentence C15, where no connective at all is added – Christian’s (PR) and Ellinor’s (TS) TTs. Unfortunately, their TAPs are inconclusive as to why this solution was chosen, or whether they contemplated adding a connective at all. Their respective backgrounds make it less probable that the solution of reproducing the Russian asyndetic pattern should be the result of comprehension or rendition problems. It is more natural to assume that this is a conscious decision on their part. Contrastive aspects and possible renditions from a contrastive point of view were hardly verbalized at all. No participant consulted any aid regarding the implicit additive link. Only Daniel (PR) and Ellinor (TS) commented explicitly on the addition of the conjunction, Daniel several times at that: (24) Daniel (PR)/A4/TAPs: som (3s) poet (2s) konstnär (7s) och sen så brukar jag stoppa in ett och efter den / mellan de två / sista orden i uppräkningen (2s) och tänkare [as (3s) poet (2s) artist (7s) and then I usually insert an and after the / between the two / last words in the enumeration (2s) and thinker] (25) Ellinor (TS)/A4/TAPs: som poet (3s) konstnär (4s) och får man skjuta in där då (2s) och [as poet (3s) artist (4s) and you must/can insert there then (2s) and]

Daniel (PR) motivated the addition in terms of this being his habit “I usually do that”. Ellinor (TS) commented that a conjunction can/has to be added (the Swedish modal verb får is ambiguous, meaning either permission or obligation). This kind of verbalization is not considered as an indicator of problems, cf. above Section 5.1. However, these verbalizations have the characteristics of



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

translation principles (see Section 2.4.3.3) and could therefore be assumed to reflect an underlying translation norm. Problem type 3, renditions from a TL perspective, is the kind of problem for which there were more frequent verbalizations. Harald (LS) in sentence C15, during the post-writing phase, exchanged the connective he had first written, samt, for och. From his TAPs it can be deduced that the reason is stylistic, since he mentions that samt is “a bit solemn” (cf. Section 5.2.2 above): (26) Harald (LS)/C15/TAPs: och det var inget samt heller det är lite / högtidligt [and there should be no samt either that is a bit / solemn]

Also, as noted in Section 5.3.2, Harald (LS) and Ellinor (TS) in C11 chose similar solutions, which involved the creation of a separate additive link between the first two NPs by relating both of them to the verb/verbal noun måla/målning [paint/painting].9 These solutions are not, however, concerned in the first place with the proper translation of the implicit additive links, but rather of the conjuncts as such, and the stylistic properties of the coordinate structures as a whole. Gabriella’s (LS) final TT contains the connective samt [and] in sentence C15 (see Table 5.1). In her process data, there is no evidence of any connective here during the pre-writing or writing phases. In the post-writing phase, she devoted considerable time and effort to this sentence, making minor revisions of it and of the conjuncts, however, with no evidence of any connective. Her main problem was how to find a good Swedish translation of the noun graždanstvennost’ [civic spirit]. Towards the very end of her work (Example (27) is taken from the last page but one of her transcripts), she returned once again to sentence C15: (27) Gabriella (LS)/C15/TAPs: säger man hög anda eller djup anda / den höga medborgarandan / den djupa medborgarandan (4s) (2s) / jag tror man säger djupa (6s) den djupa / eller den höga / jag har ju det här det borde ju stå här / (bläddrar) (22s) den djupa / ää / den höga kanske / den h- / den djupa medborgarandan (2s) den höga medborgar- / nämen höga / det passar bättre (7s) (6s) den dj- / höga medborgarandan i hans poemer och dikter och deras kritik som riktas-ts (5s) jaha / här är det nåt / konstigt / den höga medborgarandan i hans poemer och dikter / samt deras kritik / som ehmm / riktas / mot livegenskap och envälde (2s) mhm (3s) (2s) samt (5s) eller den höga medborgarandan i hans poemer och dikter och deras kritik [do you say high spirit or deep spirit / the high civic spirit / the deep civic spirit (4s) (2s) I think you say deep (6s) the deep / or the high / I

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

have it here it should say so here / (looks in dictionary) (22s) the deep / eeh / the high perhaps / the h- / the deep civic spirit (2s) the high civic / no but high / that fits better (7s) (6s) the dee- / high civic spirit in his poems and verses and their criticism which is directed (5s) oh well / here is something / funny / the high civic spirit in his poems and verses / as well as their criticism / which ehmm / is directed / against serfdom and autocracy (2s) mhm (3s) (2s) as well as (5s) or the high civic spirit in his poems and verses and their criticism]

Gabriella (LS) here made yet another revision of the translation of the problematic first NP of the coordinate structure. Then she read from the computer screen what she had written and continued to read her translation of the second NP. In doing so, she verbalized a connective, och, which was not present in her own TT. She reacted and read the coordinate structure once again, now inserting a synonym connective, samt, and then proceeded to write that conjunction into the text. Then she read the construction in Swedish once again, now inserting the stylistically more appropriate conjunction och, however, without revising this in the text. Thus, she realized very late in the process that a connective was required – without it, “there is something strange”. However, the conjunction that she spontaneously added when reading the construction, and which is the most appropriate from a stylistic point of view, was changed into a stylistically less appropriate synonym. Finally, I would also like to consider the role of pauses as potential problem indicators. Unfilled pauses in the TAPs are considered as secondary indicators by both Krings (1986a) and Jääskeläinen (1999). In the segmentation analysis in Section 4.4, it was assumed that pauses in the writing process are due to processes such as planning, monitoring and problem-solving. In the logged data of the segments with the translation of the implicit additive links, the writing down of the first translation solution for the implicit additive link (explicitation or reproduction of the SL pattern) was very often immediately preceded by a pause in the writing process. In most cases this pause coincided with an unfilled pause in the TAPs. The length of the pauses in the logged data is given in Table 5.3. Some comments on the figures in this table. Berit’s (PR) translation of C13 involves such restructuring (see Example (23)) that pause data from the logs is not relevant here. In Fredrik’s (TS) translation of C11, the writing of the connective is not preceded by any pause; however, he verbalized the connective already during the pre-writing phase, and its verbalization was then immediately preceded by an unfilled pause of 6 seconds. Since the logged data

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Table 5.3 Length of pause immediately preceding first writing of translation of implicit additive link (ScriptLog data, individual level).

Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS)

A4

C11

C13

C15

3.7 0 0 7.6 4.4 228.3 10.8 6.4

1.6 0 0 2.8 2.9 0 9.5 3.1

3.3 – 0 0 0 0 342.1 0

0 7.3 8.2 6.8 2.4 2.0 5.9 9.4

from Isak actually reflect his post-writing phase, they have not been included here (cf. Section 4.4.1 above). It can be assumed that these pauses reflect the planning of the translation of the conjunct which follows, including the process of detection of the lack of connective, retrieval of SL-TL contrastive knowledge and perhaps a rule or translation norm regarding such cases, to reach the decision to add a connective. In the data from some participants, the pauses became shorter in the later sentences. This could then perhaps be attributed to a facilitation effect, due to the similarity in constructions, and to the fact that the rule for insertion of a connective had already been activated and was therefore in a state of higher activation. The lack of pauses in the writing process of the two most experienced participants, Berit (PR) and Christian (PR), could then be assumed to be due to the high degree of automatization of their processing at the micro level. On the other hand, when they do choose a non-standard solution, as in sentence C15, viz. not to explicitate, we find in both cases quite a long pause in the writing process. In conclusion, the implicit additive link does not normally constitute a comprehension problem, as long as the conjuncts have been understood correctly. From a contrastive point of view, the implicit additive link does not constitute a translation problem either. Regardless of the participant’s background and experience in translation, the tendency is to explicitate the additive link, and this decision is mostly executed without any indications of problems, i.e., as part of automatized processing. Only the decision regarding precisely which additive TL conjunction to choose is sometimes a problem.

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

. Implicit contrastive links in the ST .. The ST segments In this section,10 the focus will be on how the participants translated two segments from the ST where successive events involving a contrast are described. These segments have been chosen since they offer examples of explicitation of connectives in several of the participants’ TTs. The analysis will also show that several of those participants who did not explicitate the contrast with a connective still attempted to account for the contrastive relation in their TTs using other linguistic means. Both cases involve what Knott and Sanders (1998: 160) term ‘negative polarity causal’. The first sentence gives the cause, the situation from which the reader will expect certain consequences to follow. The second sentence tells that these consequences did not follow. The first ST segment tells us about how young Shevchenko, until then confined to his birth village and as a serf subjected to his master’s whims and hindered from developing his artistic talents, by another whim of his master was taken to the Russian capital St Petersburg.11 There, he subsequently had the opportunity to meet artists and other cultural workers, who saw his talent and finally bought him out of serfdom. This in turn had as a consequence that he was given the possibility to take a degree in art. The first sentences of interest here are sentences B7 and B8, given as Examples (28a) and (28b): (28) a.

B7 Bol’šim prepjatstviem na puti estestvennogo razvitija ‘Big obstacle on road natural development’s ego darovanija bylo to, ˇcto, kak krepostnoj, on vsecelo his talent’s was it that as serf he completely zavisel ot prichotej pomešˇcika Engel’gardta. depended on whims landlord’s Engelhardt’s’ B8 Odna iz etich prichotej stala sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost’ju dlja ‘One of these whims became happy coincidence for Ševˇcenko, kogda zimoj 1831 goda Engel’gardt vzjal ego Shevchenko when winter 1831 year Engelhardt took him s soboj v stolicu kak slugu-“kazaˇcka”. with himself to capital as servant-cossack’ b. However, the development of Shevchenko’s talents was hindered by the fact that he, a serf, was at the mercy of whims of his master Engelhardt. One such whim turned into a great opportunity for Shevchenko when



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Engelhardt took him as a lackey to accompany him on his journey to Petersburg in winter of 1831. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

In these sentences, the master’s whims are contrasted: in sentence B7, they are claimed to be an obstacle to the young boy’s artistic development, in sentence B8 they are claimed to have been the indirect means by which Shevchenko’s artistic development was furthered. Linguistically, the ST achieves cohesion through the noun prichotej [whims], in sentence B7 and its repetition in B8, and through the demonstrative pronoun. The contrast between the consequences of the different whims is not expressed explicitly in the ST; it is only indicated by the semantic contents of the nouns bol’šim prepjatstviem [great obstacle], in B7 and sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost’ju [happy coincidence], in B8. There is no adversative connective in B8 (conjunction, adverbial or the like). However, the lexical repetition of the noun prichotej [whims], in sentence B8, repeated from B7, is important; it indicates indirectly the contrast, since lexical repetition can be used when “the statement introduces a new or revised topic” (Nørgård-Sørensen 1992: 138). In this case, it shows the transition from negative consequences to positive consequences of the whims. The second sentence informs the reader of an event that breaks the expected continuation of the course of events in the first sentence. The contrast therefore could very well have been indicated by a connective, for instance, by the conjunction no [but], at the beginning of sentence B8 (cf. Kruˇcinina 1988: 88), or through the insertion of the adversative conjunction odnako [however], into sentence B8. After receiving his artistic training and education, Shevchenko returns to the Ukraine to work as an artist. This long positive period of his life is disrupted by a very negative event: he is arrested, which is mentioned in sentence D17. The contrast is marked here explicitly in the ST with the sentence initial conjunction no [but]. The arrest eventually leads to a sentence to inner exile, and, to make matters even worse, the Russian Tsar Nicholas I personally adds a condition to the sentence: Shevchenko must be kept under strict surveillance and not be allowed to paint or write (sentence D20). Things look gloomy indeed; however, sentence D21 informs us that the Tsar’s strict orders were actually not followed. Thanks to help from the intelligentsia in the place of exile, Shevchenko was able to continue his artistic work, albeit semi-legally, as the ST says: (29) a.

D20 Utverždaja prigovor, car’ ‘confirming sentence, tsar dele, ˇctoby ssyl’nogo poeta act that exiled poet

sobstvennoruˇcno with.own.hands i chudožnika and artist

napisal wrote deržali kept

na ego on his pod under

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

strožajšim nadzorom i zaprešˇcali emu pisat’ i strictest surveillance and forbade him write and risovat’. draw. D21 Blagodarja pomošˇci i sodejstviju progressivno ‘thanks.to help and cooperation progressively nastroennoj mestnoj intelligencii on smog na protjaženii minded local intelligentsia’s he could in duration vsech 10 let ssylki v kazachskich stepjach all ten years exile in of.Kazachstan steppes polulegal’no zanimat’sja tvorˇcestvom. semilegally engage.in creative.work’ b. Approving the sentence, czar wrote with his own hand an order on the file: the exiled poet and artist to be kept under strict surveillance, forbidden both to write and to paint. However, due to the assistance of the local progressively-minded intellectuals, he was able, on semi-legal grounds, to engage in creative work over the whole ten-year period he spent on the Kazakh steppes. (Stepovik 1984: 15–16)

Here, there is thus a contrast between the Tsar’s explicit orders with their intended effect and the implementation of the orders and the achieved effect. This contrast is not marked explicitly in the text. The event in the second sentence constitutes a break with the expected results of the event described in the first sentence. Thus, here as well, the conditions for using an adversative conjunction such as Russian no are clearly met (cf. Kruˇcinina 1988: 83, 88), or for inserting the conjunction odnako [however], indicating that the event described in the second sentence is surprising compared to what we might expect (cf. Nørgård-Sørensen 1992: 180). A combination of contrastive markers might also have been used, viz. no [but] and vse-taki [still, yet], where “no signals a contradiction and vse-taki/vse že specifies the character of this contradiction” (Nørgård-Sørensen 1992: 55). In these segments, there are at least two different but concurring reasons why the contrasts might be explicitated in translation into Swedish: either because the translator perceives the ST as faulty in this regard, or because an implicit contrast would not be appropriate from the TL point of view (see Section 5.2.3 above). In Swedish, there are several possibilities of marking a contrast explicitly in cases like the ones in focus here. One is beginning the second sentence with a conjunction, men [but]. This would seem to be the nearest equivalent to the Russian construction with no, however with a

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

stylistic difference, since the Swedish construction is often considered to have a slightly colloquial character. This is due to the fact that men is a coordinating connective, and is thus used to coordinate main clauses into complex sentences. However, as Teleman et al. (1999b: 832) note, such sentences can also be orthographically represented as two or more separate sentences. Other possible connectives would be, for instance, dock [however], emellertid [however], ändå [still, yet, nevertheless], trots detta [in spite of this]. The implicit link here is between different sentences – entities in the text that are separated by a full stop. In both cases here, the sentences are quite long and syntactically complex, as can be seen from Examples (28a) and (29a). Lehmann (1988: 211) claims that there is a tendency in texts for the explicitness of the linking device to be adjusted to the size of the linguistic entities that are to be linked. Smaller chunks of text may be sufficiently linked by mere adjacency, whereas larger passages may need explicit linking. Furthermore, from the point of view of processing in translation, the length of the sentences is potentially of importance. One condition for the contrast to be explicitated in the TT is that the translator has perceived it. This requires that the translator keeps the meanings of both sentences activated and compares them (see Section 2.4.4.3). It can be assumed that when the translation is first formulated and written down, in most cases during the writing phase, other processing aspects might take up processing resources, especially for the less experienced participants. .. Analysis of product data The solutions chosen by the different participants are given in Appendix 4. The different translation solutions are summarized in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. The TTs of 8 of the 9 participants show a consistent pattern: those of Anna (PR), Berit (PR), Christian (PR) and Fredrik (TS) have an added connective in both cases, whereas those of Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Harald (LS) do not have any added connective in either case. Only Isak (LS) treats the two text sections differently, adding a connective in the first case but not in the second one. Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation between the explicitation pattern and amount of experience in translation, since the majority of the professional translators have added a connective, whereas the majority of the students have not done so. Judging only from these data, it could be tentatively concluded that explicitation of implicit contrasts is a function of a translation norm in professional translation from Russian into Swedish, since three out of four professionals do indeed explicitate. Such a conclusion could be considered corroborated by the fact that the language

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Table 5.4 Implicit contrasts in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level.

Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS) Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

Sentence B8

Sentence D21

men dock men no connective no connective dock no connective no connective dock

ändå men ändå no connective no connective dock + ändå + även om with subordinate clause no connective no connective no connective

Table 5.5 Implicit contrasts in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level. Adversative conjunction

Adverb

Several connectives

No connective

men

dock

ändå

B8 D21

2 1

3 0

0 2

0 1

4 5

Total

3

3

2

1

9

students, with the exception of one instance, do not explicitate. Furthermore, it could be assumed that Fredrik (TS) has acquired the professional norm of explicitation, whereas Ellinor (TS) has not (yet). On the other hand, the fact that Daniel (PR) does not explicitate might indicate that explicitation is only one professional norm in this case, the other being not to explicitate. Of the in all 18 cases, connectives have been added in 9 (50%) of cases. Thus, the tendency to explicitate is weaker here than in the cases of additive asyndetic coordination (see Section 5.3). The tentative character of these conclusions must be stressed. .. Analysis of process data ... Non-problematic decisions Anna (PR), Berit (PR) and Christian (PR) all added the connective in both text segments during the writing phase. In sentence B8 but not in D21, Anna (PR) and Berit (PR) commented on the addition of a connective:

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(30) Anna (PR)/TAPs: nycker / punkt (5s) men / kan vi kosta på oss / för det är en liten / ny tankehopp / men ett / en av dessa / nycker [whims / full stop (5s) but / we can treat ourselves to that / because it is a small / new jump in the line of thought / but one / one of these / whims] (31) Anna (PR)/ScriptLog: nycker<1.7>. <6.3>M<1.6>en en av dessa nycker (32) Berit (PR)/TAPs: nycker (9s) godsägarens nycker (8s) (ohörbart) (2s) (2s) jag sätter till ett dock / så blir det klarare motsättning [whims (9s) the estate owner’s whims (8s) (inaudible) (2s) (2s) I’ll add a however / so that the contrast becomes clearer] (33) Berit (PR)/ScriptLog: nycker. <18.3>En av dessa nycket blec <4.2>do <2.2>ck

Thus, Anna (PR) added a connective because there is a “jump in the line of thought”, whereas Berit (PR) did it to make the contrast clearer. There are, in their writing processes, pauses for planning, including the decision to add a connective and to verbalize it: 6.3 secs in Anna’s (PR) logs (Example (31)) and 4.2 secs in Berit’s (PR) logs (Example (33)). In Anna’s (PR) case, this sentence initial pause was obviously not only for deciding on the connective, but for understanding the beginning of sentence B8 and planning the translation of it, including the connective. The pause in Berit’s (PR) writing process, immediately preceding the writing of the connective, can be assumed to reflect the decision process and verbalization regarding the connective. Anna’s (PR) decision to explicitate was made before she started writing the sentence, as shown by her TAPs in combination with the logs. Berit’s (PR) decision was verbalized when she had already written the beginning of the sentence. If her decision was made at this point, and the fact that it was verbalized at that point speaks in favour of this interpretation, then her choice of connective can be connected to her point of decision. The chosen connective, dock [however], is not normally placed initially in a sentence in Swedish, but integrated into it, whereas the connective men [but] must be written at the very beginning of the sentence. A decision to use men after the first words of the sentence have already been written would therefore involve more keystrokes and revisions, as well as moving the cursor backwards to the beginning of the sentence, and wanting to avoid this might be the reason for Berit’s (PR) choice here. In sentence D21, these patterns are reversed to some extent. Here, Berit (PR) used the connective men [but] which she added without comments when writing down her first version of the translation of this sentence. Anna (PR), on the other hand, used the concessive connective ändå [nevertheless] in sentence

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

D21, and the TAPs in combination with the logs give the distinct impression that this choice is due to her detection of the contrast, and a decision to explicitate, at a point when she is already well into writing down her TT version of this sentence: (34) Anna (PR)/TAPs: tack vare (2s) (3s) hjälp (3s) och medverkan (1s) samverkan / äsch / samverkan det är nåt sånt där / sånt där / vad heter det / fackföreningsord (5s) tack vare hjälp och (1s) sodejstvie (3s) medverkan (3s) från (3s) (hostar) (3s) progressivt (3s) ehm / lagd (2s) usch / lokal in-teli-gentsia (3s) (7s) JAHA (2s) lyckades / han (3s) stäpper (2s) halvt / illegalt ÄNDÅ (2s) syssla med / konstnärligt arbete [thanks to (2s) (3s) help (3s) and cooperation (1s) united action / dash it / united action it’s one of those / those / what’s it called / word from the labour unions (5s) thanks to help and (1s) sodejstvie (3s) cooperation (3s) from (3s) (coughs) (3s) progressively (3s) ehm / minded (2s) ugh / local in-teli-gentsia (3s) (7s) I SEE (2s) he / managed (3s) steppes (2s) half / illegaly NEVERTHELESS (2s) work with / artistic work] (35) Anna (PR)/ScriptLog: Tack vare<1.0> <3.2>tjä@hjälp och medverkan <1.5><14.0>@medvek<1.5>@rkan från<6.8>prov@gressivt<1.8>lad@gd lokal intelligentj@sija<8.2> <2.1>lyckades han <5.6>halvt illegalt ändå <1.5>syssla med konstnärligt arbete

Having written the last word (intelligentsija) of the translation of the first adverbial phrase, Anna paused in her TAPs (7 secs) and in her writing (two pauses, 8.2 secs and 2.1 secs). During this pause, she most probably read on in the ST, inferring that the Tsar’s orders were not obeyed, i.e., the contrast. It is probably this comprehension that is the reason for her comment jaha [I see] which was pronounced quite emphatically. She then went on in her translation, adding the connective ändå [nevertheless]. In her verbalizations, the connective ändå was marked intonationally, giving it special status among the rest of the verbalized translation. The reason for the choice of this particular connective, instead of an adversative men [but] or dock [however], could be her late realization of the contrast, making the addition of ändå a choice which requires fewer revisions and cursor movements (cf. the similar case of Berit (PR) above; see also Fredrik’s (TS) translation of the same sentence, below). ... Problems in the process This section will present some cases where deciding to explicitate is problematic in some respects, i.e., where the TAPs and/or log files contain problem indicators (cf. Section 5.1).



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Christian’s (PR) TAPs from the writing phase are inconclusive regarding the connective, for both text sections analyzed here. His logs (Example (36)) show that in B8 he first wrote a literal translation of the beginning of the sentence, without any connective. Having reached about halfway into the translation of this sentence, after the correction of a typographical error, there were several pauses of various duration, interspersed with cursor and mouse movements, amounting to a total of 58.3 seconds. He then wrote a revised translation of this sentence, with a changed syntactic structure, which is less literal, beginning the sentence with an added adversative conjunction. It is clear from the very short pauses in writing the revised version that all decisions regarding it had been taken before starting to write the whole structure: (36) Christian (PR)/ScriptLog [simplified]: <4.6>En a v dessa nycker blev en <2.0>lycklig <1.9>slump för Sjevtjenko, när Engelhardt <2.7>vintern 181<6.1><1.2>@31 [58.3 seconds of pauses + mouse and cursor movements] Men av en för <1.1>Sjevtjenko lycklig sly<1.3>@ump innebar en av dessa nycker att Engelhardt tog honom <1.6>med sig till huvudstaden

Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS) added connectives, Isak (LS) in B8 only, Fredrik (TS) in both B8 and D21. For both of them, in sentence B8, this was done quite late in the process, in the post-writing phase, when they were reading their TT. Their TAPs contain various problem indicators, such as unfilled pauses, verbalization of tentative translation equivalents and revisions. Isak (LS) did not insert any connective into sentence B8 in the writing phase, nor in the first two subphases of the post-writing phase. Later on, he devoted considerable time and effort to sentences B7 and B8, clearly dissatisfied with his solutions. After reading his TT version of the text segment, he said that there had to be a dock [however], i.e., an adversative connective, and added it to his TT. He also indicated that, according to him, the Russian ST should have the adversative conjunction odnako [however], although, as he says: “it’s not there”:12 (37) Isak (LS)/TAPs: svårtuggad mening (2s) [. . . ] dock måste det vara / dock vara till och med (5s) odnako / fast det står inte här [this sentence is difficult to chew (2s) [. . . ] however it has to be / however be even (5s) odnako / although it does not say so here]

In sentence D21, Fredrik (TS) step-wise added not one, but two connectives. The first connective, ändå [nevertheless] was added during the writing phase, with the motivation to make the text clearer:

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

(38) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: tack vare / hjälp / och påverkan (6s) från lokala (2s) (10s) kultur- (8s) (skrattar) inte / från den / lokala inteligentsian neej / tack vare hjälp (1s) och påverkan / från (6s) det provinsiella (6s) de progressiva krafter säger vi bara / progressiva / krafter (1s) ehm / på platsen (8s) kan han ändå / det / det måste jag lägga till som / textförtydligande [thanks to / help / and influence (6s) from local (2s) (10s) cultur- (8s) (laughs) not / from the / local intelligentsia noo / thanks to help (1s) and influence / from (6s) the provincial (6s) the progressive forces that’s what we’ll say simply / progressive / forces (1s) ehm / at the place (8s) he can nevertheless /that / I have to add as / elucidation of the text]

Producing the translation of this part of the sentence was preceded by a pause of 8 secs in the TAPs (coinciding with a pause of 7.3 secs in the logs), presumably when the translation of the rest of the sentence was planned, including the decision to explicitate. Fredrik (TS) chose the same connective as Anna (PR), probably for the same reason, that the contrast was realized only at this point (see above, Example (34)). Their respective pause patterns are also very similar. The second connective, dock [however], was added during the post-writing phase, without any motivation. The process data from only one participant, Harald’s (LS) work on B8, shows evidence of a participant contemplating explicitation, but in the end deciding against it. His first TT version does not contain any connective. In the post-writing phase, he verbalized a decision to add a connective dock [however]: (39) Harald (LS)/TAPs: en av dessa nycker blev till en ödets nyck för Sjevtjenko (12s) va va är det eehm / bylo to cˇ to (ohörbart) ot prichotej pomešˇcika / odna iz etich prichotej stala / slu- (2s) en av dessa nycker blev dock / vi ska sätta ett dock där / det låter liksom / bättre sådär [one of these whims became a whim of the fate for Shevchenko (12s) what what is that eehm / bylo to cˇ to (inaudible) ot prichotej pomešˇcika / odna iz etich prichotej stala / slu- (2s) one of these whims however became / we shall put a however there / it sounds kind of / better like that]

After having written the connective into his TT, Harald (LS) continued working on sentence B8, not being quite satisfied with some of his other solutions in this sentence. Finally, he decided to remove the connective from B8, considering that “it does not sound good”. Thus, when a connective was explicitated, there was, from a process point of view, a difference between the professionals on the one hand, and the translation and language students on the other. The professionals tended to

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

explicitate in the writing phase, when writing down their first version, or when making immediate revisions within the sentence currently under production. Furthermore, in most cases this decision did not seem to be problematic. The non-professionals who explicitated contrastive relations with an adversative connective mostly did so at later stages in the overall process, when they had already produced an integral TT version, and were reading it through to revise it. Another difference is that the professionals, once having decided to insert an adversative connective and executed their decision, did not seem to give this matter any further thought. They kept the connective, the one that they chose in the first place. Students, even after having inserted an adversative connective, still hesitated and wondered whether to keep it or to omit it. .. No connective – no contrast expressed? The TTs of four participants, Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Harald (LS) do not contain any adversative or other connective in sentences B8 and D21. Isak’s (LS) translation of D21 is also non-explicitated. Harald’s (LS) work on sentence B8 was already presented in the preceding section. The TAPs and logs from the relevant sentences of the other participants, Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS), as well as Harald (LS) and Isak (LS) in D21, do not contain any evidence that they attempted or even considered adding any adversative connective. I will now address the question of whether there is any evidence in the data that the implicit contrast was nevertheless perceived as a contrast by those participants who did not add a connective. It will also be discussed whether they tried to express or emphasize the contrast in any other way than by adding an adversative connective in their translation. This question is of special interest in those cases where the participant does not add any adversative connective in his/her TT, but it will be considered to some extent for all participants. ... Repetitions, whims and happy coincidences In B7 and B8, the key words for expressing and perceiving the contrast are prepjatstvie na puti estestvennogo razvitija – prichotej [obstacle to a natural development – whims] and in B8 prichotej – sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost’ju [whims – happy coincidence]. One and the same word, in the same grammatical form, prichotej, is connected in B7 with a negative consequence and then repeated in B8 with a positive consequence (cf. Example (28a) above and its discussion). This being the basis for the contrast (cf. also Section 5.2.3), it is of interest to

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Table 5.6 Overview of participants’ translations of key words of sentences B7 and B8. prichotej (B7)

prichotej (B8)

sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost‘ju

Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR)

nycker [whims] nycker [whims] nycker [whims]

nycker [whims] nycker [whims] nycker [whims]

Daniel (PR)

nycker [whims]

nycker [whims]

Ellinor (TS)

nycker [whims]

nycker [whims]

Fredrik (TS)

nycker [whims]

Gabriella (LS)

godtycke [arbitrariness] nycker [whims]

lyckosam [fortunate] hans lycka [his fortune] lycklig slump [happy coincidence] lyckosam tillfällighet [fortunate chance] [ledde] av en tillfällighet till något bra [by chance led to something good] lyckokast [lucky throw]

infall [fancies]

Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

nycker [whims] nycker [whims]

nycker [whims] nycker [whims]

betydelsefull händelse [significant event] ödets nyck [whim of fate] turlig [lucky]

see whether the participants reproduce the semantic and lexical repetition of prichotej and thereby preserve the parallelism, and furthermore, whether other aspects of their TTs can be assumed or shown to account for the contrast. See Table 5.6. The repetition of prichotej in B8 is reproduced in all but two TTs, those of Fredrik (TS) and Gabriella (TS). Thus, seven participants preserved the parallelism in their TTs which in the ST is the basis for the contrast, both semantically and lexically. In the remaining two TTs, the parallelism is only semantic. It was, from Fredrik’s (TS) and Gabriella’s (LS) points of view, a deliberate decision not to reproduce the ST repetition. Gabriella (LS) had actually preserved the repetition in her first TT version, but during her postwriting phase, she reacted against the repetition in her own Swedish text: (40) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: han var helt och hållet beroende av godsägaren Engelgradt och hans nycker (2s) en av godsägarens nycker / finns det ingen ää / synonym för nycker / bör? ju? inte (2s) upprepa sig [he was entirely dependent upon the estate owner Engelgradt and his whims (2s) one of the whims of the estate owner / is there no eeh / synonym for whims / should? really? not (2s) repeat oneself]

Gabriella (LS) here expressed the norm “avoid repetition”. As mentioned in Section 4.5.4.3, this norm is presumably not translational in nature, but rather originates from writing in general, in this case in Swedish. Gabriella (LS) did

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

not seem to give any thought to the fact that there is repetition in the ST, and that this might carry some meaning which should be reproduced in the TT. She wrote infall [fancy] into her sentence B8, thus breaking the lexical parallelism. Contrary to Fredrik’s (TS) TT, her TT has not explicitated the adversative link, and her solution in this respect weakens the contrast (however, see further in this section). Fredrik’s (TS) case is more complicated. Although he did reproduce the repetition in his TT in the writing phase, his TAPs show that this was preceded by hesitation about whether to choose another translation variant than nycker [whims], in B7, which he thought sounded “too silly”. His TAPs indicate his awareness of the lexical repetition in the ST. In his post-writing phase, he decided to change nycker [whims] in B7 into godtycke [arbitrariness], although indicating again his awareness that this would remove the repetition from the ST. His decision to explicitate the contrast by an adversative connective was made at the same point in time, immediately preceded by a verbalization where he juxtaposed his two different translations of prichotej. A contributing reason for this explicitation of the connective may therefore be a wish to compensate for the removed parallelism: (41) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: Engelh-gardt (2s) och dennes (4s) godtycke (8s) jag skiter alltså i / nycker / vilket gör att jag inte kan / det korresponderar ju annars [. . .] en av dessa nycker (2s) dennes godtycke (4s) det visade sig (2s) det visade sig dock (3s) vara (7s) ett lyckokast (5s) när (3s) för Sjevtjenko [Engelh-gardt (2s) and his (4s) arbitrariness (8s) so I don’t give a damn about / whims / which leads to the fact that I can’t / otherwise it corresponds [. . .] one of these whims (2s) his arbitrariness (4s) it turned out (2s) it turned out however (3s) to be (7s) a stroke of luck (5s) when (3s) for Shevchenko]

In sentence B8, a key element is the predicative, sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost’ju, [happy coincidence, lucky chance]. Here, the most salient semantic element is the adjective “happy”, since the linking of this NP in the text to the preceding concept of whim presupposes the element of chance or coincidence, which is thus to some extent redundant. Both those semantic elements have been preserved in the translations of Christian (PR), Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS). Christian (PR) and Daniel (PR) translate literally, with an adjective with the meaning of “good” or “happy”, and a noun with the meaning of “coincidence”, whereas Fredrik (TS) and Isak (LS) find one-word equivalents that capture both semantic aspects. The translations by Anna (PR)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

and Berit (PR) preserve only the element of positiveness or happiness, not the element of coincidence. Of special interest are Gabriella’s (LS) and Harald’s (LS) translations, which are semantically the most distant from the ST. In Gabriella’s (LS) TT, the master’s whim is claimed to have been en betydelsefull händelse [a significant event]. This captures the significance of the described whim and can therefore be considered rather felicitous; nevertheless, the TAPs show that it is actually partly due to a misunderstanding on Gabriella’s (LS) part. During the writing phase, she did not look up the words sˇcastlivoj sluˇcajnost’ju in any dictionary, but translated them as en lycklig händelse [a happy event]. The Russian noun sluˇcajnost’ is etymologically related to the verb sluˇcat’sja/sluˇcit’sja [to happen] and to the noun sluˇcaj [case, event], and Gabriella (LS) most probably simply mixed up sluˇcajnost’ with sluˇcaj, perhaps not reading the word correctly. This cannot be determined from the TAPs however, which are inconclusive. When reading her TT version of this sentence during the post-writing phase, Gabriella (LS) expressed strong dissatisfaction: (42) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: blev en lycklig händelse / det är ingen / kan man inte säga blev lycklig händelse / det förändrade ju hela hans LIV / blev (12s) lycklig jag menar / vaddå lycklig händelse det låter som nån (2s) Astrid Lindgrensaga / jag menar herregud det var ju hela hans liv ändrades ju (2s) utav det här (bläddrar) (2s) lycklig / jag menar det är / jag tycker att det är fel ord överhuvudtaget [became a happy event / it’s no / you can’t say became a happy event / it changed his whole LIFE / became (12s) happy I mean / what happy event it sounds like some (2s) fairy tale by Astrid Lindgren / I mean my God it was his whole life was changed (2s) by this (looks in a dictionary) (2s) happy / I mean it is / I think it’s the wrong word on the whole]

She seemed quite upset by the formulation, stating that it sounded like a fairytale by (the Swedish children’s author) Astrid Lindgren, whereas as a matter of fact, “his whole life was changed by this”. Against the background of the knowledge that she had acquired from the ST on the life of the poet and artist, she felt that something was wrong in her text, but diagnosed the problem incorrectly as residing in her (correct) translation of the adjective. She therefore began looking for a synonym to lycklig [happy] in a dictionary of synonyms, without finding any that she could accept. After having worked on some other words in this sentence, she returned again to the task of finding a translation of sˇcastlivoj:

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(43) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: infall blev en lycklig händelse för Sjevtjenko / jag menar (2s) han tog med han till huvudstaden / och där träffade han honom / så presenterade han honom för den ryska kulturen / och sen så köpte de ut honom / jag menar / hela hans liv ändrades ju (3s) blev en betydande (3s) blev en avgörande (6s) betydelsefull händelse för Sjevtjenko [whim became a happy event for Shevchenko / I mean (2s) he took him with himself to the capital / and there he met him / then he introduced him to the Russian culture / and then they bought him free / I mean / his whole life was changed (3s) became an important (3s) became a decisive (6s) significant event for Shevchenko]

Having verbalized once again her understanding of the described event and its significance for Shevchenko, Gabriella (LS), after a short pause of 3 secs, proposed a new translation variant of the adjective, betydande [important], which was not at all derived from the meaning of the adjective in the ST, but from her own global understanding of the text and the described event. After considering a number of synonyms, and searching in a dictionary of synonyms, she decided to write betydelsefull [significant]. Thus, her choice was due to two factors: her erroneous understanding of the noun sluˇcajnost’ju and her wish to emphasize the decisive and life-changing effects of one of the master’s whims, that is, in fact, to emphasize the contrast. Harald’s (LS) translation of the NP repeats the word nyck [whim] yet another time, creating a triplet in repetition, ödets nyck [a whim of fate]. The chosen translation preserves the element of chance, although attributing it to a higher order, that of Fate. The element of positiveness or happiness is not unequivocally expressed by this translation: on the contrary, to most Swedes, this expression probably first and foremost carries negative connotations. Harald (LS) decided upon this translation during the writing phase, having first tentatively verbalized the beginning of a more literal translation variant: (44) Harald (LS)/TAPs: en av (2s) dessa nycker (5s) en av dessa nycker blev en / blev en (7s) blev en alltså lycklig (6s) slu- / blev till en lycklig slu- / blev (7s) blev till en / (ohörbart) / blev till en / blev till (2s) ödets nyck [one of (2s) these whims (5s) one of these whims became a / became a (7s) became a that is happy (6s) coinc- / became a happy coinc- / became (7s) became a / (inaudible) / became a / became a (2s) whim of fate]

A clue to Harald’s (LS) choice is perhaps his comment when translating sentence B7, which shows that his ambition is to give a dramatic touch to his TT,13 i.e., to some extent to emphasize the contrast:

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

(45) Harald (LS)/TAPs: god-tycke (3s) eller nycker (2s) nycker (ohörbart) / det blir bättre / det låter bättre (2s) blir mera dramatiskt [arbitrariness (3s) or whims (2s) whims (inaudible) / that’s better / that sounds better (2s) is more dramatic]

Thus, both Gabriella (LS) and Harald (LS) chose translation variants that depart from the literal meaning of the ST. A strict judge analyzing their TTs for fidelity to the ST might consider that they have departed too much from the ST. I hope to have shown that from Gabriella’s (LS) and Harald’s (LS) own points of view, their translations are the result of a correct understanding of the essentials of sentences B7 and B8 and an attempt to reproduce them for the Swedish reader, by translating in a way that emphasizes, or at least takes into account, the contrast. In conclusion: the contrast in the text segment B7–B8 was either explicitated with an adversative connective (5 participants) or indicated by semantic shifts (2 participants). ... Contradicting the Tsar’s orders – semi-legal action? The ST states explicitly that Shevchenko’s artistic work in exile was contrary to the Tsar’s orders, but at the same time it hints at a difference in opinion and execution of power in this matter between the central authority, the Tsar, and the local authorities at the site of exile. The key to this interpretation is the adverb in D21 polulegal’no [semi-legally], and the pointing out that Shevchenko’s artistic activity was made possible thanks to support from the local intelligentsia, implying that the local authorities actually disobeyed the Tsar’s orders to some extent. Shevchenko’s artistic activity was illegal from the point of view of the central authority, but admitted or legal from the point of view of the local authorities, i.e., semi-legal. Some knowledge of the relevant historical and political facts about Russia at the time will naturally facilitate this interpretation by readers. It is certainly no coincidence that the most experienced professional translators, Berit (PR) and Christian (PR), immediately understood the implications of this, as is shown by their very similar comments when they first read the ST in the pre-writing phase: (46) Berit (PR)/TAPs: jag tänker att det var / bättre under tsaren att vara i inre exil / åtminstone för de intellektuella / eftersom man kunde arbeta [I’m thinking that it was / better under the Tsar to be in inner exile / at least for the intellectuals / since they could work] (47) Christian (PR)/TAPs: det är det som är så typiskt med / det imperialistiska Ryssland och tsarryssland när allt var så hemskt / att där kunde goda

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

människor ha en chans att göra nånting / medan sådana möjligheter fanns inte i motsvarande situation under Stalin [that’s what’s so typical about / imperialistic Russia and Tsarist Russia when everything was so horrible / that there good people could get a chance to do something / while such possibilities did not exist in the corresponding situation under Stalin]

Both verbalized their understanding of the situation described in the ST as a regular situation at the time. They were both well aware of the potential contrast between official rules at the time, such as the rulings of the Tsar, and the extent to which these rulings were followed or not. A Swedish reader, less familiar with the historical context, might find it difficult to understand exactly how Shevchenko was able to carry on with his artistic work, contrary to the Tsar’s orders. Translating by a calque of the adverb polulegal’no would not necessarily be of much help, since the concept of semi-legality is probably not very familiar to most Swedes. How this key concept is translated is therefore of special interest; again, of course, more specifically so in those cases where no connective has been added, as in the TTs of Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS), Harald (LS) and Isak (LS). Furthermore, translating this word can be assumed to cause problems in the process for another reason as well: in monolingual Swedish dictionaries, one does not find words like halvlaglig or halvlegal, which would be the closest equivalents. The Russian polulegal’nyj is not found in any of the larger bilingual Russian-Swedish dictionaries either, nor, as a matter of fact, in the standard Russian monolingual dictionary by Ožegov and Švedova (1993).

Table 5.7 Translations of polulegal’no. Participant

Translation

Anna (PR) Berit (PR) Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS

halvt illegalt [half illegally] halvlegalt [semilegally] halvt legalt [half legally] halvt legalt [half legally] mer eller mindre illegalt [more or less illegally] även om det inte kan ske helt öppet [even if it cannot be done quite openly] “halvlegalt” [“semi-legally”] såg myndigheterna mellan fingrarna [the authorities turned a blind eye] mer eller mindre legalt [more or less legally]

Gabriella (LS) Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Table 5.7 gives an overview of the participants’ translations of the adverb polulegal’no. Berit (PR), Christian (PR), Daniel (PR) and Gabriella (LS) translated the word by a calque, either in one word or in two. Of these, Berit (PR), Christian (PR) and Daniel (PR), did not verbalize any problems in connection with the translation, although they all had quite a long pause in their writing process immediately before starting to write their translation of polulegal’no: Berit (PR) 18.3 secs, Christian (PR) 10.7 secs, Daniel (PR) 10 secs. From their TAPs it cannot be deduced whether any other translation variants were being considered, with the exception of Daniel (PR), who, after having written his translation, verbalized an alternative tentative translation (halvt lagligt), which he did not write down. Gabriella (LS), however, had considerable problems. In her writing phase, she first dismissed the calque halvlegalt as “impossible to say”, but wrote it into her TT in spite of this. In her post-writing phase, she devoted considerable time and processing to this word, also considering making an implicitation: (48) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: egentligen behöver man inte med halvlegalt för jag menar han fick ju inte skriva / och då är det uppenbart att han / gjorde det (2s) lite / skumt [you don’t really have to say semi-legally because I mean he was not allowed to write / and then it’s obvious that he / did it (2s) a bit / suspiciously]

Returning to this problem later on, she repeated the same two reasons for potentially omitting it in the translation; however, she decided to keep it but put it in quotation marks: (49) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: HALVLEGALT / vad är halvlegalt (4s) nånting kan ju inte vara halvlegalt (6s) polulegal’no / ja ja (3s) egentligen så är det så här överflödigt ord men då sätter vi det inom såna hära / vad heter det / citationstecken [SEMILEGALLY / what is semilegally (4s) something can’t be semilegal (6s) polulegal’no / well well (3s) actually this is a redundant word but then we’ll put it it in those / what’s it called / quotation marks]

Gabriella’a (LS) verbalizations show clearly that she was quite aware of the contrast. It is not quite clear whether the quotation marks were intended to mark off the word as non-existing in Swedish or to mark it as redundant in the context; in any case, they also have the effect of drawing the reader’s attention to this key concept, allowing an ironic interpretation and thereby in a way emphasizing the contrast.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Ellinor (TS), Fredrik (TS), Harald (LS) and Isak (LS) chose translation variants that involve paraphrasing. Isak (TS) experienced problems with polulegal’no, which became clear already during the pre-writing phase: (50) Isak (LS)/TAPs: po-lu-legal’no / HALVLEGALT / zanimat’sja tvorˇcestvom / med sitt skapande / men / HALVLEGALT / polulegal’no (skrattar) / hjälp mig (skrattar) / hur / gör man nånting halvlegalt [po-lu-legal’no / SEMI-LEGALLY / zanimat’sja tvorˇcestvom / med sitt skapande / men / SEMI-LEGALLY / polulegal’no (laughs) / help me (laughs) / how / do you do something semi-legally]

In the writing phase, Isak (LS) devoted considerable effort to the translation of this word, consulting, without result, both a bilingual Russian-Swedish dictionary and a monolingual Russian dictionary by Ožegov and Švedova (1993). He managed to find a translation that he could accept only after he had used the “scenes-and-frames” strategy (cf. Kussmaul 1995), visualizing himself doing something that is polulegal’no: (51) Isak/TAPs: vad är egentligen halvlegalt / (bläddrar) (8s) det är lite omöjligt / (bläddrar) (5s) det är / lite / lite legalt (2s) när jag går / mot röd gubbe / (ohörbart) (bläddrar) (5s) mhm (bläddrar) (11s) ja det var ju ännu / värre? (5s) ehm (5s) mer eller mindre legalt [what is semi-legally really / (looks in dictionary) (8s) it’s a bit impossible / (looks in dictionary) (5s) it is / a bit / a bit legally (2s) like when I cross / against the red light (inaudible) (looks in dictionary) (5s) mhm (looks in dictionary) (11s) well that’s even / worse? (5s) ehm (5s) more or less legally]

Harald (LS) also had problems translating polulegal’no. In the writing phase, he verbalized the tentative translation halvofficiellt [half officially], but decided on the calque halvlegal. Returning to the problem in the post-writing phase, he tried paraphrasing in the TL and made a semantic shift, changing his translation of ST smog [he could/was able to], from han kunde [he could] to fick han tillåtelse [he was given permission]. This is a kind of explicitation, since it specifies how Shevchenko was able to work as an artist: he was given permission. Having written this, Harald (LS) read the beginning of his TT sentence several times again, verbalizing some more tentative equivalents to polulegal’no: om än något [even if somewhat] and inte helt [not completely]. Then, after a pause of seven seconds in the verbalizations, he verbalized a translation that is a further explicitation, in that it specifies also who gave the permission that enabled Shevchenko to work as an artist:

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

(52) Harald (LS)/TAPs: tack vare den reformvänliga ortens intelligentsia fick han under sina tio år av förvisningen till stäpperna i Kasachstan tillåtelse att skapa (3s) -igentsians / tack vare den reformvänliga ortens (4s) intelligenstians (2s) tack vare / orten (ohörbart) / den reformvänliga ortens / tack vare hjälp / tack vare (4s) tack vare den (3s) tack vare / (suckar) den reformvänliga ortens intelligentsia (2s) fick han (3s) fick han under (ohörbart) tillåtelse (3s) att bedriva skapande verk- / om än / något / inte helt (7s) såg myndigheterna mellan fingrarna och tillät honom [thanks to the reform favourable intelligentsia of the place he was permitted to create during his ten years of exile to the steppes of Kazakhstan (3s) -igentsian / thanks to the reform favourable intelligenstia (4s) of the place (2s) thanks to / the place (inaudible) of the reform favourable place / thanks to help / thanks to (4s) thanks to the (3s) thanks to / (sighs) the intelligentsia of the reform favourable place (2s) he was permitted (3s) he was during (inaudible) permitted (3s) to have creative activ- / even if / somewhat / not completely (7s) the authorities turned a blind eye and allowed him]

Fredrik’s (TS) translation of polulegal’no can also be characterized as explicitated. He first wrote a calque, halvt lagligt. In his post-writing phase, this was first changed into om än inte helt lagligt [although not completely legally]. Later, this was changed into även om det inte kan ske helt lagligt [even if it cannot be done completely legally], i.e., from an adverbial into a full subordinate clause. After that, lagligt was changed into öppet [openly]. Fredrik (TS), as a matter of fact, shows a strong tendency to explicitate in this translation. Apart from the two text sections analyzed here, he also explicitates, with adversative connectives, the contrast between sentences B6 and B7, as well as between sentences F29 and F30 (see his TT in Appendix 3). He is quite aware of his tendency to explicitate. Being a translation student, he is obviously in the process of experimenting with his individual way of translating. In another part of his TAPs, he even admonished himself for making too many additions, which can be seen as an expression of his work process of internalizing norms for translated texts: (53) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: man skulle gärna vilja (ohörbart) lite svenska / ehmm (2s) textbindare men / men / äh okej / det / det går ju liksom ändå / jag behöver inte överförtydliga och / inte för mycket dock och men och / ja / syfta tillbaks alltså / till nåt föregående / det får väl vara lite rapsodiskt antar jag (3s) fast då blir man inte av med det här (3s) då har man det ryska kvar (3s) men okej

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

[I would really like to (inaudible) some Swedish / ehmm (2s) text linking devices but / but / eeh OK / it / it kind of works without that / I don’t have to make it overly explicit and / not too many however and but and / well / refer backwards / to something earlier / it can be a bit rhapsodic I suppose (3s) but then you don’t get rid of this (3s) you still have the Russian left (3s) but OK]

In conclusion: although only four participants explicitated the contrast between sentences D20 and D21 with an adversative connective (cf. Table 5.4), several of the remaining participants translated the key word of the sentence in a way that can either be characterized as an explicitation, or can be assumed to direct the reader’s attention to it, and thereby to some extent emphasize the contrast.

. Temporal and causal links .. The ST segments For the analysis in this section, two text sections from the ST have been chosen, given below as 5.54a and 5.55a. Both consist of two sentences each, separated by a full stop. (54) a.

D17 No ˇcerez dva goda ego arestovyvajut za uˇcastie ‘but after two years him they.arrest for participation v tajnoj politiˇceskoj organizacii Kirillo-Mefodievskom in secret political organization Kirillo-Methodiusian obšˇcestve. association’ D18 V ruki policii popali soˇcinenija poeta, v kotorych ‘in hands police’s fell works poet’s in which ostro obliˇcalsja antinarodnyj gosudarstvennyj stroj sharply was.unveiled anti-people’s governmental system Rossijskoj imperii. Russian empire’s’ b. Two years later he was arrested as a member of the Society of Cyril and Methodius, a secret political organization. Shevchenko’s writings, vividly exposing the anti-popular state system of Russian empire, fell into the hands of the police. (Stepovik 1984: 15)

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Semantically, the link between sentences D17 and D18 can be one of several, and the text allows different interpretations. The linguistically unmarked interpretation is that the actions denoted follow each other in time, so that the action in D17 occurs before that in D18, and the text follows the natural chronology. This would mean that Shevchenko was first arrested, and then, as a consequence of this, for instance when searching his lodgings, the police got hold of his manuscripts. The finding of the manuscripts could then be seen as a consequence of the arrest. Sentence D18 could in this interpretation be seen as a kind of (implicit) partial explanation for the severity of the subsequent punishment, and for the fact that the Tsar himself prohibited Shevchenko from writing or painting during his exile (see Example (29a), presented in Section 5.4.1). However, linguistically the text allows another interpretation, too: that the manuscripts first somehow fell into the hands of the police, and that this was the reason why Shevchenko was arrested. Thus, sentence D18 can be assigned two different temporal readings, and as a consequence also two potentially different causal relations: one which points backwards, giving the cause of the action mentioned in the preceding sentence, and one which points forwards, giving the cause of the action mentioned in the following sentence. The finite verb forms in sentence D17 (as well as in the preceding sentence D16) are in the historical present, and in D18 are in the preterite. The historical present is quite frequently used for narrating main-line events (Grenoble 1998: 216, 218) in a wide variety of Russian registers, more frequent it would seem than in Swedish, although it is a possibility in that language as well (Teleman et al. 1999b: 219–221). In this text, its use is an example of the ‘biographical’ historical present tense (Russkaja grammatika 1980a: 622), a common feature in this kind of biographical account in Russian, as well as in other languages. It is also common to mix the historical present and the preterite in a narrative. In such cases, the preterite can be used to signal anteriority (Grenoble 1998: 218–219), but this need not be the case. The two tenses can be used together even within a sentence to signal successive events (see Chvany 1985: 261; Ekblom 1960: 165; Grenoble 1998: 220; cf. also the examples in Gužba 1967: 144; Pul’kina & Zachava-Nekrasova 1968: 337; Rozental’ 1976: 291). This does not necessarily mean that in cases such as the one here, there is a time difference between the actions or that the actions are viewed as belonging to two different points of orientation or thematic times, nor that the chronological order of the events should be interpreted as being the reverse, i.e., that the verb in the preterite should obligatorily be assigned a reading as being anterior in relation the verb in the historical present. On the contrary, a verb of the imperfect aspect in the present tense can perfectly well

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

denote sequentiality, just as if it were in the preterite of the perfective aspect (cf. Chvany 1985: 258). Since the ST is a biography of an historical person, only one of the two possible temporal interpretations is actually correct, and that is the second one, that the arrest took place before the finding of the manuscripts. The reason that Shevchenko was actually arrested was that someone informed on him, and the police made a search only after this, finding the manuscripts. This is made clear in the longer text in Ukrainian in the book on Shevchenko. This does not, however, resolve the ambiguity of the Russian text, and is in fact irrelevant to the present study, which focuses on the participants’ processing during the translation task. None of the nine participants consulted the Ukrainian text regarding this matter, or any other source of information, to find out any facts in connection with translating this part of the text. This ST segment would thus in fact seem to be quite irrelevant to the problem of marking anteriority when translating into Swedish. The analysis will show, however, that for some participants, the question of the order of the events and their linguistic expression did nevertheless become an issue. The second text section to be discussed here is presented in Example (55a). (55) a.

E22

Ševˇcenko byl osvobožden v 1857 godu. ‘Shevchenko was released in 1857 year E23 Chodatajstvovali za nego peredovye ljudi Rossii i ‘interceded for him progressive people Russia’s and Ukrainy. Ukraine’s.’ b. Progressive Russian and Ukranian cultural figures fortunately interceded for him and Shevchenko was released in 1857. (Stepovik 1984: 16)

Here, both sentences have a verb in the preterite. The verb in the second sentence, chodatajstovat’, has the meanings: 1. to petition (for), to apply (for); 2. to defend, intercede (for), plead (for) (Oxford Russian Dictionary 1984). The general meaning is that people acted on Shevchenko’s behalf, although the ST does not specify how this was done. The verb chodatajstvovat’ is of the imperfective aspect. Ožegov and Švedova (1993) indicates that in the past tense, it is also perfective, whereas other dictionaries, e.g., the Oxford RussianEnglish dictionary, give the prefixed pochodatajstvovat’ as the perfective verb. However, the aspectual interpretation of the verb in the text here does not seem to matter for its temporal interpretation. If viewed as perfective, this means that it is an ordinary past perfective, with its basic meaning. If imperfective, it will be understood as the imperfective past of the general factual meaning, which

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

includes (potential) multiplicity of the denoted action, as well as indefiniteness of the time of completion (cf. Paduˇceva 1992). Both meaning aspects are present in the verb form in the ST. It is clear from the context that the verb in the second sentence denotes an action which took place before that in the first sentence, actually being the condition or cause for the occurrence of the action denoted by the first verb: Shevchenko was released from his exile as a result of the interception of progressive people in Russia and the Ukraine. This causal link is not explicitly stated in the text, and its interpretation is dependent on the correct comprehension of the two sentences, more particularly the interpretation of the second verb. The fact that the verb in the second sentence denotes an event/action which is anterior to that denoted by the verb in the first sentence is not overtly signalled, but must be inferred from the context larger than the clause, a not unusual form of expression in Russian (cf. Chvany 1985: 257, 162). As Example (55b) shows, the English version of the ST has made the two sentences into one, reversing their internal order, thereby creating a natural chronological order in the text. Furthermore, it has added the adverb fortunately to the clause. The causal link remains implicit in the English version. Translating the sentences into Swedish poses a number of potential problems. The first is to understand the meaning of the sentences and to work out the temporal relations. The second is that if the event in the second sentence is understood as anterior to that in the first sentence, Swedish requires an overt marking of the anteriority of the event in the second sentence, a solution which may not be self-evident to the person translating, as should be clear from the contrastive perspective outlined above in Section 5.2.4. If the internal order of the sentences is kept, the first verb being translated by Swedish preterite, and if no temporal and/or causal connectives are added, the second verb will have to be in the pluperfect. Furthermore, it might be problematic to decide whether to add any temporal and/or causal connective, and whether to keep the internal order of the sentences. .. Analysis of product data The solutions chosen by the different participants are found in Appendix 4. Their different translational solutions are summarized in Tables 5.8 and 5.9. There are several types of translation solutions, which differ regarding which temporal relations are expressed and how, and whether the causal link remains implicit or not:

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

1. No connectives, no tense difference between the verb in sentence 1 and that in sentence 2 in Swedish. This indicates “natural chronology”, i.e., that the action/event of sentence 2 follows after the action/event in sentence 1. 2. Tense difference between the verb in sentence 1 and that in sentence 2, in that sentence 2 has the pluperfect (or the perfect, if sentence 1 has the historical present). This indicates that the action/event in sentence 2 preceded the action/event in sentence 1. 3. Alternative 2 explicitated by the addition of a connective to show the temporal relation between the actions/events, e.g.: Han blev frigiven efter att/sedan ledande personer lagt sig ut för honom [He was released after leading persons having interceded on his behalf...], Ledande personer lade sig ut för honom och han blev sedan frigiven... [Leading persons interceded on his behalf and he was then/subsequently released]. 4. A connective or other construction can be added to show the causal relation between the action/event in sentence 1 and the action/event in sentence 2, e.g.: Han blev frigiven eftersom ledande personer lagt sig ut för honom [He was released since/because leading persons interceded on his behalf]. 5. Mixture of several alternatives. Table 5.9 shows the frequency of these solution types. Alternatives 1 through 4 differ in degree of explicitness regarding the nature of the link between the two events. The least explicit is the first alternative. Alternatives 2 through 4 are increasingly more explicit. In sentence E23, one professional and one language student chose the alternative that is misleading from a temporal point of view, and this is also true of sentence D18. The “morphological” solution (i.e., indicating the relation via choice of tense) was chosen by two professionals and one translation student. The remaining three, one professional, one translation student and one language student, chose solutions that combine correct morphology with explicitation of either the temporal or the causal link. Explicitation of the causal relation is found only in one example, Berit’s (PR) translation of E23. One language student chose the alternative that is morphologically misleading in sentence E23, but added an explanation.

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

Table 5.8 Implicit temporal and causal links in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, individual level. Segment 1

Segment 2

Anna (PR) Berit (PR)

D17 preterite hist. present

D18 preterite pluperfect

E 22 preterite preterite

Christian (PR) Daniel (PR) Ellinor (TS) Fredrik (TS)

preterite preterite preterite hist. present

preterite preterite preterite hist. present

preterite preterite preterite hist. present

Gabriella (LS)

preterite

preterite

preterite

Harald (LS) Isak (LS)

preterite preterite

pluperfect preterite

preterite preterite

E23 pluperfect tack vare + verbal noun pluperfect preterite pluperfect temporal subjunction + pluperfect preterite + explicitation preterite temporal subjunction + pluperfect + explicitation

Table 5.9 Implicit temporal and causal links in the ST. Overview of translational solutions, sentence level. 1

2

Solution type 3

4

5

D18 E23

7 2

2 3

– 2

– 1

– 1

Total

9

5

2

1

1

.. Analysis of process data ... Non-problematic decisions In nine cases, there are no problem indicators at all, or only a secondary indicator, a pause. However, the interpretation of a pause occurring immediately before the writing or verbalization of a verb is more complex than in the cases reported in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, since planning the translation of a verb more clearly involves several aspects, both lexical and formal (morphological, syntactical). Most non-problematic cases are from the process of translating D17–D18 (all participants except Ellinor (TS), and only one from E22–E23 (Christian

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

(PR)). Christian (PR) commented on the nature of the link and its appropriate expression in the TL in a way which shows both his comprehension and his routine in handling structures like these in translation: (56) Christian (PR)/TAPs: när det gäller chodatajstvovali za nego peredovye ljudi Rossii i Ukrainy / så är det ju så att / om det hade varit en mening bara för sig / så hade det varit typisk preteritumform / hade vi tagit då / men eftersom det först står att han blivit fri / blivit befriad / så finns det ett skäl att här ha perfik- perfekt / vilket är väldigt lätt att glömma när man översätter från ryska / eller ja i det här fallet pluskvamperfekt naturligtvis (6s) för perfekt och pluskvamperfekt har ju en / demonstrativ karaktär som / som / då bygger ihop de två meningarna [when it’s about chodatajstvovali za nego peredovye ljudi Rossii i Ukrainy / then it’s like this that / if it had been just a sentence on its own / then it would have been a typical preterite / that’s what we would have taken then / but since it first says that he was given free / was released / there is reason here to have the perfect / which is very easy to forget when you translate from Russian / or well yes in this case pluperfect of course (6s) because perfect and pluperfect have this / demonstrative character which / which / then links the two sentences]

Berit (PR) indicated during the post-writing phase that her choice of the pluperfect in D18 had been due to the different tenses in the ST (the historical present in D17 and the preterite in D18); this she obviously had understood as denoting anteriority of the action in D18: (57) Berit (PR)/TAPs: jag gör som orginalet alltså att jag (2s) byter tempus [I do like the original that is that I (2s) change tense]

In these cases, the participants did not hesitate regarding the solution. They interpreted the nature of the link and made a decision regarding the translation, all in one go, seemingly automatically. There are either no verbalizations at all regarding this, or verbalizations that do not indicate problems, but are mere statements. Pause patterns from the logs indicate that mostly, the decision regarding the translation of the verb was made along with decisions regarding the translation of other parts of the sentence. Only in Harald’s (LS) logs is there a pause (actually 2 pauses, 4.2 + 2.1 seconds), which may be assumed to have been caused specifically by planning regarding the translation of the verb and its tense: (58) Harald (LS)/ScriptLog: <26.7>Polisen<4.2> <2.1>hade fått tag i <16.4> p<2.6>oetens skrifter

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

In their translations of sentences D17 and D18, seven participants, Anna (PR), Christian (PR), Daniel (PR), Ellinor (TS), Fredrik (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS), used either the historical present tense in both sentences (Fredrik (TS)) or the preterite in both sentences (the remaining six), thus reflecting, quite correctly, as it were, the actual sequence of events. With the exception of Ellinor (TS) (see below), in their TAPs there are no indications whatsoever that they considered the possibility of the event in D18 having taken place before that in sentence D17. ... Problems in the process The data from the remaining nine cases contain problem indicators. One of those is from Ellinor’s (TS) processing of sentence D18. She first wrote a translation with the verb in the Swedish preterite, but then realized that the chronological order expressed by the verbs in the ST may be the reverse: (59) Ellinor (TS) /TAPs: polisen / kom över (2s) kom över / hmmm (4s) poetens / (4s)( 4s) eller jaha / det kanske är innan han arresterades naturligtvis / eller var det efter (ohörbart) / som / polisen hittade hans dikter [the police / got hold of (2s) got hold of / hmmm (4s) the poet’s / (4s)( 4s) or I see / perhaps it was before he was arrested of course / or was it after (inaudible) / that / the police found his poems]

Having left the matter unresolved in the writing phase, Ellinor (TS) returned to it later, in the post-writing phase. Her TAPs show that she was not certain whether the text can really be interpreted as expressing reverse chronology: she said she should have asked a native Russian speaker. Not knowing, she kept her translation in the preterite: (60) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: sen var det där med polisen ja (8s) v ru- / v ruki policii popali soˇcinenija poeta (3s) då är det frågan om / det skulle jag / borde ha frågat X och nu glömde jag det men (2s) de arresterade honom / man vet ju inte riktigt om v ruki popali om det betyder att de redan hade fått (2s) om de arresterade för / honom för att de hade hittat de här dikterna / eller om de hittade det sen när de / när de arresterade honom och / granskade hans lägenhet antar jag eller nåt sånt där [then it’s this about the police (8s) v ru- / v ruki policii popali soˇcinenija poeta (3s) then the question is whether / I should / have asked X and now I forgot it but (2s) they arrested him / you don’t quite know whether v ruki popali whether that means that they already had gotten (2s) if they arrested because / him because they had found these poems / or whether



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

they found them later when they / when they arrested him and / searched his apartment I suppose or something like that]

The remaining eight instances of problem processing are from E22–E23. The triggering factor seems to be the lexical meaning of the verb chodatajstvovat’, which is crucial for the overall comprehension and for understanding the chronology of the events. All participants, except Christian (PR) and Fredrik (TS), did one or more dictionary searches to check the verb’s meaning and/or to find a suitable Swedish translation. For some, finding the meaning solved the problem at once, and led to a translation that correctly, from the TL perspective, describes temporal and/or causal relations. This was done either immediately in the very first version written down, or in immediate revisions during the writing phase, as in the following examples from Berit (PR) and Fredrik (TS). Both first wrote a translation finishing E22 with a full stop. Then, after a pause (in Berit’s (PR) case quite a long one, due to a dictionary search), they deleted the full stop and continued their translation, joining the two sentences into one. Berit (PR) did this by changing the verb of E23 into an adverbial phrase, whereas Fredrik (TS) made E23 into a temporal subordinate clause, although his TAPs clearly show that he had interpreted it as giving the cause or explanation for the event mentioned in E22: (61) Fredrik (TS)/TAPs: Sjev- / tjenko / frigavs (3s) år / 1857 / ehm (5s) och sen kommer förklaringen / efter / efter [Shev- / chenko / was released (3s) in / 1857 / ehm (5s) and then comes the explanation / after / after] (62) Fredrik (TS)/ScriptLog: <1.2>Sje<1.2>vtjenko frigavs<1.4> <1.5>år 1857 <1.2>. <6.0>@ efter

Ellinor (TS), Gabriella (LS) and Isak (LS) all had problems in translating sentence E23, either concerning the nature of the link or regarding its expression in Swedish. Ellinor (TS) and Gabriella (LS) first produced TT versions with the verb in the preterite, thus not expressing anteriority of the event in E23 in relation to that in E22. In Ellinor’s (TS) TAPs from the writing phase, there is an indication that she had indeed understood correctly, since she considered adding för hans sak [for his cause, on his behalf], however she kept the preterite when verbalizing: (63) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: chodatajstvovali (2s) (ohörbart) (bläddrar) (15s) lade sig ut för honom / ja just det [. . .] lade sig (3s) ut för honom (3s) fast / lade sig ut för hans sak kanske / lade sig ut för honom

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

[chodatajstvovali (2s) (inaudible) (looks in a dictionary) (15s) interceded for him / yes that’s right [. . .] interceded (3s) for him (3s) but / interceded on his behalf perhaps / interceded for him]

Only towards the very end of the task did she verbalize a clear understanding of the temporal relation between the events. After considering some other solutions, in the end she decided to change the verb into the pluperfect tense: (64) Ellinor (TS)/TAPs: framåtsträvande människor i Ryssland och Ui- / och Ukraina (4s) lade sig ut för honom / eller hade lagt sig ut för honom (3s) nu är det frågan / han blev fri / men de lade ju ut / lade sig ut för honom innan han blev fri naturligtvis (5s) eller man kan skriva / det var framåtsträvande människor / som lade sig ut för honom (12s) jag skulle egentligen vilja ha en mening där / streck / framåtsträvande människor hade lagt sig ut för honom (7s) jaa / nej jag tror jag / jag skriver så / hade lagt sig ut för honom [progressive people in Russia and U- / and the Ukraine (4s) interceded for him / or had interceded for him (3s) now the question is / he became free / but they obviously interceded / interceded for him before he became free of course (5s) or you could write / it was progressive people / who interceded for him (12s) actually I would like to have one sentence there / dash / progressive people had interceded for him (7s) yeah / no I think I’ll / I’ll write like that / had interceded for him]

Gabriella (LS) reacted strongly during the writing phase against the translation of chodatajstovat’, suggested by the Russian-Swedish dictionary, but nevertheless wrote it into the TT in the preterite. In the post-writing phase, she once again reacted strongly when reading her own TT: (65) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857 / framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina la sig ut för honom / la sig / men vad är detta för nånting (8s) la sig / det måste ju vara att de gjorde det här möjligt för att han kunde bli fri [Shevchenko was liberated in 1857 / prominent persons in Russia and the Ukraine interceded for him / interceded / but what is this (8s) interceded / it must be that they made this possible for him to be free]

Clearly, she had understood the nature of the link, although not being quite certain, as is shown by her verbalization: “it must be that they made this possible”. She underlined the Swedish expression in her own TT, but made no revisions at this point. Later on, she tried to check the meaning of the verb chodatajstvovali once again, obviously not being sure that the translation she



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

had chosen really reflected what was in the ST, but without finding it. Instead, she started another search, in a Swedish monolingual dictionary, looking at the entry of her own Swedish translation of the verb lägga sig ut för [intercede for]. The dictionary confirmed her hypothesis that the general meaning of this verb can be interpreted as “they helped him out”. She now saw the possibility of joining the two sentences into one, and verbalized a number of tentative solutions, or the beginnings of such solutions (marked in the example with numbers in bold and square brackets), through reformulatins in the TL: (66) Gabriella (LS)/TAPs: då kan man försöka sätta ihop det / Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857 / eehm (4s) med (4s) äh / man kan inte / [1] tack vare / jag vet inte varför han bara? frigavs / men att / framskjutna personer / framskjutna personer / ehm / i Ryssland och Ukraina (18s) Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857 / [2] med (3s) och framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukr- / ehm (5s) ja det där var ju krångligt / men han fick ju hjälp av dem / man kan ju säga då / Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857 / [3] och han fick hj- (2s) han fick hjälp (2s) [4] tack vare / ä [5] framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina / ehm verkade aktiv (2s) för honom / och Sjevtje- / Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857 / och framskjutna personer (4s) personer i Ryssland och Ukraina (4s) verkade aktivt för detta (6s) ehm (13s) man kan säga / [6] framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina (2s) ehm / verkade aktivt för ett frigivande av Sjevtjenko / ehm / 1857 frigavs han / och 1857 frigavs han (12s) [7] framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina la sig ut för honom (2s) ehm (25s) framskjutna personer (8s) [8] var det för hans frigivning de la sig ut för honom (28s) [9] för ett fri- / frisläppande (2s) (7s) för jag menar frigivning / jag menar det kanske inte bara var det / man ville öö / man gjorde ju mycket annat (3s) för ett / arbetade aktivt för att frisläppande [then you could try and join it / Shevchenko was released in 1857 / eehm (4s) with (4s) eeh / you can’t / [1] thanks to / I don’t know why he just? released / but that / prominent persons / prominent persons / ehm / in Russia and the Ukraine (18s) Shevchenko was released in 1857 / [2] with (3s) and prominent persons in Russia and the Ukr- / ehm (5s) yeah that’s complicated / but anyhow he got help from them / you could say then / Shevchenko was released in 1857 / [3] and he got he- (2s) he got help (2s) [4] thanks to /eh [5] prominent persons in Russia and the Ukraine / ehm worked actively (2s) for him / and Shevche- / Shevchenko was released in 1857 / and prominent persons (4s) persons in Russian and the Ukraine (4s) worked actively for this (6s) ehm (13s) you could say / [6] prominent persons in Russia and the Ukraine (2s) ehm / worked actively for a release of Shevchenko / ehm / in 1857 he was released / and in 1857 he was

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process

released (12s) [7] prominent persons in Russia and the Ukraine interceded for him (2s) ehm (25s) prominent persons (8s) [8] it was for his release they interceded for him (28s) [9] for a lib- / liberation (2s) (7s) because I mean release / I mean perhaps it was not only that / they wanted ehm / they did lots of other things (3s) for a / worked actively for a liberation]

Gabriella (LS) here generated orally a large number of different tentative translation solutions (solutions 1–8) and in writing (9–10): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

tack vare [thanks to] med [with; probably to be continued: hjälp av – the help of] och han fick hjälp [and he got help] tack vare [thanks to] framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina verkade aktivt för detta/ honom [prominent people in Russia and the Ukraine worked actively for this/him] ...verkade aktivt för ett frigivande av Sjevtjenko [worked actively for the release of Shevchenko] la sig ut för honom [interceded for him] la sig ut för honom för hans frigivning [interceded for him for his release] arbetade aktivt för hans frigivning [worked actively for his release] arbetade aktivt för ett frisläppande [worked actively for his liberation]

She thus considered the possibility of joining the two sentences, even of making the verb of sentence E23 into an adverbial (1–2, 4). She also considered joining the two sentences with an additive connective (3), translating the verb by a modulation (shift of perspective). Variants 6 through 10 are once again closer to the ST; her final choice was a synonym of the explanation that she had found in the Swedish dictionary. Furthermore, she made an explicitating addition, in fact required by the verb that she has chosen, since it takes an obligatory object. It cannot be determined with absolute certainty from the TAPs, but it seems that she also tried reversing the order of the two sentences. Clearly, the translation of these two sentences, more particularly the temporal relation between them, posed significant problems for Gabriella (LS). Most striking in all this is that although it was quite clear to her that the action in E23 is chronologically anterior to that in E22, this did not prompt her to consider translating the verb in E23 with the Swedish pluperfect. Had she thought of that solution, she would probably have spared herself a lot of processing effort. Isak (LS) first chose the preterite in sentence E23. His translation of the verb, anhålla om [make a request for], takes an obligatory object, which



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

necessitated an addition (explicitation). He wrote anhöll om hans befrielse [made a request for his release], which clearly shows that he had understood the temporal and causal link. When subsequently writing the TT into the computer, he made an immediate revision. In this revision, he joined sentences E22 and E23 into one, making the clause in E23 a subordinate temporal clause, which, according to his TAPS, “is better”, at the same time changing the tense of the verb to the pluperfect: (67) Isak (LS)/ScriptLog: <4.1>Sjevtjenko befriades <1.1>1857<1.2>. De privi <3.3><1.4>@, eg@fter det att de p<1.4>@priviligerade m<1.2>@ <1.5>@personer <2.1>anhållit om hans <1.9>frigivning<9.2>

In sentences E22 and E23, only Daniel (PR) and Harald (LS) translated the verbs of both sentences with preterite forms. In Daniel’s (PR) case, this seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the verb in E23: (68) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: chodatajstvovali / za nego / peredovye ljudi Rossii i Ukrainy / ja de månade om honom / (bläddrar) (16s) ehm ska vi se (2s) chodatajstvovat’ / lägga sig ut för jaha (14s) lägga sig ut för är inte något roligt uttryck / (bläddrar) (20s) lägga sig omhulda (4s) tala för / tala väl för / fälla en förbön för / fälla ett gott ord / (ohörbart) mana (15s) (suckar) (4s) ehm jag tror att jag måste vända i alla fall på satsen (2s) och göra / objektet till subjekt (4s) han (4s) omhuldades av (2s) hmm peredovye ljudi Rossii / av (2s) han omhuldades / vad ska vi säga / i / progressiva / kretsar [chodatajstvovali / za nego / peredovye ljudi Rossii i Ukrainy / well they cared for him / (looks in a dictionary) (16s) ehm let’s see (2s) chodatajstvovat’ / intercede for yes (14s) intercede for is not a very nice expression / (looks in a dictionary) (20s) (reads aloud the Swedish synonyms from the dictionary) lägga sig omhulda (4s) tala för / tala väl för / fälla en förbön för / fälla ett gott ord / (inaudible) mana (15s) (sighs) (4s) ehm I think I’ll have to turn the sentence around anyhow (2s) and make / the object into the subject (4s) he (4s) was cherished by (2s) hmm peredovye ljudi Rossii / by (2s) he was cherished / what shall we say / in / progressive / circles]

His TAPs show that he had an initial meaning hypothesis regarding the verb, månade [cared for] which is slightly wrong or ill-fitting in this context. He looked up the verb in the Russian-Swedish bilingual dictionary, but was not satisfied with the equivalent given there, probably because it did not quite confirm his initial hypothesis. At this point, his TAPs contain no indication of

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

his realizing the temporal and/or causal link. Turning to a Swedish dictionary of synonyms, he found an alternative suggestion, which is in fact a synonym of his own first hypothesized meaning. However, its meaning does not easily permit the interpretation of a causal connection with the verb/action of the preceding sentence. Having the preterite for both verbs, Daniel’s (PR) TT consequently expresses the idea that Shevchenko was cherished by progressive people in Russia and the Ukraine after he returned from the exile. ... Other cases of explicitation of implicit causal links In some other cases in the nine TTs, there are also examples of explicitation of an implicit causal relation. Two are from sentence B7, where Anna (PR) and Fredrik (TS) explicitated the causal relation in “Shevchenko as a serf was dependent etc.” (see the whole sentence presented above as Example (28a)), i.e., that serfdom caused his dependence. Both Anna (PR) and Fredrik (TS) first wrote a more literal translation during their writing phase: (69) Anna/1st TT version/B7: Ett stort hinder för hans begåvning att utvecklas var det att han som livegen var totalt beroende av godsägaren Engelhardts nycker. [. . .that he as a serf was totally dependent. . .] (70) Fredrik/1st TT version/B7: Ett stort hinder i vägen för den naturliga utvecklingen av hans talanger var att han såsom livegen var fullständigt utlämnad åt sin godsherres Engelgardts nycker. [. . .that he as a serf was completely dependent. . .]

Both changed this in the post-writing phase. Anna (PR) did several revisions, resulting in a subordinate clause of cause: . . .eftersom han som livegen var totalt beroende [. . .since he as a serf was completely dependent]. No motivation is given in the TAPs for these revisions, but they were done during the third subphase, which, as we saw in Section 4.5, to a very large extent seemed to be focused on removing segments that had been literally translated. This sentence was actually restructured at this point in several ways, of which this explicitation is one. Fredrik (TS) also changed his translation såsom livegen [as a serf] into livegen och därmed [a serf and thereby] without any motivation in the TAPs. Sentence B10 has a finite verb in the preterite and a gerund phrase, which denotes an action that is viewed as preceding that of the finite verb, being the prerequisite or cause for it. Most participants chose here TT versions that leave the causal link implicit. However, Daniel’s (PR) translation of sentence B10 is particularly interesting, given the fact that in most of the cases discussed so far,

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

he has shown a consistent tendency not to explicitate (the only exception being the cases of additive coordination discussed in Section 5.3). He first verbalized a decision to translate the gerund with a finite verb and to add the connective därför [therefore] to the second clause, which in the Russian sentence contains a finite verb. These decisions seem to have been made without any problem, and his verbalization is a simple statement of fact, giving no motivation for the decision: (71) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: och här har vi gerundier / dem kan man göra / mycket av / uvidev /v Ševˇcenko / redkij talant k literaturnomu i chudožestvennomu tvorˇcestvu / vykupili ego (10s) jag gör om det till ett vanligt / finit verb / de såg i Sjevtjenko en / s- sällsynt talang / f-f- litteratur konst- (ohörbart) (2s) och så lägger jag till därför (10s) jag lägger till därför [and here are gerunds / you can do / lots of things with them / uvidev / v Ševˇcenko / redkij talant k literaturnomu i chudožestvennomu tvorˇcestvu / vykupili ego (10s) I will do it into an ordinary / finite verb / they saw in Shevchenko a / r- rare talent / f-f- literature art- (inaudible) (2s) and then I’ll add therefore (10s) I’ll add therefore]

In the post-writing phase, Daniel (PR) was not satisfied with this sentence, although his TAPs do not indicate precisely why. After having tried in vain to find a synonym to the verb of the first clause, he decided, after both long pauses in the TAPs and a sigh, to remove the connective that he had added: (72) Daniel (PR)/TAPs: de uppmärksammade Sjevtjenkos sällsynt stora litterära och konstnärliga talang / och friköpte honom / därför ur livegenskapen (11s) / (ohörbart) / uppmärksamma / de lade / lade märke till / (bläddrar) (2s) ehm / konstaterade / (bläddrar) (11s) (suckar) (27s) ja / det håll- / den här meningen håller om jag tar bort / därför (6s) som jag var så glad för förut [they paid attention to Shevchenko’s exceptionally great literary and artistic talent / and bought him / therefore out of serfdom (11s) / inaudible) / paid attention to / they noticed / noticed / (looks in a dictionary) (2s) ehm / established / (looks in a dictionary) (11s) (sighs) (27s) yes / it hol/ this sentence holds if I remove / therefore (6s) which I was so happy about before]

Especially interesting here is his comment: “... därför [the causal adverbial] which I was so happy about before”. From this it can be concluded that Daniel (PR), too, is very well aware of the possibility of explicitating logical links when translating from Russian into Swedish, but that perhaps his standards or norms regarding when this is permissible differ in some respects from those of the

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

other three professional translators in this study. It must be emphasized that the Russian gerund has no exact formal or default equivalent in Swedish, so that different kinds of constructions are generally recommended as Swedish translation variants. These most often involve a finite verb in Swedish, with some kind of explicitation of the relation between that verb and the finite verb of the (Russian) main sentence. For a detailed account of these matters, see Schmidt (forthc.). See also Zorichina-Nil’sson (2000).

. Summary and conclusions This chapter has looked at various types of implicit logical links, trying to answer the questions: – –

How persons with different amounts of experience in translation handle them in the translation process; and What TT solutions result from this.

Three types of implicit links were studied. In one type the implicit link linked constituents within a single sentence; in the other two types, the implicit link was between adjacent sentences in the ST. Both product and process data were studied. The first type analyzed, in Section 5.3, was asyndetic additive coordination within a sentence. This structural type is possible in both Russian and Swedish, but is much more common in Russian. Four different ST sentences and their nine TT versions were studied in detail. The predominant pattern was found to be explicitation of the additive link with a coordinating conjunction. This pattern was predominant in the TTs produced by all categories of participants. The few exceptions where the additive link was not explicitated were found in the TTs of the professional translators and one of the translation students. The chosen conjunctions were the same across participants to a large extent, but a stylistically less appropriate connective was found only in the TTs of language students. The process data revealed that, for most participants, the additive link in the ST and how to handle it in the process involved only non-problematic decisions, with no or very few problem indicators (see Section 5.1) in the data. Only in the process data from the language students were there a small number of indicators of problems in connection with the implicit link. The additive structure as such in the ST did not seem to cause any participant problems. At no point in the verbalizations were there any explicit comments on the

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

semantic nature of the relation between the constituents, neither were there any suggestions of adding any other connective than an additive. Thus, no participant seemed to be in any doubt as to the nature of the coordination. Once they understood the conjuncts, they also understood the relation between them. This can be explained by the fact that similar implicit coordinate structures are also found in the L1 of the participants, Swedish, albeit with a lower frequency. Furthermore, no participant seemed to be in any doubt as to the question of whether to explicitate or not, since there are no verbalizations at all regarding the possible problematic nature of the lack of a connective and the possible addition of one. In the vast majority of cases, the decision regarding the explicitation was made when the participant was in the process of writing down the first TT version of the sentence in question. The explicitation was mostly planned together with the translation of the following constituent; thus, it was not made as a revision of the already written text. That some planning was required, even for the more experienced participants, was indicated by the pauses (in the writing process and mostly also in the TAPs). In most cases, the solution first chosen for the explicitation was kept without any further revisions at later stages of the task performance. Only in a few cases was its exact expression revised. Process data thus indicate that this kind of explicitation is mainly of an automatic nature in the translation process of all participants and the textual solution can be assumed to be norm-governed. Explicitating this type of asyndetic additive link is thus a translation norm in translation from Russian to Swedish (at least in the given text type). Furthermore, it is a norm both in professional translation and didactic translation in this language pair. This result was expected in the case of the professional translators and the translation students, but more unexpected in the case of the language students. No doubt they have encountered examples of such constructions, and also translated them into Swedish, orally or in written form, in lessons and in tests and examinations, and in doing so have perhaps added, or been told to add, a conjunction or other connective. In spite of this, it is not self-evident that this should have led to the automation of the process of explicitation, as evidenced here. In fact, the fact that all non-explicitated cases are found in the TTs of the more experienced participants speaks in favour of interpreting this kind of explicitation as a translation norm. A norm can be followed but can also be breached (Hermans 1999: 82). Norms are unstable and different types of competing norms may exist in parallel (Toury 1995: 65). In some cases from

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

sentence C15, the choice seems to be precisely not to explicitate. Why this decision was made cannot be interpreted from the TAPs in those cases. A reason for this might be the (additional) explicative nuance suggested above (Section 5.3.1) in the linking. The two participants who chose to reproduce the implicit linking in this case (Christian (PR) and Ellinor (TS)) may have found a purely additive explicit link less appropriate. Also, the most varied approach in terms of treating the implicit additive constructions is found in the TT of one of the professional translators, Berit, another indication of the existence of parallel, competing norms. The other two types of implicit links concerned the linking of separate sentences in the ST. The second type of implicit logical link, analyzed in Section 5.4, was implicit contrastive relations between sentences. Five participants in this study produced examples of explicitation of such relations, four of them in more than one case. The remaining four participants did not produce any explicitations of this kind in their final TTs. A correlation was found between amount of experience in translation and consistent explicitation of contrastive relations with an adversative connective. Consistent explicitation was found only in the TTs of professional translators (3 out of 4) and translation students (one of two); the one case of non-consistent explicitation of this type was found in the TT of a language student. Thus, implicit linking of sentences where the second sentence expresses a strong contrast to the first sentence was explicitated with adversative connectives in most of the TTs produced by professional translators. The analysis of the data on the process leading to explicitation or nonexplicitation of a connective of contrast revealed that from a process perspective, the participants could be divided into three different categories: 1. Those who explicitated the contrast with an adversative connective, and for whom this decision was not connected with problems, i.e., it was automated (three professionals). 2. Those who considered explicitating the contrast with an adversative connective, but not consistently; they hesitated about it, and sometimes did it, sometimes refrained from doing so. Their decision-making regarding this showed signs of problems in the process (one translation student, two language students). 3. Those who did not consider explicitation of the contrast with an adversative connective at all (one professional translator, one translation student, and one language student).

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Participants in the first category decided on their explicitation during the writing phase, in most cases when they were writing down their first version of the sentence, i.e., quite early in the overall process. In this respect, there is a clear contrast with participants from the second category, who mostly started considering the explicitation only at a later stage, during the postwriting phase. Process data from the first category of participants (three of the four professional translators) indicate that handling this type of implicit linking in the translation process was not problematic for them. It can be concluded that they had encountered similar text segments before, and had elaborated a solution that could be applied here as well and processed in an automated way. These participants revealed a high degree of certainty regarding the explicitation, which is not found in the process of the participants in the second category. In their case, process data indicate that they are also aware of the possibility of adding adversative connectives in cases such as these, but they are less certain about it. The differences in processing patterns in the majority of the professionals on the one hand, and in the students from the second category, on the other, indicate that explicitation with an adversative connective can be considered a norm in professional Russian-Swedish translation of texts of this text type. As for didactic translation, the total number of cases is very small, but a tentative conclusion is that the explicitation of contrastive relations is not a didactic translation norm in Russian-Swedish translation to the same extent as the explicitation of asyndetic additive links (see Section 5.3). Various adversative connectives were found in the TTs. A tentative conclusion from some of the process data (see Section 5.4.3.1) was that the exact choice of adversative connective may depend on when in the process the contrast is detected. If this happened after the beginning of the sentence in the TT had already been written down, the tendency was to choose a connective that could be inserted into that part of the sentence which remains to be written. This can be seen as a kind of “economy principle” or minimax strategy (Levý 1967/1989) in the writing process, since the insertion of a connective at an earlier point in the sentence will involve backwards cursor or mouse movements, as well as in some cases revisions. Although most product and process data regarding the explicitation of implicit contrasts indicates clear differences between professional translators on the one hand, and translation students and language students, on the other, this is only part of the picture, for two reasons. One is evidence from the data from three participants, the third category above, who consistently did not add any adversative connective, nor does any available data suggest

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

that they contemplated doing so. The participants in this category do not constitute a clear-cut group in terms of previous experience in translation. On the contrary. However, it was shown in the analyses that the language student indicated the implicit contrasts in other ways in her TT (see Sections 5.4.4.1 and 5.4.4.2). As for the professional translator and the translation student, there are no verbalizations in their TAPs concerning the possibility of explicitation, so we cannot know whether they were aware of this option, although that would seem a reasonable assumption. If that is so, the reason for their closely following the ST pattern could be either that they do not perceive these segments as relevant for explicitation, or that their TTs show evidence of another, competing translation norm (Toury 1995: 62). Alternatively, the two options – explicitation vs. non-explicitation of implicit contrastive relations – could be seen as two different conventions (Hermans 1999: 81), none of them being a norm. The third type of implicit links under investigation were temporal and causal links (see Section 5.5). The analyses have shown that, in the present data, they tend not to be explicitated with connectives. A cautious conclusion is then that explicitating this kind of implicit link is not a norm in Russian-Swedish translation, neither in professional nor in didactic translation, at least not in the given text type. An explanation for this might be that causal relations, as mentioned in Section 5.2.4, are often implicit in texts, since they are easy to infer. It is clear from the data, however, that certain individuals (Berit (PR) and Fredrik (TS)) explicitate this kind of link more frequently than the others. When the temporal or causal connective is explicitated, this is mostly not connected with a problem in the process, i.e., it is a non-problematic decision. Two text sections were in focus. The relation between sentences D17 and D18 is actually not causal, since the preterite verb form in D18 denotes an event that follows in time after that in D17. This means that the verbs in the two sentences can be translated by the Swedish preterite (or historical present tense) to depict the sequencing of events in a narrative. This is also the choice in seven out of the nine TTs. However, in two TTs the pluperfect was instead chosen for the verb in D18, which is evidence that these participants (one professional translator and one language student) understood the event in D18 to be anterior to that in D17, being its cause. In both cases, process data showed that the decision to translate the Russian preterite with a Swedish pluperfect was a non-problematic decision. One translation student had problems in deciding between the preterite and the pluperfect, not being certain whether the Russian preterite can denote anteriority in cases such as these. Thus, of the nine participants, three, or one third, showed either in their TT or their process

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

data that they interpreted the link between D17 and D18 as (potentially) causal. For the remaining six participants, there are no such indications in the data. It can be assumed that once they had interpreted the verbs of D17 and D18 in the ST as denoting sequentiality and had found that interpretation plausible, they did not process this matter further, applying a minimax strategy (Levý 1967/1989; cf. above Section 2.4.4.1). In the second text segment, expressing the temporal and causal relation between the two sentences turned out to cause problems in the process mainly for the students (both categories). The analyses showed that in the process of translating a text with a narrative thread like the present ST, the default choice for translating a Russian preterite is the Swedish preterite. Russian preterite tends to be translated by the Swedish preterite, although the Swedish tense system is more differentiated. This solution tended to be chosen in the first place, even in some cases (Ellinor (TS) and Isak (LS)) when the chronological relations had been understood correctly. The Swedish preterite is thus an unmarked or first choice for translating the Russian preterite, with a “oneto-one correspondence” in the mind of the translator, at least if he/she is less experienced, i.e., a primary equivalent association in Krings’ terms (cf. 2.4.4.2). Christian’s (PR) comment (Example (56) above) can be seen as an indirect confirmation of this. As a professional translator and former student of Russian, he is well aware that this is a potential trap for the translator, be it because he himself has fallen into it on some occasion, or because he has seen others doing so. The SL form can cast quite a strong “spell” on the translation process of students, as is evidenced by Gabriella’s (LS) TAPs (see Example (66)). It is not likely that the participants would experience the same problems in choosing the correct tense in monolingual text production in Swedish. This probably means that in translations from Russian into Swedish, as well as into other languages, which have this distinction between the preterite and the pluperfect, pluperfect forms will be underrepresented in comparison with original Swedish texts, and in comparison with translations from languages that have the pluperfect. This could be investigated in larger corpora with translated and original texts. Implicit contrasts, as well as temporal and causal relations between sentences in the ST, may also be explicitated or indicated in the translation by other means than by a connective. Analysis of the TT solutions, related to process data (see Sections 5.4.4 and 5.5.3.2), revealed that some participants, although not explicitating with a connective, quite clearly understood the implicit links in the ST and that their chosen solutions of certain words or expressions in the sentences were intended to convey them. This was especially obvious in the

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process 

case of some students. It can perhaps be assumed that those participants who did not explicitate the link with a connective were more inclined to explicitate in other ways in the sentence, and therefore devoted more processing effort there. Furthermore, this would offer a tentative explanation as to precisely why explicitation of connectives is comparatively frequent: both the textual characteristics of implicit logical links and the solution, to add a connective, are fairly easy to identify in the process and to standardize, and therefore tend to become a norm. The verbalizations of those participants who explicitated indicate a clear awareness that the connective in the Swedish TT constitutes some kind of addition or change in relation to the ST. This is true, regardless of when the explicitation is decided on. For those participants who did this during the writing phase, i.e., in the course of producing their first TT version, it can therefore be concluded that they did their transfer from the SL to the TL on the basis of a mental representation that consisted not only of the meaning or sense of the segment to be translated, but which also preserved some formal properties of that segment, such as which words are actually given explicitly in the ST. The mental representation is thus of a complex nature. This is an argument against the deverbalization hypothesis in its extreme form (Seleskovitch 1968; Seleskovitch & Lederer 1984) and the concepts of strictly sense-oriented vs. sign-oriented translating (Lörscher 1991; see above 2.5.4.2). Process data thus showed that professional translators, when explicitating connectives linking sentences, did this early in the process. They did it in a way that was textually standardized, showing a limited range of variation. When language students accounted for implicit relations between sentences with various types of explicitations, this happened later in the process. The way it is done does not follow a regular pattern to the same extent on the textual level. Their explicitations were done to solve problems in the translation process and in (intermediate versions of) the TT. Explicitations of this kind were created when the participant reformulated a variety of tentative translation solutions in the TL, drawing on his/her semantic competence in his/her L1 (cf. above Section 2.2.1). This is thus an instance of processing at the second level postulated by Krings (1986a: 507; see also above Section 2.4.4.2); the combined intralingual and interlingual level of reverbalizations in L1 and activation of primary equivalent associations. Explicitation in the translation of language students is an individual solution, done to solve a problem; it is thus a strategy. The translation students seem to be situated between the language students and the professionals (see a similar observation in 4.6.6 on the basis of the analyses in Chapter 4). One of them made quite a large number of

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

explicitations, but they are a mixture of the norm-governed kind (that which characterizes the professionals) and the problem-solving kind. The other translation student, on the other hand, seemed to refrain from explicitations to a very high degree. She expresses in her TAPs several times a desire to stay close to the ST. This might be either her personal way of translating (and it coincides with that of one of the professional translators), or it might be a passing phase in her development towards professionalism in translation. As already mentioned, a condition for explicitation of an implicit logical link is that its nature has been inferred by the translator. The subject of future studies might be to control the conditions for the subjects’ inferencing processes and the effect on the translation process and the resulting TT. For instance, would guiding the process of causal inferencing via questions to the translator (for this ST: Why was Shevchenko arrested? Why was the punishment so severe? etc.) result in more explicitation of causal links in the TT? Would a title for this ST, such as “Taras Grigorevich Shevchenko – a life in contrast” result in a larger number of explicitations of contrastive relations?

Notes . These notions should not be confused with the similar sounding notions of reader-based vs. writer-based prose (Flower 1979). In reader-based prose, the writer has evaluated the text with the readers in mind, and therefore produced a clear and convincing text; writer-based prose in contrast is written by the writer for himself and to himself, often as a step in the writing process. . Komissarov (1969: 159) claims that English has, in comparison with Russian, a tendency to implicitness, but the categories given as evidence are not relevant for cohesion. In a later work, he mentions however that in technical and scientific texts, Russian use more intersentential connectives than English (Komissarov 1988: 8). . Blum-Kulka (1986: 33) considers that a complete study of explicitation in translation should include a contrastive study of cohesive patterns in the SL and the TL. I agree with this, for the cases when the study is based only on texts as data. . Vehmas-Lehto (2001a) gives examples of this type of explicitation of additive links in translation from Russian into Finnish. . Posledovatel’nost’ is defined as a text linguistic concept, realized in the ways in which sentences are joined together (Zarubina 1981: 23). . The letters A, B, etc., designate the paragraphs of the ST, the numbers designate the consecutive number of each sentence (see Section 3.4.2).

Chapter 5. Explicitation in the translation process  . In sentence A4, this interpretation is perhaps open to discussion, since it depends on a subjective evaluation of the importance of each of the qualities of Shevchenko that are enumerated in this sentence. . The only possible exception to this is sentence C15 in Isak’s (LS) handwritten first version of the TT. He has first written a comma, and then crossed it over and written the conjunction samt. The way it is written into the text indicates that it may have been written after the second conjunct was written (the whole of it or parts of it), but since that cannot be determined with absolute certainty, it has not been taken into consideration. . It should be noted that the corresponding word in the Russian ST, živopisi, is the head of only the first NP. . Parts of this section have been published in Englund Dimitrova (2003). . In all fairness, it must be mentioned that the estate owner in the ST is portrayed in an exaggeratedly negative way. More detailed biographical accounts of Shevchenko mention that his owner actually paid for several years of drawing lessons in St Petersburg before the artist was bought out of serfdom. . See also in Section 5.2.3.1 in the verbalizations similar instances of explicitating a connective in the Russian ST. . Connotations are not always shared between language users. Harald (LS) removed godtycke in B7 and wrote nycker instead, because he considered that to be more dramatic; Fredrik (TS), on the other hand, removed nycker from the same sentence because he thought it sounded too silly, and replaced it with godtycke (see above).

Chapter 6

Summing up and discussing the implications

. Summing up This study has analyzed a number of aspects of a translation task, as performed by nine people with different amounts of experience in translation. The study did not draw the overall quality of the translated texts into the analysis, since the definition of this concept is a research problem in its own right. However, this does not exclude the fact that aspects of the translated texts that potentially also have a bearing on their overall quality, have been dealt with. I tentatively assumed that a certain amount of professional experience in translation, i.e., experience in paid translation for interlingual and intercultural communicative purposes, is concomitant with (some degree of) translator competence, and, in some individuals, potentially also expertise in translation. The fact that a person has been able to make a living from translation can be seen as an (indirect) evaluation of his/her work. The empirical studies were reported in Chapters 4 and 5, with conclusions and discussion of the findings in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, which will not be repeated here. Cognitive aspects of the task performance were studied from the perspective of planning, text generation and revising, and their application within the task. Socio-culturally based beliefs about translated texts, their function and their possible relationship to STs were shown to be reflected in various ways in the planning, text generation (as studied with a focus on explicitations of implicit logical links) and revision. In this final chapter, some of the various threads from these discussions will be brought together. Section 6.2 will discuss features of translation expertise. Section 6.3 will discuss explicitation as a translation procedure and its purported status as a universal of translation. Section 6.4 discusses the issue of the validity and generalizability of the results, and Section 6.5 outlines some implications of this study for teaching translation to future translators.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

. Features of expertise in the translation process .. Planning, text generation and revision When discussing potential features of translation expertise, it is natural that we would be especially interested in the translation processes of the professional translators. Of special interest in this respect are the two senior professionals, since they are the ones who have the amount of experience that is, within the expertise paradigm, considered one of the necessary prerequisites for attaining an expert level of performance. It must be stressed that the following conclusions are of a hypothetical nature, due to the relatively small amount of data: a small number of participants, only one ST from one text type, and only one language pair. I assume, however, that the aspects highlighted in the following discussion are in fact wholly or partially language-independent, although that assumption naturally remains to be tested in future studies. Time spent on the task is an important aspect of translation expertise, for several reasons. One is purely practical: being able to make a living as a translator requires being able to produce translations that are acceptable to the commissioner within a reasonable time span. Of more interest from a theoretical point of view is that experts in other domains have been shown to perform tasks within their domain more speedily than novices (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 25), thanks to more efficient processing. They tend to retrieve solution strategies as part of their immediate comprehension of the problem and of the task. Furthermore, their relevant body of knowledge is both more extensive and more accessible (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 20–21). Some earlier studies of translation (Jääskeläinen 1999; Jakobsen 2003a, b; Krings 2001) have actually found that professional translators do not necessarily have a higher processing speed or finish the task in a shorter time than non-professionals (see Section 2.3.2). The results from the present study are more in line with general expertise studies – the professionals here all performed the task faster than the students. Furthermore, the senior professionals were particularly outstanding in this respect. As for relative allocation of time for the different phases of the process, the results indicate that there is no one single pattern that characterizes translation expertise as such. Earlier research (Jakobsen 2003a, b; Jääskeläinen 1999; Norberg 2003) has also offered contradictory evidence in this respect (cf. above Section 2.3.2). Since variation in this respect obviously does not correlate with amount of experience in translation or specifically with expertise in translation, other explanations should be sought. Different process profiles

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

were identified in the data, depending on how the processes of planning, text generation and revision were distributed over the task and within its phases. These profiles did not correlate with amount of experience in translation, and could therefore be assumed to reflect personal preferences. Although such individual profiles probably have some degree of stability, they can also be assumed to be influenced or modified in the individual’s process by factors such as the length of the text, the nature of the task for the individual (routine or non-routine) and time pressure (see Jensen 2000). Aspects of expertise became evident in the initial planning of the task. The professionals all did a translation-relevant analysis of the ST and the purpose of the translation at an early stage in the process, when they were familiarizing themselves with the ST. In this way, they saw already before starting to generate their translation that there was a potential conflict between some of the (linguistic) properties of the ST and the intended purpose of the translation. Realizing this and setting the goal of TL acceptability, from the start they set the value criteria against which to make decisions. This is a feature typical of expert processing in various domains (Ericsson & Smith 1991: 20). The professionals’ way of planning the task allows them to apply top-down processing from the beginning of their writing phase, when they write down their translation, enabling them to make decisions regarding sentences or parts of sentences against the background of the goal set for the text. They are thus able to integrate several of the characteristics of the focused situation into a whole, another distinguishing feature of expertise (cf. Ericsson & Smith 1991: 10). This corroborates what is already well known in translator training; the importance of how the ST is read and analyzed for translation (see Nord 1991). In the process of text generation, as analyzed through the segmentation of the writing process, the values for all parameters measured for the two senior professionals were outstanding. They divided their writing process into fewer segments, writing more characters, i.e., chunks of the TT, in each segment. This means that they planned and produced as a whole longer TT chunks than all other participants. Their expertise is shown by the fact that the only other participants whose values approached those of the senior professionals, actually started their text generation orally as a part of their initial planning. In the process of revising, the two senior professionals were shown to make a small total number of revisions in comparison with the other participants. Furthermore, these revisions were made almost exclusively already while the first TT version was being produced. They were thus able to produce a TT version already during the writing phase that they evaluated as finished enough for the translation purpose. In a sense, they had merged the text generation and

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

revision components of the process into one single phase, which can tentatively be seen as a sign of expertise. Note however that this does mean that they did not go through a post-writing phase at all. .. Literal and non-literal translation procedures in the process An element of expertise in the translation process is how experts use literal translation, understood as a TL version of a ST segment which is quite close, structurally and semantically, to the corresponding segment in the ST (see Section 2.4.4.1). Producing such versions in the TL turned out to be an important part of the translation process, often as the first version, both for professional translators and for students. It can be assumed that the reasons for producing literal translations as part of the translation process are different, depending upon previous translation experience. Language students are probably familiar mainly with this type of correspondence between ST and TT, since prototypically when translation is used as a language teaching and testing method, the aim is quite a close formal and semantic correspondence between the ST and the TT. Professional translators, on the other hand, know from their experience that too frequent use of literal translation will often yield an unsatisfactory TT, but at the same time, that literal translation can be a way of minimizing the cognitive effort required in the process (see Section 2.4.4.1). The professional translators had what seemed to be clear and individual routines for using and handling such structures in their processes. All participants monitored, evaluated and revised their text while in the process of writing it down, but the more consistent pattern of revision categories in the data from the professionals indicated that for them, writing down literal translations functioned as an intermediate step in their process. This can be assumed to have an important role in actually allowing them to process larger units, since writing down a part of a sentence in the TL liberates STM capacity for the processing of further parts of the sentence. Literal translations are therefore often used as a strategy in the translation process, presumably to expand STM capacity. To be able to use this strategy successfully, the translator needs to be able to produce short TL chunks (words, collocations, phrases and clauses) and evaluate them for TL correctness and stylistic and pragmatic appropriateness in relation to the translation purpose (cf. Pym 1992; Toury 1986). This evaluation is a demanding part of the process, since chunks of TL linguistic material are compared to SL stretches, requiring the translator to constantly switch between the two languages. This “juggling” to and fro

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

between the SL and the TL at times will make even a very experienced translator uncertain about the correctness and idiomaticity of TL material. This is evidenced by some of the TAPs of this study, as well as by the existence of “translationese” (cf. Gellerstam 1986), which can be seen as instances of nonsuccessful use of the strategy of literal translation. Evaluating for correctness and appropriateness is more easily done on the basis of larger textual segments and whole texts. This is why all professionals in this study insist on the importance of also reading the TT as a whole, preferably at a temporal and spatial distance from the ST. As already mentioned, the two senior professionals in this study made very few revisions during the post-writing phase. This indicates that to a large extent they had been able to manage the production of short acceptable TL chunks in the writing phase. Certain non-literal translations become generally accepted solutions in translations between a given language pair. One aspect of developing translator competence and potentially expertise in translation is to learn and internalize these solutions, since this will have a dual benefit. Firstly, it speeds up the translation process and secondly, it leads to a TT that can be accepted as a translated text by the TL linguistic community, by the commissioner of the translation, etc. Certain types of explicitations of implicit logical links were found to have this norm-governed nature in Russian-Swedish translation of texts of the particular text type studied here. The explicitations follow a regular pattern from a textual point of view, and process data indicated that the solutions were automated in the individual professional translators’ process to a large extent. It was more unexpected to find that one type of such explicitation, the explicitation of asyndetic additive coordination, had a regular and automatic nature in the language students’ texts and processes as well. The professional translators explicitated connectives linking sentences early in the process, which shows that they kept active some mental representation of the preceding sentence or text translated so far in the process; a necessary condition to perceive the implicit contrast. Here, professional experience shows clearly. Students who explicitated did so, as a rule, during the post-writing phase. This is true both for the explicitation of connectives and for the other kinds of explicitations discussed in Section 5.4.4. This indicates that students perceived an implicit contrast for instance as such only when they were able to read their own TT in Swedish. It can therefore be assumed that, although there might be some superficial textual similarities between different participants, there are important differences in their processing. All participants start by keeping close to the ST, and work on units of the text that are smaller than a sentence. The differences between experts and novices show not

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

only in whether they abandon this more literal translation, but also how they abandon it (by what linguistic means) and why, as well as when in the process this happens. The less experienced participants have to see the whole TT in the TL, to be able to take into account text building aspects, whereas the professionals can do this while they are still in the process of writing down the TT. This is further evidence that professionals are able to take into account several aspects at once, something that non-professionals are not able to, and who consequently need to work longer on the task, with a longer post-writing phase. Thus, one important aspect of professional competence and expertise in translation is to be able to handle literal translations in the process: to use them, in order to minimize cognitive effort, but also to apply appropriate procedures for evaluation and, if necessary, revision. The analyses in Chapter 4, and especially the conclusions regarding process profiles in Section 4.6.6, show that professional translators apply the strategy of literal translation differently. The prototypical patterns found in this study were: 1. Formulating literal translations, followed by evaluating and revising. The processing (comprehension and TL formulation) is done mainly mentally (here reflected in the verbalizations in the TAPs), and only after that is it written down. 2. Writing down literal translations, immediately followed by evaluation and revision. 3. Writing down literal translations as provisional solutions, evaluating and revising during the post-writing phase, when there is a complete TL text. Further studies are required to determine whether there are other patterns as well in professional translators’ processes of using literal translation as a strategy; and to determine to what extent these patterns are found in the process of translating different kinds of texts and in various language pairs. Differences in the use of this strategy may very well be expected, depending on the text type, for instance. It is also reasonable to assume that the specific language pair may be more or less conducive to the application of the strategy, for instance, depending on the typological distance between the SL and the TL. Literal translation as a strategy, in the sense discussed here, is probably more frequent in translating between closely related languages than between typologically very distant languages.

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

.. Learning by doing In Section 2.2.3, I briefly discussed some problems in connection with applying the expertise concept from the expertise paradigm to translation. Neither the nature of translation tasks, nor the nature of the professional experience in this field are prototypical from the point of view of research of expertise in other domains. In this study, the senior professionals met the requirement of having more than 10 years of professional experience, but they have not in any strict sense had a teacher or coach to help them continuously perfect their performance during that time. They have, however, received feedback, and have also actively sought it, by discussing various issues with colleagues. In their case, extensive experience and such feedback as has been available has resulted in a number of typical expert features in their processing, as outlined above. The experts can be singled out by a number of parameters. However, there were also important similarities in many respects between all participants, even those with very differing amounts of translation experience. The students turned out to have elements of the same procedural knowledge as the professional translators. This can be assumed to be a consequence of their experience from other domains. Thus, in translation task they can draw on procedural knowledge from domains such as: – – – –

Reading in L2 and working on the comprehension of L2 words, sentences, texts; Perhaps translating, orally in class, or in written form, for homework and/or examination purposes, texts and text segments in their L2 into L1; Producing texts in L1, although perhaps not this text type; Typing into the computer.

The possibility of drawing on experience and competence in a number of related domains when performing a translation task explains how it is possible to build competence in translating through repeated experience, self-monitoring and external feed-back, for instance, from clients and colleagues. After all, many professional translators have never attended any special translator program or training, but are still able to do their work satisfactorily. In the light of this, it is particularly interesting to note the various types of facilitation effects observed here in the course of the task: larger TT segments towards the end of the writing phase (see Section 4.4.2), decreasing pause length for planning certain recurring types of explicitations (see Section 5.3.3.2) and a growing specificity in the course of the task in students’ verbalizations in connection with revisions (see Section 4.5.4.3). The task does

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

get easier as it progresses. Obviously, that facilitation effects exist should not be taken to imply that expertise in translation or even “mere” professional competence in translation can be reached only by translating a text or two. This study provides ample evidence to the contrary.

. Explicitation – a universal in translation? One of the aspects studied here was the textual phenomenon of explicitation and its process characteristics. The results were summarized in Section 5.6, and also touched upon in Section 6.2. I would now like to return to the various claims regarding explicitation in translation presented in Section 2.4, and discuss its nature and status. It has been suggested that explicitation is a universal of translation. It has been claimed to be a (function of a) translation norm, or the result of processing, the translator’s interpretation process. Furthermore, it has been suggested that it is typical either of translations produced by professional translators, or of those produced by learners. Can these apparently contradictory observations be accommodated within a coherent framework? On the basis of the analyses in Chapter 5, I propose the following explanations. I suggest that in translated texts, there are at least two different kinds of explicitation, occurring for different reasons in the process: norm-governed explicitations and strategic explicitations. In translated texts (within a certain language pair and group of text types), certain kinds of explicitations occur with such a frequency and regularity from a textual point of view that they can be claimed to be norm-governed. In the present data, this was found to be the case for the explicitation of certain implicit additive coordinative links within the sentence and for implicit contrasts between sentences. Furthermore, the first type was norm-governed both in the professional translators’ TTs and in those produced by students. The norm-governed nature of the explicitation of additive links was evidenced not only by their frequency in the TTs, but also by the process leading to the explicitation, which was, for all participants, characterized mainly by non-problematic processing. For contrastive links between sentences, explicitation was found to be norm-governed only in the professional translators’ TTs. Both the textual patterns and the characteristics of their process point towards a norm-governed solution, being a non-problematic decision made early in the process. In the student data, this type of explicitation does not appear as a norm-governed solution. Either it is not found at all in any version of the TT or the tentative TT segments, or it appears late in the

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

process, being characterized by uncertainty and problematic decision-making. They have not (yet) internalized this norm. Strategic explicitations, on the other hand, occur in order to solve a problem in the process. To solve the problem, the translating individual reformulates a tentative TT solution in the TL, and in this process, various types of explicitations may arise. Examples of this type of explicitation were given in Sections 5.4.4.2 and 5.5.3.2. The examples given there were from students, but this kind of explicitation can naturally also be found in professional translators’ processes and TTs (for examples of this, see Englund Dimitrova forthc. b). Structurally and textually, strategic explicitations can be assumed to be of an ad hoc nature, being more varied than the norm-governed explicitations. These types of explicitations are, as a matter of fact, the result of the translator’s process of interpretation (cf. Blum-Kulka 1986), but in a specific way, namely the interpretative process that usually consists in reformulating segments of the TT in the TL (cf. Krings 1986a: 507). I would therefore suggest that many cases of explicitation in translation arise as a consequence of an “observable behavioural regularity” (Chesterman 1997: 71) in the translation process. This regularity can be formulated When translators evaluate a tentative TT solution negatively, they tend to resort in the first place to reformulation in the TL, rather than engaging in renewed processing of the corresponding ST chunk and subsequent renewed transfer into the TL.

The existence of this regularity was evidenced in the present study by the examples of strategic explicitations and by the analysis of problem representations in revising: very few verbalizations in connection with revisions indicated renewed processing of the ST, most were only TL oriented. This was the case for all participants, regardless of their previous translation experience. This statement is an example of a probabilistic, conditioned formulation. Whether it also qualifies as a translation law (Toury 1995, 2004) is not possible to say without further research. The various ways that a TT segment can be reformulated in the TL often entail different types of explicitation, when compared with the ST and SL. Exchanging for a synonym can lead to specification of meaning, changing a grammatical construction can involve (obligatory) specification of something which is implicit in the ST, etc. Explicitation can be viewed as a form of paraphrasing, and the ability to paraphrase is part of the individual’s linguistic and semantic competence, both in the individual’s L1 and in his/her L2 (BlumKulka and Levenston 1983; Hewson and Martin 1991: 30; see also above 2.2.1).

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

As such, its textual results are accepted as legitimate by language users, both by language producers (writers, translators) and by readers or listeners. This is the condition for their occurrence in translated texts. Explicitation is indeed a broad concept (cf. Klaudy 2000, 2001). The distinction proposed here (norm-governed vs. strategic explicitations) does not mean, however, that we should discard altogether textually based typologies and frameworks like the one proposed by Klaudy (1998, see Section 2.4.1.1). Norm-governed explicitations can be expected to fit within several of those categories fairly well. In the case of strategic explicitations, we may assume that once a problem occurs in the process and is (tentatively) solved by a TL reformulation, such as an explicitation, then factors such as the textually based hypothetical explanations can have an influence on the actual formulations produced. However, this can only be determined by further research. How then do translation solutions, such as reformulations including explicitations, become translation norms? I suggested in Section 2.4.3.1 that as a textual feature, the explicitation of implicit logical links is not an indication of the initial norm of adequacy (Toury 1980, 1995), since it obviously entails a deviation from the SL norms and the ST pattern. Does this mean then that it is an indication of the initial norm of acceptability? Drawing on the facts presented in Section 5.2 on textual patterns in the TL Swedish, it would indeed seem that the explicitation of implicit logical links is compatible with the initial norm of acceptability in Russian-Swedish translation. This is corroborated by the fact that, when planning the task and doing revisions in their TT, participants expressed in their verbalizations underlying values that also point towards the initial norm of acceptability (see Section 4.6.5). It is a fact, however, that not all participants explicitated. The less experienced participants, the language students, can be assumed simply to be unaware of the possibility of adding connectives when translating, especially intersentential connectives. Text structure and cohesive patterns are difficult to master for writers; since the main purpose of translation as a language teaching method is not to have the student produce a good TL text (cf. Section 2.4.3.2), aspects of TL cohesion probably do not receive much attention. However, two participants with more experience (one professional and one translation student) also did not explicitate consistently, although they, too, expressed values connected with acceptability. This shows that there is no simple one-to-one relationship between the values expressed and the chosen textual solutions. Their solutions may be evidence of parallel, competing norms, or of idiosyncratic behaviour.

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

How do translation solutions become translation norms – and how do certain values lead to translation solutions? For a given individual, certain types of explicitations may very well first occur as strategic problem-solving procedures. If evaluated positively (by himself/herself and/or by translator colleagues or teachers) the solution may tend to be repeated and perhaps eventually become automated. The overuse of explicitation noted by Levý (1965) for example, may be given alternative explanations. It has been shown in this study that even what has been called here norm-governed explicitations are not found in all the TTs of professional translators, and that preferences in this respect may thus differ from one translator to another. This may potentially lead to a negative evaluation of work done by colleagues following other norms that exist in parallel. Alternatively, translators who are still in the process of learning, for instance, translation students, can be expected to know that explicitation, of implicit logical links for example, is allowed or even desirable, but still have problems knowing when exactly to apply it. One possible consequence of this is overgeneralization, leading to an exaggerated use of explicitations. This was indeed the case for one of the translation students in this study. I thus assume that the partly contradictory statements on explicitation in the literature so far can be explained by two facts: first, that different (structural) types of explicitations have been observed or studied; and second, because the data for the studies comprised solely the translated texts. The types of explicitations suggested here cannot be identified from textual data only, but must be found in process data.

. The validity and generalizability of the results Quite a few conclusions, albeit hypothetical, have been drawn from this study, on the basis of data from nine participants, translating one ST. For a process study, this is not a small sample. On the contrary, it is quite a large one. Furthermore, the ST was quite long, and different methods and data were used (triangulation). In terms of process studies, this is therefore a large study. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the research design must be discussed. How representative are the participants? The professional translators all had substantial experience from paid translation, which was a prerequisite for participation (the minimum level was set at three years of at least half time as a translator, but all actually had six years of full-time professional experience or more). The translation students were taking a translator training program.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

The program has actually only been offered once in Sweden with this particular curriculum and language pair (Russian – Swedish), and from that point of view, it is of course doubtful whether it can be called representative at all, or if the students can be called representative of their group, which only comprised 10–15 students. As for the language students, they were probably interested in translation to some extent, otherwise they would hardly have volunteered to participate in the study. It is also debatable whether language students taking Russian in Sweden are “typical” language students. Russian is probably not a language that students choose to study without a genuine interest, either generally in languages or in Russian culture and politics. The participants were a sample of convenience. The four professionals were known personally to me, and so were the translation students. The language students were not know to me, however. They volunteered to participate after I had informed their groups at the university about the general outlines of my project. The participants thus cannot be guaranteed to be prototypical of their respective categories. An advantage for validity is that the ST is authentic and had not been manipulated, and furthermore, that a realistic translation brief was given for the task. Thus, the ecological validity in this respect is high. The research methods obviously have influenced the data and thus the results in some respects. The segmentation of the writing process would have been different if the participants had not been verbalizing concurrently. On the other hand, as shown by Jakobsen (2003b), subjects writing their translation without concurrent verbalization also segment their writing process into segments that are quite small, and generally smaller than a sentence. It should also be taken into account that it was thanks to the combination of research methods that it was possible to verify empirically not only that the segments were larger in more experienced participants, but also that these participants through their way of planning of the task, constantly had a larger unit, the (planned) text, in their mind’s eye while working on the smaller units or segments during the performance of the task. It must be pointed out that this study was not experimental with strict control of all variables. It is a case study, explorative and hypothesis-generating. It is precisely for this reason that conclusions have been formulated in terms of correlations. A correlation states that certain factors co-occur, without stating why this happens. However, correlations found can form the basis for hypothetical conclusions, and for hypotheses to be tested in other studies. An experimental study on the effect(s) of experience in translation would have required all other variables to be held constant. It would then have been necessary

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

to find participants who differ only in amount of translation experience, but who have otherwise comparable linguistic and other knowledge. Working with translation on a daily basis most likely leads also to increased linguistic competence in both the SL and TL, so subjects for a control group would have to be highly qualified linguistically in both languages, and might not be easy to find. When considering some of these results, it might be objected that the differences found between participants in different categories are due mainly or only to differences in their respective degrees of proficiency in Russian. It can be assumed that the overall language proficiency in Russian of the language students is lower than that of the professional translators and the translation students. This should influence, e.g., their initial reading, and most of their processing efforts can be assumed at this point to be taken up by the task of comprehension. The higher level of proficiency in Russian in the professionals and in the translation students can be assumed to have automated their comprehension to a larger extent, thereby liberating processing resources for allocation elsewhere, to the planning of the imminent task of translating. While the effect of SL proficiency should not be underestimated, it must also be pointed out that the degrees of proficiency in Russian among the professional translators and the translation students in this study also varied. During the pre-writing phase it became clear that one of the professional translators, who mostly translates from other languages and only occasionally from Russian, did not at first understand some of the key words of the text; it is also clear from the TAPs that the translation students had to make quite extensive use of dictionaries to make sure of the exact meaning of certain words and phrases. This, however, did not prevent them from planning stylistic and pragmatic aspects of their TT during the pre-writing phase. Further indirect evidence that language proficiency per se does not determine what aspects are focused on is found in Jääskeläinen’s data. The non-professionals in her study had good proficiency in the SL but no experience of professional translation or translator training (Jääskeläinen 1999: 93–94). None of them verbalized aspects of the stylistics of the ST or the translation brief during the pre-writing phase, whereas such verbalizations were found in the TAPs of two of the four professionals (see table on page 124 in Jääskeläinen 1999). Segmentation is most likely affected by the degree of SL proficiency. However, the case of one of the language students, discussed in Section 4.6.3, shows that deficiencies in SL proficiency can have an effect on pause length, instead of on segment size. It is perhaps audacious to discuss translation norms and norm-governed solutions on the basis of such a small set of data as the present one. Does one

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

single ST, translated by nine different individuals, representing several different levels of experience in translation, permit generalizations? It is clear that, in terms of the ST and the TT data, the textual base is small, and it is certainly not possible to draw very far-reaching conclusions regarding translation norms in Russian–Swedish translation, based only on this data. However, the purpose was another: to identify textual patterns that potentially are evidence of translation norms, in order to see whether process features can corroborate this interpretation. As already discussed, such features were indeed found, but obviously more research is needed regarding norm-governed translation processes, in this and in other language pairs, to see the generalizability of the results. I hope the method used here can be applied in other such studies.

. Implications for teaching translation One conclusion was that there are different process profiles, according to the time spent on the task and the relative allocation of time, which are a consequence of the processing within each phase, and also that evidence from this and other studies points towards the conclusion that experience in professional translation does not correlate with one single way of performing a translation task. This should be reflected in how future translators are trained. A translator training program therefore should not teach students one specific way of approaching a translation task, but rather aim at raising the students’ awareness of their own personal way of performing the translation task. It should also give them the opportunity to try out several different ways, by discussing not only the TTs produced within the training, but also the individual’s process leading to it, and its various aspects. Students should be taught to analyse the ST and the purpose of the translation and to read the ST with the translation purpose in mind (Nord 1991, 1997; Reiss & Vermeer 1984). They should be taught in this way to plan their translation already while reading the ST. However, they should also try different ways of reading and planning. More planning in the pre-writing phase leads in most cases to larger segments in the writing phase. Also, different patterns of dictionary searches can lead to shorter or longer segments in the writing phase. For the writing process during translation, and the assumed underlying segmentation of the translation process, there are thus different patterns, and we do not at present know enough to claim that there is a positive correlation between certain characteristics of the writing process during the writing phase, and producing

Chapter 6. Summing up and discussing the implications 

a “high-quality translation”. Therefore, it does not seem obvious that in teaching translation we should recommend one or the other method over others. Students should try instead different ways of segmenting their writing processes. They should also try different models of dictionary searches, etc – before starting to write the TT, before starting to write a sentence, in the middle of sentences – to see the effect on their process and product. This study has shown that translators mostly generate quite short chunks of TL linguistic material, mostly below sentence level. Furthermore, these chunks are evaluated straight away in the process and often immediately revised. This implies that students should systematically practise generating a number of different translations of the same ST, or of segments of texts (cf. Hewson & Martin 1991; Pym 1992). They should also practise how to evaluate not only whole texts and sentences, but shorter segments, in relation to the goals of the whole text.

Appendix 1

The Russian source text

Среди выдающихся деятелей украинской культуры особое место принадлежит Тарасу Григорьевичу Шевченко (1814–1861). Своим пламенным поэтическим и художественным творчеством он отразил извечное стремление трудового народа Украины к свободе. Шевченко прожил исполненную драматизма жизнь. Поэт, художник, мыслитель революционно-демократического направления, он страстно боролся против социального и национального угнетения своего народа. Все возрастающий интерес новых поколений людей к художественному наследию Шевченко кроется в глубоком демократизме его произведений. Сын крепостного крестьянина из села Моринцы (ныне Черкасская область), Шевченко с детства увлекался рисованием и сочинением стихов. Большим препятствием на пути естественного развития его дарования было то, что, как крепостной, он всецело зависел от прихотей помещика Энгельгардта. Одна из этих прихотей стала счастливой случайностью для Шевченко, когда зимой 1831 года Энгельгардт взял его с собой в столицу как слугу-«казачка». Здесь молодой Тарас встретил земляка – художника Ивана Сошенко, который вскоре познакомил его с демократически настроенными и влиятельными деятелями русской культуры. Они, увидев в Шевченко редкий талант к литературному и художественному творчеству, выкупили его в 1838 году из крепостной неволи. С 1838 по 1845 год Шевченко учился в Петербургской Академии художеств, проявив незаурядные способности в живописи маслом, в акварели, рисунке карандашом. Его учителем был крупнейший русский живописец Карл Брюллов. В эти же годы Шевченко сформировался как выдающийся народный поэт, поднявший красоту, звучность украинского народного языка на невиданные доселе поэтические высоты. Сила и правда его слова поразительна, она исходит из глубин жизни. Высокая гражданственность его поэм и стихов, их критическая

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

направленность против крепостничества и самодержавия обратили на себя внимание передовой части общества. Возвратившись в 1845 году после окончания Академии на Украину, Шевченко работает художником Археографической комисии при Киевском университете. Но через два года его арестовывают за участие в тайной политической организации – Кирилло-Мефодиевском обществе. В руки полиции попали сочинения поэта, в которых остро обличался антинародный государственный строй Российской империи. Шевченко приговорили к долголетней ссылке рядовым солдатом в Оренбургский корпус. Утверждая приговор, царь собственноручно написал на его деле, чтобы ссыльного поэта и художника держали под строжайшим надзором и запрещали ему писать и рисовать. Благодаря помощи и содействию прогрессивно настроенной местной интеллигенции он смог на протяжении всех 10 лет ссылки в казахских степях полулегально заниматься творчеством. Шевченко был освобожден в 1857 году. Ходатайствовали за него передовые люди России и Украины. Последние годы его жизни отмечены крупнейшими достижениями в поэзии, живописи и графике. Особенно большими и общепризнанными были его успехи в области гравюры. В сентябре 1860 г. совет Академии художеств удостоил Шевченко звания академика гравюры. Зимой 1860–1861 годов состояние здоровья Тараса Григорьевича, подорванное ссылкой, резко ухудшилось. 10 марта 1861 года он умер. Погребен был сначала на Смоленском кладбище в Петербурге. По его завещанию, прах весной того же года перевезен на Украину и захоронен на высоком берегу Днепра в городе Каневе, неподалеку от тех мест, где он родился и вырос. (from Stepovik, D. V. 1984. Taras Ševˇcenko. Živopis, grafika. Kiiv: Mistectvo, pp. 14; by kind permission from Mystestvo publishers, Kiev)

Appendix 2

English translation of the Russian source text

Among the outstanding figures of Ukrainian culture, a place of special importance belongs to Taras Shevchenko (1814–1861). He reflected the age-old freedom-loving aspirations of the Ukrainian working people through his inspiring works of poetry and visual art. Shevchenko lived a short, yet highly dramatic life. As a poet, artist and thinker of a revolutionary-democratic trend, Shevchenko ardently fought against the social and national oppression of his people. The growing interest of new generations in Shevchenko’s legacy centres on the profound democratism of his creative works. Taras Shevchenko was born into the family of a serf peasant in the village of Morintsi (today in Cherkassy Region). In his childhood he took a great interest in drawing pictures and writing poems. However, the development of Shevchenko’s talents was hindered by the fact that he, a serf, was at the mercy of whims of his master Engelhardt. One such whim turned into a great opportunity for Shevchenko when Engelhardt took him as a lackey to accompany him on his journey to Petersburg in winter of 1831. In Petersburg the young Shevchenko met a fellow-countryman of his, Ivan Soshenko, who introduced him to the democratically-minded and prominent figures of Russian culture. They discerned that Shevchenko had a rare gift for literature and art and bought him out of serfdom in 1838. From 1838 to 1845 Shevchenko was a student at St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts where he showed an unusual aptitude for oil and water-colour painting and pencil drawing. His instructor was Karl Bryullov, a prominent Russian artist. It was also at that time that Shevchenko became a poet of national recognition who raised the beauty and melodiousness of the Ukrainian language to unprecedented heights of poetic art. Shevchenko’s poetry is full of truth and power for it comes from the very depths of experience. Filled with feelings of civic duty and directed against serfdom and autocracy, his poems attracted the attention of progressively-minded people in Russia. On graduating from the Academy in 1845, Shevchenko returned to the Ukraine and began to work as an artist for the Archaeographic Commission of Kiev University. Two years later he was arrested as a member of the Society

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

of Cyril and Methodius, a secret political organization. Shevchenko’s writings, vividly exposing the anti-popular state system of Russian empire, fell into the hands of the police. Shevchenko was exiled to Orenburg to serve there as a private for many long years in a military corps. Approving the sentence, czar wrote with his own hand an order on the file: the exiled poet and artist to be kept under strict surveillance, forbidden both to write and to paint. However, due to the assistance of the local progressively-minded intellectuals, he was able, on semi-legal grounds, to engage in creative work over the whole ten-year period he spent on the Kazakh steppes. Progressive Russian and Ukrainian cultural figures fortunately interceded for him and Shevchenko was released in 1857. During the last years of his life he produced his most important works of poetry, painting and graphic art. His achievements in the field of engraving were particularly impressive and widely recognized. In September 1860 the council of the Academy of Arts bestowed upon him the title of academician. In the winter of 1860–1861 Shevchenko’s health, fragile since the exile, rapidly deteriorated. On March 10, 1861, he died and was buried at the Smolensky cemetery in Petersburg, but in the spring of the same year, according to his will, his remains were transferred to the Ukraine and interred on a high Dnieper bank in Kaniv, not far from the village where he was born and grew up. (from Stepovik, D. V. 1984. Taras Ševˇcenko. Živopis, grafika. Kiiv: Mistectvo, pp. 15–16; by kind permission from Mystestvo publishers, Kiev)

Appendix 3

The target texts of the participants

Anna’s (PR) target text Om Taras Sjevtjenko – översättning från ryskan: Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) är en av Ukrainas största konstnärer. Hans brinnande konstnärsskap återspeglar Ukrainas folks eviga kamp för frihet. Sjevtjenkos liv var fyllt av dramatik. Han var poet, konstnär, revolutionär tänkare och en sann demokrat och bekämpade lidelsefullt det sociala och nationella förtryck som hans folk led under. Nya generationer intresserar sig ständigt för Sjevtjenkos verk tack vare den djupt demokratiska tanke de bär. Sjevtjenko var son till en livegen bonde i Morintsy (nuvarande Tjerkassregionen) och tecknade och skrev dikter redan som barn. Han hade svårt att utveckla sin begåvning eftersom han som livegen var totalt beroende av godsägaren Engelhardts nycker. Men en av dessa nycker blev lyckosam för Sjevtjenko, då Engelhardt på vintern 1831 tog honom med till Petersburg som betjänt. Där mötte den unge Taras sin landsman, konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som genast presenterade Taras för demokratiskt sinnade och inflytelserika ryska kulturpersonligheter. Dessa såg i Sjevtjenko en sällsynt begåvning för litterärt och konstnärligt arbete och köpte honom 1838 fri från livegenskapen. Från 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid konstakademien i Petersburg och visade särskild talang för oljemålning, akvarell och blyertsteckning. Hans lärare var den framstående ryske konstnären Karl Brjullov. Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko till en stor folklig poet som lyfte det ukrainska folkspråkets skönhet och klang till dittills icke skådade poetiska höjder. Hans ord äger en slående kraft och äkthet, sprungen ur livet självt. Samhällsengagemanget i hans poem och dikter och kritiken mot livegenskap och envåldsmakt gjorde att progressiva kretsar i samhället fick upp ögonen för hans poesi. Efter avslutade studier vid akademien återvände Sjevtjenko 1845 till Ukraina och arbetade som konstnär vid Arkeografiska kommissionen vid Kievs universitet. Men två år senare arresterades han för att ha deltagit i en underjordisk politisk organisation – Kirillo-Mefodievskij-samfundet. Polisen fick tag

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

på dikter, där han gisslade det ryska imperiets odemokratiska samhällsstruktur. Sjevtjenko dömdes till flera års förvisning som menig soldat i Orenburgkåren. Tsaren stadfäste domen med tillägget att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle övervakas strängt och inte tillåtas varken skriva eller teckna. Tack vare hjälp från progressiva intellektuella kretsar på platsen lyckades han halvt illegalt ändå utöva sitt konstnärskap under alla de tio årens förvisning på kosackstäppen. Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Progressiva krafter i Ryssland och Ukraina hade kämpat för hans sak. Hans sista levnadsår utmärks av stora framgångar inom poesi, måleri och grafik och särskilt inom gravyr. I september 1860 utnämnde Konstakademiens råd Sjevtjenko till akademiledamot som gravör. Redan under förvisningen hade Sjevtjenkos hälsa undergrävts och vintern 1860–61 förvärrades den drastiskt. Han avled den 10 mars 1861. Han begravdes på Smolensk-kyrkogården i Petersburg. Enligt hans sista önskan fördes hans aska på våren samma år till Ukraina och gravsattes vid stranden av Dnepr i staden Kanev, inte långt från de platser där han var född och hade växt upp.

SLUT Berit’s (PR) target text Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) intar en särskild plats i den ukrainska kulturen. Han var en eldsjäl, och i sina dikter och bilder uttryckte han stark firhetslängtan. Sjevtjenko levde ett dramatiskt liv. Han var poet och konstnär och politiskt aktiv i den demokratiska rörelsen. Han bekämpade det sociala och nationella förtryck det ukrainska folket var utsatt för. Idag är han fortfarande en levande konstnär. Taras Sjevtjenko var son till en livegen bonde i byn Morintsy (nu Tjerkassyområdet). Redan i barndomen tyckte han om att rita och skriva dikter. Ett stort hinder för honom att utveckla sin begåvning var att han som livegen var helt och hållet beroende av godsägarens nycker. En av dessa nycker blev dock hans lycka. Vinter 1831 tog godsägaren honom nämligen med till staden som kosackklädd betjänt. Här mötte den unge Taras en landsman – konstnären Ivan Sosjenko. Genom denne blev han bekant med inflytelserika ryska kulturpersonligheter inom den demokratiska rörelsen. År 1838 köpte de honom fri ur livegenskapen, eftersom de ansåg honom vara en stor konstnärlig och poetisk begåvning. Åren 1838 till 1845 studerade Taras Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs Konstakademi. Han gjorde fina arbeten både inom oljemålning, akvarell och blyerts -

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants

teckning. Som lärare hade han den store ryske målaren Karl Brjullov. Under de åren utvecklade Sjevtjenko också sin poetiska begåvning. Han lyckades ge det ukrainska folkspråket dittills osedda poetiska kvaliteter. Det finns en styrka och en sanning i hans dikter. Hans poem och dikter utstrålar rättspatos; de är kritiska mot livegenskapen och självhärskardömet. För det möter han stort gensvar i demokratiska kretsar. Efter att ha gått ut konstakademin återvänder Sjevtjenko till Ukraina år 1845. Där arbetar han som konstnär för Arkeografiska kommissionen vid Kievs universitet. Men två år senare blir han arresterad för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation – Kyrillos- och Methodiossällskapet. Polisen hade fått tag i manuskript med skarp kritik av Ryska imperiets diktatoriska regim. Sjevtjenko dömdes till långvarig inre exil som menig soldat vid Orenburgkåren. När tsaren stadfäste domen skrev han med egen hand i hans mål att den deporterade konstnären och poeten skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och inte tillåtas teckna och skriva. Men tack vare hjälp från demokrater i trakten kunde han under alla de tio år exilen på de kazachiska stäpperna varade halvlegalt ägna sig åt sin konst. Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857 tack vare hemställan från demokratiskt inställda personer i Ryssland och Ukraina. Under hans sista år tillkom de största verken inom poesi, målning och grafik. Särskilt stora var hans framgångar som gravör. I september 1860 valde konstakademins råd honom till akademiledamot som representant för gravyrkonsten. Vintern 1860–61 försämrades Taras Sjevtjenkos hälsotillstånd snabbt. Hans hälsa var undergrävd av exilen. Den 10 mars 1861 dog han. Först blev han begravd på Smolenskkyrkogården i Petersburg. I överensstämmelse med hans testamente överfördes stoftet på våren samma år till Ukraina och begravdes på Dnjeprs höga strand i staden Kanev i närheten av den trakt där han föddes och växte upp.

Christian’s (PR) target text Taras Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) intar en särskild plats bland alla tiders främsta ukrainska kulturgestalter. I sin engagerade poesi och bildkonst återspeglade han det ukrainska arbetsfolkets urgamla frihetssträvanden. Hans liv var fyllt av dramatik. Som poet, konstnär och revolutionär och demokratisk tänkare stred han hängivet mot det sociala och nationella förtrycket av hans eget folk. När ständigt nya generationer med stigande intresse vänder sig till det konstnärliga arvet efter Sjevtjenko har det sin förklaring i det djupa demokratiska engagemanget i hans verk.



 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Taras Sjevtjenko föddes som son till en livegen bonde från byn Morintsy i vad som idag är Tjerkassy-distriktet och tyckte redan som barn om att teckna och skriva poesi. Det var ett allvarligt hinder för en naturlig utveckling av hans begåvning att han som livegen var totalt beroende av godsägaren Engelhardts nycker. Men av en för Sjevtjenko lycklig slump innebar en av dessa nycker att Engelhardt tog honom med sig till S:t Petersburg som kosackklädd passopp. Den unge Taras träffade här en landsman, konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som snart sammanförde honom med demokratiskt stämda och inflytelserika ryska kulturpersonligheter. De insåg att Taras Sjevtjenko var en sällsynt begåvning, både som poet och som konstnär, och köpte honom fri 1838. Tarasj Sjevtjenko studerade 1838–1845 vid Konstakademin i Petersburg och gav prov på en utomordentlig begåvning för oljemåleri, akvareller och teckning. En av de allra främsta ryska målarna, Karl Brüllov, hörde till hans lärare. Sjevtjenko utvecklades under dessa år också till en stor folklig skald som förde det ukrainska folkspråkets skönhet och klang till hittills aldrig skådade höjder. Hans poetiska verk har en märklig styrka och sanningskraft som kommer ur livets eget djup. Det allvarliga samhällsengagemanget i hans dikter, deras medvetna kritik av livegenskapen och självhärskardömet uppmärksammades av de progressiva kretsarna i samhället. När Taras Sjevtjenko 1845 återvände till Ukraina efter sin examen från konstakademin arbetade han som konstnär vid Kievuniversitetets “Arkeografiska kommission”. Efter två år arresterades han emellertid för delaktighet i en hemlig politisk organisation, Kirills och Methodios sällskap. Polisen fick tag i verk där Taras Sjevtjenko utsatte det ryska imperiets antidkratiska statsskick för häftig kritik. Sjevtjenko dömdes till flera års förvisning som menig soldat i Orenburg i södra Ural, vid den tiden en gränsstad i det ryska imperiets utkanter. När tsaren skrev under förvisningsdomen antecknade han egenhändigt i handlingarna att den förvisade poeten ochh konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och att han skulle förbjudas skriva och teckna. Med hjälp av progressiva kretsar i den bildade delen av befolkningen här lyckades han ändå under de tio åren av förvisning till stäppen i Kazachstan halvt legalt ägna sig åt sitt skapande. Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Framstegsvänliga människor i Ryssland och Ukraina hade agerat för honom. De sista åren av hans liv kännetecknas av betydelsefulla verk inom poesi, måleri och grafik. Särskilt uppmärksammade var hans gravyrer, som vann allmänt erkännande. I september 1860 gav Konstakademin Sjevtjenko titeln “akademiledamot i gravyr”. Taras Sjevtjenkos hälsa, som undergrävts av förvisningen, försämrades kraftigt vinter 1860–61. Han dog den 10 mars 1861 och jordfästes först på

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants 

Smolensk-kyrkogården i Petersburg. Stoftet fördes senare på våren i enlighet med hans sista vilja till Ukraina och begrovs vid den höga Dnepr-stranden i staden Kaneva, inte långt från de trakter där han fötts och vuxit upp.

Daniel’s (PR) target text Bland de framstående personligheterna inom den ukrainska kulturen intar Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) en särskild plats. I sin glödande poesi och konst speglade han det strävsamma ukrainska folkets urgamla frihetssträvan. Sjevtjenko levde ett synnerligen dramatiskt liv. Som poet, konstnär och tänkare i den revolutionära, demokratiska strömningen bekämpade han aktivt det sociala och nationella förtryck som hans folk led under. Det allt ökande intresset hos yngre generationer för Sjevtjenkos konstnärliga kvarlåtenskap bottnar i det demokratiska sinnelaget i hans verk. Sjevtjenko var son till en livegen bonde från byn Morintsa (nuvarande Tjerkassy-distriktet). Redan från barndomen var han mycket intresserad av att måla och skriva dikter. Den naturliga utvecklingen av hans begåvning försvårades i stor utsträckning av att han som livegen var helt beroende av godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. Ett av dessa nycker utvecklade sig till en lyckosam tillfällighet när Engelgardt vintern 1981 tog honom med sig till Moskva som sin “kosackbetjänt”. Här träffade den unge Taras landsmannen och konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som snart presenterade honom för demokratiskt sinnade och inflytelserika personer inom den ryska kulturen. De uppmärksammade Sjevtjenkos sällsynt stora litterära och konstnärliga talang och friköpte honom ur livegenskapen 1838. 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Konstnärliga Akademien i Petersburg och visade ovanligt stor talang inom oljemåleri, akvarell och blyertsteckning. Hans lärare var den store ryske konstnären Karl Brjullov. Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko till en stor nationalskald, som upphöjde det vackra och välljudande ukrainska nationalspråket till en poetisk nivå som dittills aldrig hade skådats. Hans ord äger en slående styrka och en sanning, som grundar sig i livets kärna. Den starka sociala engagemanget i hans diktverk och hans kritiska inställning till livegenskapen och enväldet väckte uppmärksamhet hos de framstegsvänliga i samhället. Sedan Sjevtjenko avslutat sina studier vid Akademien och återvänt till Ukraina 1845, arbetade han som konstnär på Arkeografiska institutionen vid Kievs universitet. Men efter två år arresterades han för att ha deltagit i den hemliga organisationen Kyrillos och Methodios Sällskap. Polisen kom över

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

verk av Sjevtjenko som gisslade det ryska imperiets folkfientliga statsskick. Han dömdes till flera års förvisning som menig soldat i Orenburgs armékår. När tsaren skulle stadfästa domen, skrev han egenhändigt in i akten att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och förbjudas att skriva och måla. Med hjälp av den lokala, progressivt sinnade intelligentian kunde han under hela den tioåriga förvisningen på de kasachiska stäpperna halvt legalt arbeta som konstnär. Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Han omhuldades i progressiva kretsar i Ryssland och Ukraina. Under de senaste åren av sitt liv utvecklades Sjevtjenko långt inom poesi, måleri och grafik. Särskilt stora och allmänt erkända var de framsteg han gjorde inom gravyrkonsten. I spetember 1860 belönades han av Konstnärliga akademien med titeln Akademiledamot med inriktning på gravyrkonst. Taras Grigorjevitjs hälsa, som hade undergrävts på grund av förvisningen, försämrades avsevärt under vintern 1860–61. Han avled den 10 mars 1861. Han begravdes först på Smolensk-kyrkogården i Petersburg. I enlighet med hans testamente flyttades stoftet på våren samma år till Ukraina och begravdes vid Dneprs höga strand i staden Kanev, inte långt från den bygd där han föddes och växte upp.

Ellinor’s (TS) target text Bland Ukrainas framstående kulturpersonligheter intar Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) en särskild plats. Med sin brinnande poetiska och konstnärliga skaparkraft uttryckte han det arbetande ukrainska folkets eviga strävan mot frihet. Sjevtjenkos liv blev fyllt av dramatik. Som poet, konstnär och tänkare med revolutionärt demokratiska idéer kämpade han lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtryck hans folk led under. Det alltmer växande intresset hos nya generationer människor för Sjevtjenkos konstnärliga arv beror på den djupa demokratismen i hans verk. Sjevtjenko, som var son till en livegen bonde från byn Morintsy (numera Tjerkassy-oblasten/länet), tyckte från det han var liten om att rita och skriva dikter. Ett stort hinder för att hans talanger skulle kunna utvecklas fullt ut utgjorde det faktum att han som livegen helt och hållet var utlämnad åt godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. En av dessa nycker ledde av en tillfällighet till något bra för Sjevtjenkos del, då Engelgardt vintern 1831 tog med sig honom till huvudstaden som ”kazatjok” (ung betjänt i kosackkostym). Här mötte den unge Taras landsmannen och konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som snart lät honom träffa inflytelserika och demokratiskt sinnade ryska kulturpersonligheter. Dessa såg

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants 

Sjevtjenkos sällsynta begåvning för litterärt och konstnärligt skapande, och friköpte honom från livegenskapen 1838. Från 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Konstakademin i S:t Petersburg. Han visade en ovanlig begåvning för att måla olja och akvarell och teckna i blyerts. Hans lärare var den store ryske målaren Karl Brjullov. Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko som en framstående folkpoet, som lyfte skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska folkets språk till dittills oanade poetiska höjder. Styrkan och sanningen i hans ord är slående – de har sitt ursprung i livets innersta djup. Den starka nationalkänslan i hans poem och dikter, kritiken i dem mot livegenskapen och självhärskardömet uppmärksammades av de progressiva grupperna i samhället. Efter att 1845 ha avslutat sina studier vid Konstakademin, återvände Sjevtjenko till Ukraina och började arbeta som konstnär i Arkeografiska kommissionen vid Kievs universitet. Men två år senare arresterades han för att ha deltagit i en hemlig politisk organisation – Kyrillos och Methodiossällskapet. Polisen fick tag i verk där poeten i skarpa ord avslöjade det ryska imperiets folkfientliga statliga uppbyggnad. Sjevtjenko dömdes till mångårig förvisning och soldattjänst i Orenburgkåren. Tsaren bekräftade domen genom att i hans akt egenhändigt skriva att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och förbjudas att skriva och måla. Tack vare hjälp och stöd från den progressiva intelligentian på platsen, kunde han under de tio år han var förvisad till den kazachiska stäppen mer eller mindre illegalt ägna sig åt konstnärlig verksamhet. Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Framåtsträvande människor i Ryssland och Ukraina hade lagt sig ut för honom. De sista åren av hans liv utmärktes av stora framgångar inom poesi, målning och grafik. Särskilt stora och allmänt erkända blev de framsteg han gjorde när det gällde gravyr. I september 1860 förärade Konstakademins råd honom titeln akademiledamot för gravyrkonst. Vintern 1860–61 försämrades Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenkos hälsa kraftigt – den hade undergrävts under förvisningen. Den 10 mars 1861 dog han. Han blev först begraven på Smolenskkyrkogården i S:t Petersburg. I enlighet med hans testamente fördes hans stoft på våren samma år till Ukraina, och begravdes vid Dnjeprs höga stränder i staden Kanev, inte långt från den plats där han var född och uppvuxen.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Fredrik’s (TS) target text Taras Grigorievitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) intar en särställning bland de större ukrainska kulturpersonligheterna. Med sin glödande poesi och konst speglar han det ukrainska folkets urgamla frihetssträvan. Sjevtjenko levde ett dramatiskt liv. I sin egenskap av poet, konstnär och teoretiker inom den revolutionär-demokratiska rörelsen förde han en lidelsefull kamp mot det sociala och nationalistiska förtryck som hans folk utsattes för. Det ständigt växande intresset från senare generationer för Sjevtjenko kan förklaras med den breda folklighet som präglar hans verk. Sjevtjenkos far var livegen bonde i byn Morintsy (idag tillhörande distriktet Tjerkassk). Redan i barndomen var Sjevtjenko road av att rita och skriva dikter. Ett stort hinder i vägen för hans naturliga konstnärliga utveckling var dock det faktum att han var livegen och därmed utlämnad åt sin godsherre Engelhardt och dennes godtycke. En av Engelhardts nycker visade sig dock bli ett lyckokast för Sjevjenko. Detta var vintern 1831 då godsherren tog Sjevtjenko med sig till huvudstaden Petersburg (idag S:t Petersburg) för att ha som betjänt. Här kom den unge Taras att träffa konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, en landsman som snart kom att bekanta honom med den demokratiska rörelsen och dess inflytelserika företrädare för rysk kultur. De upptäckte snart Sjevtjenkos osedvanliga litterära och konstnärliga begåvning och löste honom från livegenskapen genom friköp år 1838. 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs konstakademi och visade där i olja, akvarell och blyerts prov på en skicklighet utöver det vanliga. Som lärare hade han den store ryske konstnären Karl Brjullov. Det är också under dessa år som Sjevtjenko formas till den framstående poet, som kommer att lyfta skönheten och klangrikedomen i den folkliga ukrainskan till dittills aldrig tidigare skådade lyriska höjder. Hans språk präglas av en djup livserfarenhet och frapperar med sin kraft och sin sannfärdighet. Det sociala patoset i hans poem och dikter och dess kritik mot livegenskap och envälde väcker uppmärksamhet inom radikala kretsar. När Sjevtjenko år 1845 återvänder till Ukraina efter avslutade studier börjar han arbeta som målare för historiografiska kommissionen vid Kievuniversitetet. Men efter två år blir han arresterad för att ha varit medlem av en underjordisk politisk organisation, Kyrillos-Methodios-sällskapet. Poem, där Sjevtjenko på ett träffsäkert vis skildrar ryska imperiets terror mot folket, faller i polisens händer. Sjevtjenko döms till långtidsförvisning som menig soldat i Orenburgs armékår. När tsaren undertecknar domen gör han också ett tillägg om att den förvisade poeten och konstnären ska hållas under strängaste upp-

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants 

sikt och inte tillåtas vare sig skriva eller måla. Där på plats får han dock hjälp av liberala krafter, så att han under sina tio förvisningsår på den kasachska stäppen ändå får möjlighet att ägna sig åt skapande verksamhet, även om det inte kan ske helt öppet. Sjevtjenko friges år 1857 efter att radikala kretsar i Ryssland och Ukraina verkat för hans sak. De sista åren av hans liv kännetecknas av att han gör oerhördaa framsteg inom poesin, målarkonsten och grafiken. Särskilt stora och erkända blir hans framgångar på gravyrområdet. I september 1860 tilldelas Sjevtjenko titeln “akademiledamot inom gravyrkonsten” av Konstakademirådet. Under vintern 1860–61 försämras Sjevtjenkos hälsa tvärt; en hälsa som redan tidigare brutits ned av åren i förvisning. Han avlider den 10 mars 1861. Jordningen sker först på Smolenskkyrkogården i Petersburg, men i enlighet med hans testamentes vilja förflyttas stoftet samma vår till Ukraina och han begravs i staden Kanev vid floden Dneprs höga kust, inte långt från den trakt där han föddes och växte upp.

Gabriella’s (LS) target text Bland de framstående företrädarna inom den ukrainska kulturen tillhör Taras Grigorevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861). Med sina glödande poetiska och konstnärliga verk återspeglade han det ukrainska arbetarfolkets gamla strävan för frihet. Sjevtjenko levde ett liv fullt av dramatik. Poeten, konstnären och tänkaren av den revolutionär-demokratiska rörelsen kämpade lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtryck av sitt folk. Orsaken till det ökande intresset hos den nya generationen för Sjevtjenkos konstnärliga arv är det djupa demokratitänkande i hans verk. Han var son till en livegen bonde från byn Morintsa (tidigare Tjerkassområdet). Redan i barndomen tyckte Sjevtjenko mycket om att skriva dikter och rita. Det stora hindret för en utveckling av hans begåvning var hans livegenskap. Han var helt och hållet beroende av godsägaren Engelgradt och hans nycker. En av godsägarens infall blev en betydelsefull händelse för Sjevtjenko. Vintern 1831 tog Engelgradt med sig Sjevtjenko som tjänare till huvudstaden. Här träffade den unge Taras landsmannen och konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som vilken snart presenterade honom för de demokratiskt inflytelserika representanterna för den ryska kulturen. Efter att ha sett den ovanliga litterära och konstnärliga talang som Sjevtjenko besatt, köpte man år 1838 ut honom ur den livegna fångenskapen.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Åren 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs konstnärliga akademi och han visade sig ha en stor begåvning i oljemålning, akvarellmålning samt i blyertsteckning. Hans lärare var den store ryske målaren Karl Brullov. Under dessa år formades Sjevtjenko till en framstående folkpoet, som förstod skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska språket på en hittills ouppnådd poetisk nivå. Styrkan och sanningen i hans ord är förbluffande och de härstammar från det innersta i livet. Den höga medborgarandan i hans poemer och dikter samt deras kritik som riktas mot livegenskap och envälde, uppmärksammades av en framskjuten del av samhället. När han var klar vid akademin återvände Sjevtjenko till Ukraina och arbetatde som konstnär på arkeologiska kommissionen vid Kievs universitet. Men efter två år arresterade man honom för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation “Kirillo-Mefodievskij föreningen”. Poetens verk, som avslöjade det ryska imperitets folkfientliga statsuppbyggnad, hamnade i polisens händer. Sjevtjenko dömdes till en flerårig förvisning som menig soldat i Orenburskijkåren. Samtidigt som domen fastställdes, skrev tsaren själv på detta ärende att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng övervakning och man förbjöd honom att skriva och rita. Tack vare hjälpen och stödet från den lokala progressiva intelligentsian kunde han under alla de 10 åren av förvisningen på den kosackiska stäppen “halvlegalt” ägna sig åt sitt skapande. Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina arbetade aktivt för ett frisläppande. De sista åren av hans liv utmärktes av stora framgångar inom poesin, måleriet och grafiken. Särskilt stora och allmännt erkända vart hans framgångar inom gravyrkonsten. I september 1860 belönade Konstnärsakademins råd Sjevtjenko hederstitel “gravyrens akademiledamot”. Vintern 1860–1861 så försämrades Taras Grigorevitj Sjevtjenkos hälsa som framkallats av förvisningen. Den 10 mars 1861 dog han. Han begravdes till en början på Smolensk-kyrkogården i Peterburg. Enligt hans testamente flyttades hans stoft på våren samma år till Ukraina och gravsattes på ett högt berg vid floden Dnerp i staden Kanev, inte långt från den plats där han föddes och växte upp.

Harald’s (TS) target text Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko (1814–1861) innehar en särställning bland de ukrainska konstnärerna. Med sin eldiga poesi och konst återger han den frihetslängtan som alltid funnits hos det ukrainska folket. Sjevtjenkos liv var mycket dramatiskt. Såsom poet, konstnär och tänkare av den revolutionära och

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants 

demokratiska skolan kämpade han ivrigt för sitt folks frigörelse från socialt och nationellt förtryck. Sjevtjenko, som var son till en livegen bonde från kyrkbyn Morintsa (nuförtiden Tjerkassyregionen) målade och skrev dikter redan som barn. Ett stort hinder för utvecklingen av hans naturbegåvning var att han som livegen var helt och hållet utlämnad åt godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. En av dessa nycker blev till en ödets nyck för Sjevtjenko, när Engelhardt vintern 1831 lät Sjevtjenko följa med till huvudstaden som tjänare iförd kasackkostym. Här träffade den unge Taras en landsman, konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som inom kort presenterade honom för de ryska konstnärerna inom den demokratiska skolan. När dessa lade märke till Sjevtjenkos sällsynta litterära och konstnärliga talanger friköpte de honom 1838. Åren 1838–45 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Sankt-Petersburgs Konstakademi. Han visade prov på en unik begåvning vad gäller olje- och akvarellmålning samt blyertsteckning. Hans lärare var den store målaren Karl Brjullov. Under dessa år blev Sjevtjenko en framstående nationalskald och han framhävde det ukrainska språkets skönhet och klang på ett sätt som man inte tidigare gjort inom poesin. Man frapperas av kraften och sanningen bakom hans ord som tycks komma ur hjärtat. Den djupa känslan för det egna landet som kommer till synes i hans poesi och kritiken mot livegenskap och envälde uppmärksammades av samhällets reformivrare. Sjevtjenko återvände till Ukraina 1845 efter att ha avslutat sina studier vid akademin och började arbeta som konstnär för inom arkeografiska kommissionen vid Kievs universitet. Men efter två år blev han arresterad på grund av sitt samröre med den hemliga politiska organisationen Kyrillos och Metodiossällskapet. Polisen hade fått tag i poetens skrifter som skarpt kritiserade det ryska imperiets nationalistiska strävanden. Sjevtjenko dömdes till mångårig förvisning som menig soldat inom Orenburg-kåren. Som en befästelse av domen skrev tsaren ett egenhändigt tillägg att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under den allra strängaste övervakning och att man skulle tillse att han varken skrev eller målade. Tack vare den reformvänliga ortens intelligentsia såg myndigheterna mellan fingrarna och gav Sjevtjenko tillåtelse att skapa under sin tio år långa förvisning till Kasachstans stäpper. Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Det var de progressiva i Ryssland och Ukraina som ställde upp för honom. Utmärkande för hans sista levnadsår är att han gjorde stora framsteg inom poesi, måleri och grafik, speciellt gravyrer. I september 1860 tillmättes Sjevtjenko hederstiteln gravyrakademiker av rådet för Konstakademin.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Vintern 1860–61 försämrades Taras Grigorevitjs hälsa som under tiden i förvisningen undergrävts. Den 10 mars 1861 dog han. Han gravsattes till en en början på Smolenskkyrkogården i Sankt-Petersburg. Enligt hans testamente fördes stoftet samma år på våren till Ukraina och gravsattes på Dneprs höga strandvall i staden Kanav nära de platser där han föddes och växte upp.

Isak’s (TS) target text Bland Ukrainas mest framstående kulturpersonligheter intar Taras Grigorjevitj Sjevtjenko en särställning. I sitt eldiga poetiska och konstnärliga skapande uttryckte han det ukrainska folkets urgamla strävan efter frihet. Sjevtjenkos korta liv var fyllt av dramatik. Han var poet, tänkare och konstnär av den revolutionära demokratiska inriktnangen. Han kämpade lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtrycket av Ukrainas folk. De nya generationernas allt mer tilltagande intresse för Sjevtjenkos konstnärliga arv kan förklaras med det djupa demokratiska budskap, som ligger i hans verk. Som son till livegen bonde från byn Morintsy (numera i området Tjerkassy), så ägnade sig Sjevtjenko redan i barndomen åt teckning och diktande. Ett stort hinder för hans talangs naturliga utveckling utgjorde det faktum att han som livegen var fullständigt styrd av sin godsägare Engelhardts nycker. En av dessa nycker visade sig dock vara turlig för Sjevtjenko, då han vintern 1831 fick följa med Engelhardt som lakej till huvudstaden, St. Petersburg. Här mötte unge Taras en landsman, konstnären Ivan Sosjenko, som snart presenterade honom för demokratiskt lagda, inflytelserika personligheter från den ryska kulturvärlden. De såg i Sjevtjenko en sällsynt talang för litterärt och konstnärligt skapande och köpte loss honom från livegenskapen 1838. Åren 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko på Petersburgs konstakademi, efter att ha visat upp ovanlig skicklighet i sina oljemålningar, akvareller och blyertsteckningar. Hans lärare var den store ryske konstnären Karl Bryllov. Samtidigt formades Sjevtjenko till en framträdande folkpoet, som lyfte upp skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska språket till en aldrig tidigare skådad poetisk höjd. Styrkan i hans ord är påfallande, den härstammar från livets djup. Den höga medborgerliga medvetenheten i hans poem och diktverk samt dess kritiska inställning till livegenskapen och envåldsmakten drog på sig uppmärksamheten från den privilegiede samhällsklassen. Sjevtjenko återvände till Ukraina 1845 efter att ha avslutat sin utbildning på konstakademien. Han började arbeta som konstnär vid Arkeografiska kommittén vid Kievs universitet. Efter två år arresterades han för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation – Kyrillos- och Methodiussällskapet. Poetens verk, som

Appendix 3. The target texts of the participants 

avslöjade folkfientligheten i det ryska imperiets statsskick hamnade i polisens händer. Sjevtjenko dömdes till mångårig förvisning som menig soldat i Orenburgkåren. Tsaren bekräftade domen och skrev egenhändigt till att man skulle hålla den förvisade poeten och konstnären under strängaste uppsikt samt förbjuda honom att skriva och teckna. Tack vare påverkan från den progressivt inställda lokala intelligentsian kunde han under alla de tio åren i förvisning på de kasachiska stäpperna, mer eller mindre legalt, ägna sig åt skapande. Sjevtjenko befriades 1857, efter det att privilegiede personer anhållit om hans frigivning. De sista åren av hans liv utmärkte sig genom storartade prestationer inom poesin, målningen och grafiken. Speciellt stora och allmänt erkända blev hans framgångar inom gravyrens område. I september 1860 hedrades Sjevtjenko av akademiens konstråd med titeln “gravyrens akademiledamot”. Vintern 1860 och 1861 försämrades Sjevtjenkos hälsotillstånd, som hade undergrävts av förvisningen. Den tionde mars 1861 dog han. Han blev till en början begraven på Smolenskkyrkogården i St. Petersburg. Samma vår flyttades hans kropp efter önskningar i hans testamente till Ukraina och begravdes vid Dneprs höga strand i staden Kanev, inte långt ifrån platsen där han föddes och växte upp.

Appendix 4

TT versions analyzed in Chapter 5

Additive coordination Sentence A4 Anna (PR): Han var poet, konstnär, revolutionär tänkare och en sann demokrat och bekämpade lidelsefullt det sociala och nationella förtryck som hans folk led under. Berit (PR): Han var poet och konstnär och politiskt aktiv i den demokratiska rörelsen. Han bekämpade det sociala och nationella förtryck det ukrainska folket var utsatt för. Christian (PR): Som poet, konstnär och revolutionär och demokratisk tänkare stred han hängivet mot det sociala och nationella förtrycket av hans eget folk. Daniel (PR): Som poet, konstnär och tänkare i den revolutionära, demokratiska strömningen bekämpade han aktivt det sociala och nationella förtryck som hans folk led under. Ellinor (TS): Som poet, konstnär och tänkare med revolutionärt demokratiska idéer kämpade han lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtryck hans folk led under. Fredrik (TS): I sin egenskap av poet, konstnär och teoretiker inom den revolutionär-demokratiska rörelsen förde han en lidelsefull kamp mot det sociala och nationalistiska förtryck som hans folk utsattes för. Gabriella (LS): Poeten, konstnären och tänkaren av den revolutionär-demokratiska rörelsen kämpade lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtryck av sitt folk. Harald (LS): Såsom poet, konstnär och tänkare av den revolutionära och demokratiska skolan kämpade han ivrigt för sitt folks frigörelse från socialt och nationellt förtryck.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Isak (LS): Han var poet, tänkare och konstnär av den revolutionärt demokratiska inriktnangen. Han kämpade lidelsefullt mot det sociala och nationella förtrycket av Ukrainas folk.

Sentence C11 Anna (PR): Från 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid konstakademien i Petersburg och visade särskild talang för oljemålning, akvarell och blyertsteckning. Berit (PR): Åren 1838 till 1845 studerade Taras Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs Konstakademi. Han gjorde fina arbeten både inom oljemålning, akvarell och blyertsteckning. Christian (PR): Tarasj Sjevtjenko studerade 1838–1845 vid Konstakademin i Petersburg och gav prov på en utomordentlig begåvning för oljemåleri, akvareller och teckning. Daniel (PR): 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Konstnärliga Akademien i Petersburg och visade ovanligt stor talang inom oljemåleri, akvarell och blyertsteckning. Ellinor (TS): Från 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Konstakademin i S:t Petersburg. Han visade en ovanlig begåvning för att måla olja och akvarell och teckna i blyerts. Fredrik (TS): 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs konstakademi och visade där i olja, akvarell och blyerts prov på en skicklighet utöver det vanliga. Gabriella (LS): Åren 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Petersburgs konstnärliga akademi och han visade sig ha en stor begåvning i oljemålning, akvarellmålning samt i blyertsteckning. Harald (LS): Åren 1838–1845 studerade Sjevtjenko vid Sankt-Petersburgs Konst- akademi. Han visade prov på en unik begåvning vad gäller olje- och akvarellmålning samt blyertsteckning. Isak (LS): Åren 1838 till 1845 studerade Sjevtjenko på Petersburgs konstakademi, efter att ha visat upp ovanlig skicklighet i sina oljemålningar, akvareller och blyertsteckningar.

Appendix 4. TT versions analyzed in Chapter 5 

Sentence C13 Anna (PR): Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko till en stor folklig poet som lyfte det ukrainska folkspråkets skönhet och klang till dittills icke skådade poetiska höjder. Berit (PR): Under de åren utvecklade Sjevtjenko också sin poetiska begåvning. Han lyckades ge det ukrainska folkspråket dittills osedda poetiska kvaliteter. Christian (PR): Sjevtjenko utvecklades under dessa år också till en stor folklig skald som förde det ukrainska folkspråkets skönhet och klang till hittills aldrig skådade höjder. Daniel (PR): Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko till en stor nationalskald, som upphöjde det vackra och välljudande ukrainska nationalspråket till en poetisk nivå som dittills aldrig hade skådats. Ellinor (TS): Under dessa år utvecklades Sjevtjenko som en framstående folkpoet, som lyfte skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska folkets språk till dittills oanade poetiska höjder. Fredrik (TS): Det är också under dessa år som Sjevtjenko formas till den framstående poet, som kommer att lyfta skönheten och klangrikedomen i den folkliga ukrainskan till dittills aldrig tidigare skådade lyriska höjder. Gabriella (LS): Under dessa år formades Sjevtjenko till en framstående folkpoet, som förstod skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska språket på en hittills ouppnådd poetisk nivå. Harald (LS): Under dessa år blev Sjevtjenko en framstående nationalskald och han framhävde det ukrainska språkets skönhet och klang på ett sätt som man inte tidigare gjort inom poesin. Isak (LS): Samtidigt formades Sjevtjenko till en framträdande folkpoet, som lyfte upp skönheten och klangen i det ukrainska språket till en aldrig tidigare skådad poetisk höjd.

Sentence C15 Anna (PR): Samhällsengagemanget i hans poem och dikter och kritiken mot livegenskap och envåldsmakt gjorde att progressiva kretsar i samhället fick upp ögonen för hans poesi. Berit (PR): Hans poem och dikter utstrålar rättspatos; de är kritiska mot livegenskapen och självhärskardömet.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Christian (PR): Det allvarliga samhällsengagemanget i hans dikter, deras medvetna kritik av livegenskapen och självhärskardömet uppmärksammades av de progressiva kretsarna i samhället. Daniel (PR): Den starka sociala engagemanget i hans diktverk och hans kritiska inställning till livegenskapen och enväldet väckte uppmärksamhet hos de framstegsvänliga i samhället. Ellinor (TS): Den starka nationalkänslan i hans poem och dikter, kritiken i dem mot livegenskapen och självhärskardömet uppmärksammades av de progressiva grupperna i samhället. Fredrik (TS): Det sociala patoset i hans poem och dikter och dess kritik mot livegenskap och envälde väcker uppmärksamhet inom radikala kretsar. Gabriella (LS): Den höga medborgarandan i hans poemer och dikter samt deras kritik som riktas mot livegenskap och envälde, uppmärksammades av en framskjuten del av samhället. Harald (LS): Den djupa känslan för det egna landet som kommer till synes i hans poesi och kritiken mot livegenskap och envälde uppmärksammades av samhällets reformivrare. Isak (LS): Den höga medborgerliga medvetenheten i hans poem och diktverk samt dess kritiska inställning till livegenskapen och envåldsmakten drog på sig uppmärksamheten från den privilegiede samhällsklassen.

Implicit contrasts Sentences B7–B8 Anna (PR): Han hade svårt att utveckla sin begåvning eftersom han som livegen var totalt beroende av godsägaren Engelhardts nycker. Men en av dessa nycker blev lyckosam för Sjevtjenko, då Engelhardt på vintern 1831 tog honom med till Petersburg som betjänt. Berit (PR): Ett stort hinder för honom att utveckla sin begåvning var att han som livegen var helt och hållet beroende av godsägarens nycker. En av dessa nycker blev dock hans lycka. Vinter 1831 tog godsägaren honom nämligen med till staden som kosackklädd betjänt. Christian (PR): Det var ett allvarligt hinder för en naturlig utveckling av hans begåvning att han som livegen var totalt beroende av godsägaren Engelhardts

Appendix 4. TT versions analyzed in Chapter 5 

nycker. Men av en för Sjevtjenko lycklig slump innebar en av dessa nycker att Engelhardt tog honom med sig till S:t Petersburg som kosackklädd passopp. Daniel (PR): Den naturliga utvecklingen av hans begåvning försvårades i stor utsträckning av att han som livegen var helt beroende av godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. Ett av dessa nycker utvecklade sig till en lyckosam tillfällighet när Engelgardt vintern 1981 tog honom med sig till Moskva som sin ”kosackbetjänt”. Ellinor (TS): Ett stort hinder för att hans talanger skulle kunna utvecklas fullt ut utgjorde det faktum att han som livegen helt och hållet var utlämnad åt godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. En av dessa nycker ledde av en tillfällighet till något bra för Sjevtjenkos del, då Engelgardt vintern 1831 tog med sig honom till huvudstaden som ”kazatjok” (ung betjänt i kosackkostym). Fredrik (TS): Ett stort hinder i vägen för hans naturliga konstnärliga utveckling var dock det faktum att han var livegen och därmed utlämnad åt sin godsherre Engelhardt och dennes godtycke. En av Engelhardts nycker visade sig dock bli ett lyckokast för Sjevjenko. Detta var vintern 1831 då godsherren tog Sjevtjenko med sig till huvudstaden Petersburg (idag S:t Petersburg) för att ha som betjänt. Gabriella (LS): Det stora hindret för en utveckling av hans begåvning var hans livegenskap. Han var helt och hållet beroende av godsägaren Engelgradt och hans nycker. En av godsägarens infall blev en betydelsefull händelse för Sjevtjenko. Vintern 1831 tog Engelgradt med sig Sjevtjenko som tjänare till huvudstaden. Harald (LS): Ett stort hinder för utvecklingen av hans naturbegåvning var att han som livegen var helt och hållet utlämnad åt godsägaren Engelgardts nycker. En av dessa nycker blev till en ödets nyck för Sjevtjenko, när Engelgardt vintern 1831 lät Sjevtjenko följa med till huvudstaden som tjänare iförd kasackkostym. Isak (LS): Ett stort hinder för hans talangs naturliga utveckling utgjorde det faktum att han som livegen var fullständigt styrd av sin godsägare Engelhardts nycker. En av dessa nycker visade sig dock vara turlig för Sjevtjenko, då han vintern 1831 fick följa med Engelhardt som lakej till huvudstaden, St Petersburg.

Sentences D20–D21 Anna (PR): Tsaren stadfäste domen med tillägget att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle övervakas strängt och inte tillåtas varken skriva eller teckna. Tack vare hjälp från progressiva intellektuella kretsar på platsen lyckades han

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

halvt illegalt ändå utöva sitt konstnärskap under alla de tio årens förvisning på kosack-stäppen. Berit (PR): När tsaren stadfäste domen skrev han med egen hand i hans mål att den deporterade konstnären och poeten skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och inte tillåtas teckna och skriva. Men tack vare hjälp från demokrater i trakten kunde han under alla de tio år exilen på de kazachiska stäpperna varade halvlegalt ägna sig åt sin konst. Christian (PR): När tsaren skrev under förvisningsdomen antecknade han egenhändigt i handlingarna att den förvisade poeten ochh konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och att han skulle förbjudas skriva och teckna. Med hjälp av progressiva kretsar i den bildade delen av befolkningen här lyckades han ändå under de tio åren av förvisning till stäppen i Kazachstan halvt legalt ägna sig åt sitt skapande. Daniel (PR): När tsaren skulle stadfästa domen, skrev han egenhändigt in i akten att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och förbjudas att skriva och måla. Med hjälp av den lokala, progressivt sinnade intelligentian kunde han under hela den tioåriga förvisningen på de kasachiska stäpperna halvt legalt arbeta som konstnär. Ellinor (TS): Tsaren bekräftade domen genom att i hans akt egenhändigt skriva att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng uppsikt och förbjudas att skriva och måla. Tack vare hjälp och stöd från den progressiva intelligentian på platsen, kunde han under de tio år han var förvisad till den kazachiska stäppen mer eller mindre illegalt ägna sig åt konstnärlig verksamhet. Fredrik (TS): När tsaren undertecknar domen gör han också ett tillägg om att den förvisade poeten och konstnären ska hållas under strängaste uppsikt och inte tillåtas vare sig skriva eller måla. Där på plats får han dock hjälp av liberala krafter, så att han under sina tio förvisningså på den kasachska stäppen ändå får möjlighet att ägna sig åt skapande verksamhet, även om det inte kan ske helt öppet. Gabriella (LS): Samtidigt som domen fastställdes, skrev tsaren själv på detta ärende att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under sträng övervakning och man förbjöd honom att skriva och rita. Tack vare hjälpen och stödet från den lokala progressiva intelligentsian kunde han under alla de 10 åren av förvisningen på den kosackiska stäppen ”halvlegalt” ägna sig åt sitt skapande. Harald (LS): Som en befästelse av domen skrev tsaren ett egenhändigt tillägg att den förvisade poeten och konstnären skulle hållas under den allra strängaste

Appendix 4. TT versions analyzed in Chapter 5 

övervakning och att man skulle tillse att han varken skrev eller målade. Tack vare den reformvänliga ortens intelligentsia såg myndigheterna mellan fingrarna och gav Sjevtjenko tillåtelse att skapa under sin tio år långa förvisning till Kachstans stäpper. Isak (LS): Tsaren bekräftade domen och skrev egenhändigt till att man skulle hålla den förvisade poeten och konstnären under strängaste uppsikt samt förbjuda honom att skriva och teckna. Tack vare påverkan från den progressivt inställda lokala intelligentsian kunde han under alla de tio åren i förvisning på de kasachiska stäpperna, mer eller mindre legalt, ägna sig åt skapande.

Temporal/causal relations Sentences D17–D18 Anna (PR): Men två år senare arresterades han för att ha deltagit i en underjordisk politisk organisation - Kirillo-Mefodievskij-samfundet. Polisen fick tag på dikter, där han gisslade det ryska imperiets odemokratiska samhällsstruktur. Berit (PR): Men två år senare blir han arresterad för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation - Kyrillos- och Methodiossällskapet. Polisen hade fått tag i manuskript med skarp kritik av Ryska imperiets diktatoriska regim. Christian (PR): Efter två år arresterades han emellertid för delaktighet i en hemlig politisk organisation, Kirills och Methodios sällskap. Polisen fick tag i verk där Taras Sjevtjenko utsatte det ryska imperiets antidkratiska statsskick för häftig kritik. Daniel (PR): Men efter två år arresterades han för att ha deltagit i den hemliga organisationen Kyrillos och Methodios Sällskap. Polisen kom över verk av Sjevtjenko som gisslade det ryska imperiets folkfientliga statsskick. Ellinor (TS): Men två år senare arresterades han för att ha deltagit i en hemlig politisk organisation - Kyrillos och Methodiossällskapet. Polisen fick tag i verk där poeten i skarpa ord avslöjade det ryska imperiets folkfientliga statliga uppbyggnad. Fredrik (TS): Men efter två år blir han arresterad för att ha varit medlem av en underjordisk politisk organisation, Kyrillos-Methodios-sällskapet. Poem, där Sjevtjenko på ett träffsäkert vis skildrar ryska imperiets terror mot folket, faller i polisens händer.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Gabriella (LS): Men efter två år arresterade man honom för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation ”Kirillo-Mefodievskij föreningen”. Poetens verk, som avslöjade det ryska imperitets folkfientliga statsuppbyggnad, hamnade i polisens händer. Harald (LS): Men efter två år blev han arresterad på grund av sitt samröre med den hemliga politiska organisationen Kyrillos och Metodiossällskapet. Polisen hade fått tag i poetens skrifter som skarpt kritiserade det ryska imperiets nationalistiska strävanden. Isak (LS): Efter två år arresterades han för deltagande i en hemlig politisk organisation - Kyrillos- och Methodiussällskapet. Poetens verk, som avslöjade folkfientligheten i det ryska imperiets statsskick hamnade i polisens händer.

Sentences E22–E23 Anna (PR): Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Progressiva krafter i Ryssland och Ukraina hade kämpat för hans sak. Berit (PR): Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857 tack vare hemställan från demokratiskt inställda personer i Ryssland och Ukraina. Christian (PR): Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Framstegsvänliga människor i Ryssland och Ukraina hade agerat för honom. Daniel (PR): Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Han omhuldades i progressiva kretsar i Ryssland och Ukraina. Ellinor (TS): Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Framåtsträvande människor i Ryssland och Ukraina hade lagt sig ut för honom. Fredrik (TS): Sjevtjenko friges år 1857 efter att radikala kretsar i Ryssland och Ukraina verkat för hans sak. Gabriella (LS): Sjevtjenko frigavs 1857. Framskjutna personer i Ryssland och Ukraina arbetade aktivt för ett frisläppande. Harald (LS): Sjevtjenko blev fri 1857. Det var de progressiva i Ryssland och Ukraina som ställde upp för honom. Isak (LS): Sjevtjenko befriades 1857, efter det att privilegiede personer anhållit om hans frigivning.

References

Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). The Bilingual Brain. New York: Academic Press. Altarriba, J. (1992). “The Representation of Translation Equivalents in Bilingual Memory”. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 157–174). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Alves, Fabio (Ed.). (2003). Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Alvstad, Cecilia (2003). La traducción como mediación editorial: un estudio de 150 libros para niños i jóvenes publicados en Argentina durante 1997. (diss.) Göteborg: Göteborg university, Institutionen för romanska språk. Anderson, John R. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. (3rd edition). New York: Freeman. Bachman, Lyle F. (1991). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. New York: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). “Working memory”. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press. Baker, Mona (Ed.). (1998). Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies London and New York: Routledge. Baker, Mona (2000). “Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator”. Target, 12 (2), 241–266. Ballard, Michel (1993). “L’unité de traduction. Essai de redéfinition d’un concept”. In M. Ballard (Ed.), La traduction à l’université. Recherche et propositions didactiques (pp. 223– 262). Lille: Presses universitaires. Barkhudarov, Leonid ([1969] 1993). “The Problem of the Unit of Translation”. In P. Zlateva (Ed. and Transl.), Translation as Social Action: Russian and Bulgarian Perspectives London: Routledge. Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe (1982). “Learning to Revise: Some Component Processes”. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know. The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse (pp. 345–363). New York: Academic Press, Inc. Bartsch, Renate (1987). Norms of language. London: Longman. Baurmann, Jürgen (1989). “Empirische schreibforschung”. In G. Antos & H. P. Krings (Eds.), Textproduktion (pp. 257–277). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Beaugrande, Robert de (1984). “Learning to Read Versus Reading to Learn: A DiscourseProcessing Approach”. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 159–191). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Berk-Seligson, Susan (1987). “The intersection of testimony styles in interpreted judicial proceedings: Pragmatic alterations in Spanish testimony”. Linguistics, 25, 1087–1125. Bernadini, Silvia (2001). “Think-aloud protocols in translation research. Achievements, limits, future prospects”. Target, 13 (2), 241–263. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, & Levenston, Eddie A. (1983). “Universals of lexical simplicification”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 119–139). London and New York: Longman. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1986). “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 17– 35). Tübingen: Narr. Bower, Gordon H., & Cirilo, Randolph K. (1985). “Cognitive Psychology and Text Processing”. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 1 (pp. 71–105). London: Academic Press. Breedveld, Hella (2002). “Translation processes in time”. Target, 14 (2), 221–240. Breuer, Astrid Yvonne (2002). Asyndese? Zum Problem einer ‘negativen’ Kategorie. [Slavistische Beiträge 415]. München: Otto Sagner. Brown, G. (1994). “Modes of understanding”. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjær, A. Pollitt, & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and Understanding (pp. 10–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cao, Deborah (1996). “Towards a Model of Translation Proficiency”. Target, 8 (2), 325–340. Chanquoy, Lucile, Foulin, Jean Noël, & Fayol, Michel (1996). “Writing in adults: A realtime approach”. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzjin (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 36–43). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Chesterman, Andrew (Ed.). (1989). Readings in Translation Theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura. Chesterman, Andrew (1993). “From ‘is’ to ‘ought’: Translation laws, norms and strategies”. Target, 5 (1), 1–20. Chesterman, Andrew (1997). The Memes of Translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Chesterman, Andrew (1998). “Communication Strategies, Learning Strategies & Translation Strategies”. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation (pp. 135–144). Manchester: St. Jerome. Chvany, C. (1985). “Backgrounded Perfectives and Plot Line Imperfectives: Toward a Theory of Grounding in Text”. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect (pp. 247–273). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. Dancette, Jeanne (1995). Parcours de traduction. Étude experimentale du processus de compréhension. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. Dancette, Jeanne (1997). “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation. Theoretical and Experimental Issues”. In J.H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 77–103). Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage. De Groot, A. M. B. (1993). “Word-Type Effects in Bilingual Processing Tasks: Support for a Mixed-Representational System”. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

References 

Delisle, Jean (1988). Translation: An interpretive approach [transl. by P. Logan & M. Creery]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Delisle, Jean, Lee-Jahnke, Hannelore, & Cormier, Monique C. (1999). Terminologie de la traduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Denver, Louise (2002). “On the Translation of Semantic Relations: An empirical study”. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 2 (2), 25–46. Dollerup, Cay, & Loddegaard, Anne (Eds.). (1992). Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dollerup, Cay, & Lindegaard, Anne (Eds.). (1994). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Dollerup, Cay, & Appel, Vibeke (Eds.). (1996). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Ekblom, Richard (1960). Rysk grammatik. 6, omarbetade upplagan. Stockholm: Bonniers. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2. Oxford 1994: Pergamon. Encyclopedia of Ukraine. (1984–1993). Toronto: University of Toronto. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (1993). “Semantic change in translation – a cognitive perspective”. In Y. Gambier & J. Tommola (Eds.), Translation and Knowledge. SSOTT IV (pp. 285–296). Turku: University of Turku. Englund Dimitrova, Birigtta (1994). “Statistical analysis of translations (on the basis of translations from and to Bulgarian, Russian and Swedish)”. Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 87–102. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (2001). “Egennamn vid översättning från ryska till svenska: olika problem för olika översättare”. In H. Kronning, C. Norén, B. Novén, G. Ransbo, L.-G. Sundell, & B. Svane (Eds.), Langage et référence. Mélanges offerts à Kerstin Jonasson à l’occasion de ses soixante ans (pp. 129–137). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (2003). “Explicitation in Russian-Swedish translation: Sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects”. In B. Englund Dimitrova & A. PereswetoffMorath (Eds.), Swedish Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana, 15–21 August 2003 (pp. 21–31). Lund: Lund University. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (forthc. a). “Segmentation of the writing process in translation: Experts vs. novices”. To be published in K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta (forthc. b). “Combining product and process analysis: Explicitation as a case in point”; to be published in Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 81. Ericsson, K. Anders, & Simon, Herbert (1984 [1993]). Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports as Data. Revised Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ericsson, K. Anders, & Simon, Herbert (1987). “Verbal Reports on Thinking”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in Second Language Research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Ericsson, K. Anders, & Smith, Jacqui (1991). “Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An introduction”. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Ericsson, K. Anders, & Charness, Neil (1997). “Cognitive and Developmental Factors in Expert Performance”. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in Context. Human and Machine (pp. 3–41). Menlo Park, Cambridge MA and London: AAAI Press/The MIT Press. Ervin, S., & Osgood, C. (1954). “Second language learning and bilingualism”. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 139–146. Fält, Erik (1994). Kort rysk grammatik. Uppsala: Scripta. Fawcett, Peter (1997). Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Fleischmann, Eberhard, Kutz, Wladimir, & Schmitt, Peter A. (Eds.). (1997). Translationsdidaktik: Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr. Flower, Linda (1979). “Writer-Based prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing”. College English, 41 (1), 19–37. Fraser, Janet (1993). “Public Accounts: Using Verbal Protocols to Investigate Community Translation”. Applied Linguistics, 14 (4), 325–343. Fraser, Janet (1996a). “Mapping the Process of Translation”. Meta, XLI (1), 84–96. Fraser, Janet (1996b). “The Translator Investigated. Learning from Translation Process Analysis”. The Translator, 2 (1), 65–79. Frawley, W. (1984). Translation. Literary, Linguistic & Philosophical Perspectives. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Færch, Claus, & Kasper, Gabriele (1983). “Plans and strategies in foreign language communication”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 20–60). London and New York: Longmans. Gellerstam, Martin (1986). “Translationese in Swedish Novels translated from English”. In L. Wollin & H. Lindquist (Eds.), Translation Studies in Scandinavia (pp. 89–95). Lund: Gleerups Gentzler, Edwin (1993/2001). Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge and Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gerloff, Pamela (1986). “Second Language Learners’ Reports on the Interpretive Process: Talk-aloud Protocols of Translation”. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 243–262). Tübingen: Narr. Gerloff, Pamela (1987). “Identifying the Unit of Analysis in Translation: Some Uses of Think-Aloud Protocol Data”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in Second Language Research (pp. 135–158). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Gile, Daniel (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Goris, Olivier (1993). “The Question of French Dubbing: Towards a Frame for Systematic Investigation”. Target, 5 (2), 169–190. Graesser, Arthur C., Swamer, Shane S., Baggett, William B., & Sell, Marie A. (1996). “New Models of Deep Comprehension”. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of Understanding Text (pp. 1–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Green, David W. (1986). “Control, Activation, and Resource: A Framework and a Model for the Control of Speech in Bilinguals”. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223. Grenoble, Lenore (1998). Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

References 

Grotjahn, Rüdiger (1987). “On the Methodological Basis of Introspective Methods”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in Second Language Research (pp. 54–81). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gunnarsson, Gunnar, & Jacobsson, Gunnar (1962). Rysk grammatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Gutt, Ernst-August (1996). “Implicit Information in Literary Translation: A RelevanceTheoretic Perspective”. Target, 8 (2), 239–256. Gužba, F. K. (1967). Sovremennyj russkij literaturnyj jazyk. (Slovoobrazovanie, morfologija). Kiev: Radjan’ska škola. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hansen, Gyde (Ed.). (1999). Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 24]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Hansen, Gyde (Ed.). (2002). Empirical Translation Studies. Process and Product. [Copenhagen Studies in Language 27]. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Hansen, Silvia, & Teich, Elke (2001). “Multi-layer analysis of translation corpora: Methodological issues and practical implications”. In D. Cristea, N. Ide, D. Marcu, & M. Poesio (Eds.), Proceedings of EUROLAN 2001 Workshop on Multi-Layer Corpus-based Analysis (pp. 44–55). Iasi. Harris, B., & Sherwood, B. (1978). “Translating as an Innate Skill”. In D. Gerver and H. W. Sinaico (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 155–170). New York and London: Plenum Press. Hayes, John R. (1996). “A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing”. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hayes, John R., & Gradwohl Nash, Jane (1996). “On the Nature of Planning in Writing”. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hayes, John R., Flower, Linda, Schriver, Karen A., Stratman, James F., & Carey, Linda (1987). “Cognitive processes in revision”. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics, Volume 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 176–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hemmungs Wirtén, Eva (1998). Global infatuation: Explorations in Transnational Publishing and Texts. The Case of Harlequin Enterprises and Sweden [Skrifter utgivna av av avdelningen för litteratursociologi vid Litteraturvetenskapliga institutionen; diss.]. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet. Heredia, Roberto, & McLaughlin, Barry (1992). “Bilingual Memory Revisited”. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 91–103). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Hewson, Lance, & Martin, Jacky (1991). Redefining Translation. The Variational Approach. London and New York: Routledge. Hinds, John (1987). “Reader Versus Writer Responsibility: A New Typology”. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141–152). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Holmes, James (1972). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Translation Studies Section, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Literary studies. Hung, Eva (Ed.). (2002). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building bridges. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hymes, Dell (1967). “On communicative competence”. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Mechanisms of language development (pp. 99–138). London: Center for Advanced Study in the Developmental Sciences. Ivir, V. (1981). “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited”. In I. EvenZohar & G. Toury (Eds.), Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations (=Poetics Today 2:4) (pp. 51–59). Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (1999). “Logging target text production with Translog”. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing the process in translation: Methods and results (pp. 9–20). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (2000). “Understanding the Process of Translation: The Contribution of Time-Delay Studies”. In B. Englund Dimitrova (Ed.), Översättning och tolkning. Rapport från ASLA:s höstsymposium, 5–6 november 1998 (pp. 155–172). Uppsala: ASLA. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (2003a). “Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students”. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Empirical Translation Studies. Process and Product (pp. 191–204). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (2003b). “Effects of Think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Segmentation”. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Jakobson, Roman (1959). “On linguistic aspects of translation”. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). New York: Oxford university Press. Janssen, Daniël, van Waes, Luuk, & van den Bergh, Huub (1996). “Effects of Thinking Aloud on Writing Processes”. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 233–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jarrick, Arne, & Josephson, Olle (1996). Från tanke till text. En språkhandbok för uppsatsskrivande studenter. (2nd ed.) Lund: Studentlitteratur. Jarvella, Robert J., Jensen, Astrid, Jensen, Elisabeth Halskov, & Andersen, Mette Skovgaard (2002). “Towards characterizing translator expertise, knowledge and know-how: Some findings using TAPs and experimental methods”. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation Studies. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (pp. 172–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, Astrid (2000). The effect of time on cognitive processes and strategies in translation. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, Faculty of Modern Languages. Jonasson, Kerstin (1997). “Norm and Variation in Translating from French into Swedish”. In Norm, variation and change in language. Proceedings of the centenary meeting of the Nyfilologiska sällskapet [=Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series 11] (pp. 85–107). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Jonasson, Kerstin (1998a). “Le traitement des noms propres et des termes culturels dans la traduction”. In O. Merisalo & T. Natri (Eds.), Actes du XIIIème Congrès des Romanistes Scandinaves. Vol. 1 (pp. 309–321). Jyväskylä: Université de Jyväskylä.

References 

Jonasson, Kerstin (1998b). “Degree of Text Awareness in Professional vs. Non-Professional Translators”. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová, & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ Strategies and Creativity (pp. 189–200). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Jääskeläinen, R. (1993). “Investigating translation strategies”. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & J. Laffling (Eds.), Recent Trends in empirical Translation Research (pp. 99–120). Joensuu: University of Joensuu. Jääskeläinen, Riitta (1999). Tapping the process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: Joensuun Yliopisto. Jääskeläinen, Riita (2002). “Think-aloud Protocol Studies into translation: An annotated bibliography”. Target, 14 (1), 107–136. Källgren, Gunnel (1979). Innehåll i text. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Källkvist, Marie (1998). “How Different are the Results of Translation Tasks? A Study of Lexical Errors”. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation (pp. 77–87). Manchester: St. Jerome. Kaufer, David S., Hayes, John R., & Flower, Linda (1986). “Composing Written Sentences”. Research in the Teaching of English, 20 (2), 121–140. Kiraly, Don (1995). Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Kiraly, Don (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Manchester: St. Jerome. Klaudy, Kinga (1996). “Back-Translation as a Tool for Detecting Explicitation Strategies in Translation”. In K. Klaudy, J. Lambert, & A. Sohár (Eds.), Translation Studies in Hungary (pp. 99–114). Budapest: Scholastica. Klaudy, Kinga (1998). “Explicitation”. In M. Baker (Ed., Ass. by K. Malmkjær), Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 80–84). London and New York: Routledge. Klaudy, Kinga (2000). “Explicitation Strategies within Lexical and Grammatical Translational Operations”. In E. Lendvai (Ed.), Applied Russian studies in Hungary (pp. 101–113). Pécs: Krónika Kiadó. Klaudy, Kinga (2001). “Grammatical Specification and Generalisation in Translation”. In J. Andor, T. Szüts and I. Terts (Eds.), Színes eszmék nem alszanak. In honour of György Szépe on his 70th birthday (pp. 679–690). Pécs: Lingua Franca. Klaudy, Kinga (2003). Languages in Translation [transl. by K. Károly and T. DeKornfeld]. Budapest: Scholastica. Knott, Alistair, & Sanders, Ted (1998). “The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages”. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 135– 175. Koller, Verner (1979/1992). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. [4 ed.]. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Komissarov, V. N. (1969). “Eksplicirovanie kak problema perevoda”. In Problemy prikladnoj lingvistiki: Mezvuzovskaja konferencija 16–19 dekabrja, Moskva 1969 g. Tezisy (pp. 158– 160). Moskva. Komissarov, V. N. (1988). “Smyslovaja stratifikacija teksta kak perevodˇceskaja problema”. In A. D. Švejcer (Ed.), Tekst i perevod (pp. 6–17). Moskva: Nauka. Komissarov, V. N. (1990). Teorija perevoda (lingvistiˇceskie aspekty). Moskva: Vysšaja škola.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Kosta, Peter (1988). “Zur Beschreibung der translatorischen Textkompression im Rahmen enines “Scenes-and-frames”-Modells”. In J. Raecke (Ed.), Referate des XIII Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens Tübingen 22–25.9 1987 (pp. 209–232). München: Otto Sagner. Krings, H. P. (1986a). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Tübingen: Narr. Krings, H. P. (1986b). “Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French (L2)”. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 263–276). Tübingen: Narr. Krings, Hans P. (1987). “The use of introspective data in translation”. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 159–176). Clevedon: Multinglingual Matters. Krings, Hans (1988). “Blick in die ‘Black Box’ – Eine Fallstudie zum Übersetzungsprozess bei Berufsübersetzern”. In R. Arntz (Ed.), Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. AILA-symposium 1987 (pp. 393–411). Hildesheim: Olms. Krings, Hans P. (2001). Repairing Texts. Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation PostEditing Processes. [ed. by G. S. Koby, transl. by G. S. Koby, G. M. Shreve, K. Mischerikow, & S. Litzer]. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Kroll, J. F., & Sholl, Alexandra (1992). “Lexical and Conceptual Memory in Fluent and Nonfluent Bilinguals”. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 191– 204). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Kroll, Judith F. (1993). “Accessing Conceptual Representations for Words in a Second Language”. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 53–81). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kruˇcinina, I. N. (1988). Struktura i funkcii soˇcinitel’noj svjazi v russkom jazyke. Moskva: Nauka. Kussmaul, Paul (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kussmaul, Paul (1996). “Die Bedeutung des Verstehensprozesses für das Übersetzen”. In A. Lauer (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70 Geburtstag (pp. 229–238). Tübingen: Narr. Kussmaul, Paul (1997). “Comprehension processes and translation. A think-aloud protocol (TAP) study”. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová, & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation as Intercultural Communication (pp. 239–248). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kussmaul, Paul (1998). “Die Erforschung von Übersetzungsprozessen: Resultate und Desiderata”. Lebende Sprachen, 2, 49–53. Künzli, Alexander (2000). “The Role of Pragmatic Analysis in the Translation of Text-type Conventions”. In B. Englund Dimitrova (Ed.), Översättning och tolkning. Rapport från ASLA:s höstsymposium Stockholm, 5–6 november 1998 (pp. 207–218). Uppsala: ASLA. Künzli, Alexander (2001a). “Experts vs. Novices. La traduction du dialogue fictif dans les textes publicitaires”. Babel, 47 (4), 323–342. Künzli, Alexander (2001b). “Experts versus novices: l’utilisation de sources d’information pendant le processus de traduction”. Meta, XLVI (3), 507–523. Künzli, Alexander (2003). Quelques stratégies et principes en traduction technique françaisallemand et français-suédois. (diss.) Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för franska och italienska.

References 

Künzli, Alexander (forthc.). “Translation revision – A study of the performance of ten professional translators revising a legal text”. Submitted for publication. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger, & R. Stolze (Eds.), Translation Studies. Doubts and directions. Selected contributions from the 4th EST Congress, Lisbon, 2004. Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara (1996). “Comparable corpora: Towards a corpus linguistic methodology for the empirical study of translation”. In M. Thelen & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and Meaning, Part 3 (pp. 153–163). Maastricht: Euroterm. Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara (1998). “Universals of translation”. In M. Baker (Ed., Ass. by K. Malmkjær), Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 288–291). London and New York: Routledge. Lehmann, Christian (1988). “Towards a typology of clause linkage.” In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 181–225). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lehrer, Adrienne (1989). “Remembering and Representing Prose: Quoted Speech as a Data Source”. Discourse Processes, 12, 105–125. Leow, Ronald P., & Morgan-Short, Kara (2004). “To Think Aloud or not to Think Aloud. The issue of Reactivity in SLA Research Methodology”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57. Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van (1989, 1990). “Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities I, II”. Target, 1 (2), 151–181; 2 (1), 69–95. Levý, Jiˇrí (1965). “Will Translation Theory be of Use to Translators?”. In R. Italiaander (Ed.), Übersetzen. Vorträge und Beiträge vom Internationalen Kongress literarischer Übersetzer in Hamburg 1965 (pp. 77–82). Frankfurt-am-Main: Athenäum. Levý, Jiˇrí (1967/1989). “Translation as a decision process”. In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in Translation Theory (pp. 38–51). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab. Levy, C. Michael, & Ransdell, Sarah E. (1996). “Writing signatures”. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 149–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levy, C. Michael, Marek, J. Pamela, & Lea, Joseph (1996). “Concurrent and retrospective protocols in writing research”. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzjin (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 542–556). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Liljestrand, Birger (1993). Språk i text. Handbok i stilistik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, Yvonne (2002). Översättning som social praktik. Toni Morrison och Harlequinserien Passion på svenska (diss.). Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk. Ljapon, M. V. (1986). Smyslovaja struktura složnogo predloženija i tekst. K tipologii vnutritekstovych otnošenij. Moskva: Nauka. Long, Debra L., & Bourg, Tammy (1996). “Thinking aloud: Telling a story about a story”. Discourse Processes, 21 (3), 329–339. Long, Debra L., Seely, Mark R., Oppy, Brian J., & Golding, Jonathan R. (1996). “The Role of Inferential Processing in Reading Ability”. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of Understanding Text (pp. 189–214). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Lorenzo, Maria Pilar (1999). “Apuentes para una discusión sobre métodos de estudio del proceso de traducción”. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing the process in translation: Methods and results (pp. 21–42). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Lörscher, Wolfgang (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Narr. Lörscher, Wolfgang (1993). “Translation process analysis”. In Y. Gambier & J. Tommola (Eds.), Translation and Knowledge. SSOTT IV (pp. 195–211). Turku: University of Turku, Centre for Translation and Interpreting. Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). “Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals”. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 141– 166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malakoff, M. E. (1992). “Translation Ability: A Natural and Metalinguistic Skill”. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 515–529). Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Malmkjær, Kirsten (1998a). “Unit of translation”. In M. Baker (Ed., Ass. by K. Malmkjær), Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 286–288). London and New York: Routledge. Malmkjær, Kirsten (1998b). “Introduction”. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), Translation and Language Teaching. Language Teaching and Translation (pp. 1–11). Manchester: St. Jerome. Maslov, Ju. S. (1984). Oˇcerki po aspektologii. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta. Mason, Ian (2001). “Translator behaviour and language usage: Some constraints on contrastive studies”. Hermes, journal of linguistics, 26, 65–80. Matsuhashi, Ann (1982). “Explorations in the Real-Time Production of Written Discourse”. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know. The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse (pp. 269–290). New York: Academic Press. Mendoza, Imke (1996). Zur Koordination im Russischen: i, a und da als pragmatische Konnektoren. [=Slavistische Beiträge 338]. München: Otto Sagner. Mossop, Brian (2001). Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome. Munday, Jeremy (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. Newmark, Peter (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Nida, Eugene A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Norberg, Ulf (2003). Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos. Eine empirische Prozess- and Produktstudie. [=Studia Germanica Upsaliensia 42]. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi. Nord, Christiane (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. Nystrand, Martin, & Wiemelt, Jeffrey (1991). “When is a text explicit? Formalist and dialogical conceptions”. Text, 11 (1), 25–41. Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens (1992). Coherence Theory. The Case of Russian. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Offord, Derek (1996). Using Russian. A Guide to Contemporary Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 

Olohan, Maeve (2000). “Investigating Domain Conceptualisation and Scene Construal in Trainee Translators”. Meta, XLV (4), 593–608. Orozco, Mariana, & Hurtado Albir, Amparo (2002). “Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition”. Meta, XLVII (3), 375–402. Øverås, Linn (1998). “In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation”. Meta, 43 (4), 571–588. Oxford Russian Dictionary. (1984). Oxford: Clarendon P. Ožegov, S. I., & Švedova N. Ju. (1993). Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Az”. Paduˇceva, E. V. (1992). “Toward the problem of translating grammatical meanings: The factual meaning of the imperfective aspect in Russian”. Meta, XXXVII (1), 113–126. Paduˇceva, E. V. (1996). Semantiˇceskie issledovanija. Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom jazyke. Semantika narrativa. Moskva: Škola Jazyki Russkoj kul’tury. Papai, Vilma (2004). “Explicitation: A universal of translated text?” In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals. Do they exist? (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Paradis, Michel (1989). “Bilingual and polyglot aphasia”. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of Neuropsychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 117–140). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Paradis, M., Goldblum, M.-C., & Abidi, R. (1982). “Alternate antagonism with paradoxical translation behavior in two bilingual aphasic patients”. Brain and Language, 15, 55–69. Perecman, E. (1984). “Spontaneous translation and language mixing in a polyglot aphasic”. Brain and Language, 23, 43–63. Perego, Elisa (2003). “Evidence of explicitation in subtitling: Towards a categorisation”. Across Languages and Cultures, 4 (1), 63–88. Pul’kina, I. M., & Zachava-Nekrasova, E. B. (1968). Uˇcebnik russkogo jazyka dlja studentovinostrancev. Moskva: Vysšaja skola. Puurtinen, Tiina (2004). “Explicitation of clausal relations: A corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature”. In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals. Do they exist? (pp. 165–176). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pym, Anthony (1992). “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience (pp. 279–288). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pym, Anthony (n.d.). “Ideologies of the Expert Discourses on Translator Training”. http://www.fut.es/∼apym/on-line/expert.pdf. Accessed 2005-02-21. Ransdell, S. E. (1994). “Generating think-aloud protocols: Impact on the narrative writing of college students”. American Journal of Psychology, 108, 89–98. Recker, Ja. I. (1974). Teorija perevoda i perevodˇceskaja praktika. Oˇcerki lingvistiˇceskoj teorii perevoda. Moskva: Meždunarodnye otnošenija. Reiss, Katharina, & Vermeer, Hans J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Robinson, Douglas (1998). “Literal translation”. In M. Baker (Ed., Ass. by K. Malmkjær), Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 125–127). London and New York: Routledge. Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rozental’, D. E. (1976). Praktiˇceskaja stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Vysšaja skola.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Rozental’, D. E. (1997). Spravoˇcnik po pravopisaniju i literaturnoj pravke. Moskva: Ajris Rol’f. Rudolph, E. (1985). “Kann asyndetische Koordination gelegentlich als elliptischer Ausdruck einer Kausalitätsverknüpfung aufgefasst werden?” In R. Meyer-Hermann & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke, Band 1 (pp. 55–84). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Russkaja grammatika, tom I. Fonetika, fonologija, udarenie, intonacija, slovoobrazovanie, morfologija. (1980a). Akademija nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Nauka. Russkaja grammatika, tom II. Sintaksis. (1980b). Akademija nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Nauka. Sanders, Ted, Janssen, Daniël, van der Pool, Els, Schilperoord, Joost, & van Wijk, Carel (1996). “Hierarchical text structure in writing products and writing processes”. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzjin (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 473–492). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Sannikov, V. Z. (1989). Russkie soˇcinitel’nye konstrukcii. Semantika, pragmatika, sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka. Scardamalia, Marlene, & Bereiter, Carl (1987). “Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition”. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics, Volume 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, Marlene, & Bereiter, Carl (1991). “Literate expertise”. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 172–194). Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Schilperoord, Jost (1996). It’s about time. Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schmidt, Morena A. (forthc.). “How do you do it anyway?” A longitudinal Study of three Translator Students translating from Russian into Swedish (forthc. diss.). Schmied, Josef, & Schäffler, Hildegard (1997). “Explicitness as a universal feature of translation”. In M. Ljung (Ed.), Corpus-based Studies in English. Papers from the seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp. 21–34). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Séguinot, C. (1989). “The Translation Process: An Experimental Study”. In C. Séguinot (Ed.), The Translation Process (pp. 21–53). York: York University Press. Séguinot, Candace (1985). “Translating Implication”. Meta, XXX (3), 295–298. Séguinot, Candace (1996). “Some Thoughts About Think-Aloud Protocols”. Target, 8 (1), 75–95. Seleskovitch, Danica (1968). L´interprète dans les conférences internationales. Paris: Minard. Seleskovitch, Danica, & Lederer, Marianne (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier. Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin (1995). “Skrivmönster med ordbehandlare”. Språkvård, 4, 11– 18. Severinson Eklund, Kerstin, & Kollberg, Py (1996). “Computer tools for tracing the writing process: From keystroke records to S-notation”. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 526– 541). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

References 

Shreve, Gregory (1997). “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence”. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 120–136). Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage. Shreve, Gregory (2002). “Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies”. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation Studies. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (pp. 150–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shreve, Gregory M., Schäffner, Christina, Danks, Joseph H., & Griffin, Jennifer (1993). “Is There a Special Kind of “Reading” for Translation? An Empirical Investigation of Reading in the Translation Process”. Target, 5 (1), 21–41. Shreve, Gregory, & Diamond, Bruce J. (1997). “Cognitive Processes in Translation and Intepreting. Critical Issues”. In J.H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 233–251). Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage. Shuttleworth, Mark, & Cowie, Moira (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome. Sidiropoulou, Maria (1995). “Causal shifts in news reporting: English vs Greek press”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 3 (1), 83–98. Širjaev, E. N. (1986). Bessojuznoe složnoe predloženie v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moskva: Nauka. Sirotinina, O. B. (1968). “Nekotorye žanrovo-stilistiˇceskie izmenenija sovetskoj publicistiki”. In T. G. Vinokur & D. N. Šmelev (Eds.), Razvitie funkcional’nych stilej sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (pp. 101–125). Moskva: Nauka. Smagorinsky, Peter (1994). “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis Beyond the Black Box”. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about Writing. Reflections on Research Methodology (pp. 3– 19). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Snell-Hornby, Mary, Hönig, Hans G., Kussmaul, Paul, & Schmitt, Peter A. (Eds.). (1999). Handbuch Translation (2nd ed). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Snodgrass, Joan Gray (1993). “Translating versus Picture Naming: Similarities and Differences”. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 83–114). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Solganik, G. Ja. (1973). Sintaksiˇceskaja stilistika (složnoe sintaksiˇceskoe celoe). Moskva: Vysšaja skola. Stepovik, D. V. (1984). Taras Ševcenko. Živopis, grafika. Kiiv: Mistectvo. Sternberg, Robert J. (1997). “Cognitive Conceptions of Expertise”. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in Context. Human and Machine (pp. 149–162). Menlo Park-Cambridge MA-London: AAAI Press/The MIT Press. Stratman, James F., & Hamp-Lyons, Liz (1994). “Reactivity in Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols. Issues for Research”. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing. Reflections on Research Methodology (pp. 89–112). Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: Sage. Strömquist, Siv. (1989). Skrivboken. Skrivprocess, skrivråd och skrivstrategier. Malmö: Gleerups.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Strömqvist, Sven (1996). Discourse flow and linguistic information structuring: explorations in speech and writing. [=Gothenburg papers in theoretical linguistics, 78]. Göteborg: University of Göteborg, Department of Linguistics. Sullivan, Kirk, & Lindgren, Eva (Eds.). (forthc.). Computer key-stroke logging. Methods and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Teleman, Ulf, & Wieselgren, Anne Marie (1990). ABC i stilistik. Stockholm: Liber. Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan, & Andersson, Erik (1999a). Svenska Akademiens grammatik. 2. Ord. Stockholm: Norstedts. Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan, & Andersson, Erik (1999b). Svenska Akademiens grammatik. 4. Satser och meningar. Stockholm: Norstedts. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (1992). “The Interaction of World Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge in the Processes of Translation. A Think-Aloud Protocol Study”. In B. Lewandowska-Tomasczyk & M. Thelen (Eds.), Translation and Meaning, Part 2 (pp. 433–440). Maastricht: Faculty of Translation and Interpreting. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (1997). “Who Verbalizes What: A Linguistic Analysis of TAP Texts”. Target, 9 (1), 69–84. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (2000). “Uncertainty in Translation Processes”. In S. TirkkonenCondit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting (pp. 123–142). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (2002). “Process Research: State of the Art and where to go next?”. Across Languages and Cultures, 3 (1), 5–19. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, & Laukkanen, Johanna (1996). “Evaluations – a key towards understanding the affective dimension of translational decisions”. Meta, XLI (1), 45–59. Tolstoj, Leo (1928). Anna Karenina [transl. by Oscar Nachman]. Stockholm: Saxon & Lindström. Tolstoj, Leo (1958). Anna Karenina [transl. from Russian by Sigurd Agrell, revised by Gunilla Nordlund]. Stockholm: Bonniers. Tolstoy, Leo (1914). Anna Karenin [transl. by Walborg Hedberg]. Stockholm. Tolstoy, Leo (1965). Anna Karenina [transl. by Louise and Aylmer Maude]. London: Oxford University Press. Tommola, Jorma (1986). “Translation as a psycholinguistic process”. In L. Wollin & H. Lindquist (Eds.), Translation Studies in Scandinavia (pp. 140–149). Lund: Gleerup. Torrance, Mark (1996). “Strategies for familiar writing tasks: Case studies of undergraduates writing essays”. In G. Rijslaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research (pp. 283–298). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Toury, Gideon (1984). “The Notion of “Native Translator” and Translation Teaching”. In W. Wilss & G. Thome (Eds.), Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlusswert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik (pp. 186–195). Tübingen: Narr. Toury, Gideon (1986). “Monitoring Discourse Transfer: A Test-Case for a Developmental Model of Translation”. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp. 79–94). Tübingen: Narr. Toury, Gideon (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.

References 

Toury, Gideon (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Toury, Gideon (2004). “Probabilistic explanations in translation studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?” In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals. Do they exist? (pp. 15–32). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Trabasso, Tom, Secco, Tom, & Van Den Broek, Paul (1984). “Causal Cohesion and Story Coherence”. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Trabasso, Tom, & Suh, Soyoung (1993). “Understanding Text: Achieving Explanatory Coherence Through On-Line Inferences and Mental Operations in Working Memory”. Discourse Processes, 16, 3–34. Trask, R. L. (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge. Ukrains’ka radjans’ka enciklopedija. (1985). Kiiv. van Waes, Luc (1991). De computer en het schrijfprocess. De invloed van de teksverwerker op het pauze- en revisiegedrag van schrijvers. Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (1989). Quasi-Correctness. A critical study of Finnish translations of Russian journalistic texts. (=Neuvostoliittoinstituutin vuoisikirja No. 31.) Helsinki: Neuvostoliittoinstituuti. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (2001a). “Explicitation as a translation strategy”. In P. Kukkonen & R. Hartama-Heinonen (Eds.), Mission, Vision, Strategies, and Values (pp. 221–229). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri (2001b). “Translation-proper explicitations – a fallacy or reality?” In Fifth International Conference on Translation. Interculturality and Translation: LessTranslated Languages. Barcelona 29.-31.10.2001. CD rom publication. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. New York. Weiss, Daniel (1993). “Die Faszination der Leere.” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, LIII (1), 48–82. Weissbrod, Rachel (1992). “Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms”. Multilingua, 11 (2), 153–171. Wengelin, Åsa (2002). Text Production in Adults with Reading and Writing Difficulties. (diss.) Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Linguistics. Venuti, Lawrence (1998). “Strategies of translation”. In M. Baker (Ed, Ass. by K. Malmkjær), Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 240–244). London and New York: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence (Ed.). (2000). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge. Whitney, Paul, & Budd, Désirée (1996). “Think-aloud-protocols and the study of comprehension”. Discourse Processes, 21 (3), 341–351. Wikland, Lennart (1974). Modern rysk grammatik. 2 uppl. Nacka: Esselte Studium. Wikborg, Eleanor, & Björk, Lennart (1989). Sammanhang i text. Uppsala: Hallgren och Fallgren. Wilss, Wolfram (1996a). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

 Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process

Wilss, Wolfram (1996b). Übersetzungsunterricht: eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Vinay, J.-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1977). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Montréal, Québec: Beauchemin. Wærn, Yvonne (1979). Thinking aloud during reading. A descriptive model and its application [=Reports from the Department of Psychology, 546]. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Psychology. Zarubina, N. D. (1981). Tekst: lingvistiˇceskij i metodiˇceskij aspekty. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Zolotova, G. A, Onipenko, N. K., & Sidorova, M. Ju. (1998). Kommunikativnaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, Filologiˇceskij fakul’tet. Zorichina-Nil’sson, Nadežda (2000). “Russkie deepriˇcastnye konstrukcii v zerkale švedskogo jazyka (vyraženie otnošenija raznovremennosti meždu dejstvijami)”. In A. Barentsen & Y. Poupynin (Eds.), Functional grammar: Aspect and Aspectuality. Tense and Temporality. Essays in Honour of Alexander Bondarko (pp. 143–155). München: LINCOM Europa.

Index

A Abidi, R.  acceptability , , , –, ,  acceptable translation  see also acceptability accountability norm  accumulation  additive connectives in Russian – in Swedish  additive relation , , – adequacy , , ,  adequate translation  see also adequacy adjacency  adversative connectives in Russian – in Swedish  adversative relation , , – affective dimensions ,  Agrell, S.  aids , , , , , , ,  Albert, M.  allocation of time , , , ,  see also time Altarriba, J.  Alves, F. , ,  Alvstad, C.  ambiguity  amount of experience in translation –, , , –,  analytical procedures for TAPs  Andersen, M. S.  Anderson, J. R. , , , 

Andersson, E. – anteriority –, –, ,  anticipatory planner ,  see also correctional planner Appel, V.  approach to a translation task –, –, , , –, ,  asyndetic coordination –, –, ,  automated processing –, , , –, , , –, , ,  automatic retrieval ,  automaticity  automatization of processing –, , –, –, ,  awareness of textual aspects , , ,  B Bachman, L. E.  backtracks  back-translation ,  Baddeley, A. D.  Bagget, W. B.  Baker, M. , ,  Ballard, M.  Barkhudarov, L.  Bartlett, E. J.  Bartsch, R.  Baurmann, J. – Bereiter, C. ,  Berk-Seligson, S. –,  Bernadini, S. , , , –

bilingual –, , , , , –,  binary asyndetic coordination  biographical historical present tense  Björk, L. ,  Blum-Kulka, S. , , , –, , ,  bounded  Bourg, T.  Bower, G. H. ,  Breedveld, H. ,  Breuer, A. Y. –, , ,  Brown, G.  Budd, D.  C Cao, D.  Carey, L.  categories of evaluations – categories of revisions see classification system of revisions categories of verbalizations in pre-writing phase – causal inferencing  causal relation(s) –, , , , –, , –, , –, – censorship  change of word order  Chanquoy, L.  Charness, N. , , ,  Chesterman, A. , , , , , , –, , 

 Index chronological order , , ,  see also natural chronology, reverse chronology Chvany, C. – Cirilo, R. K. ,  classification system of revisions – cognitive effort , , ,  cognitive processes , –, , –, , , , –, –, , , , ,  cognitive psychology , ,  cohesion , –, –, –, ,  cohesion change  cohesive explicitness ,  cohesive links  cohesive ties  communication norm , ,  communicative purpose , , , ,  see also translation brief, translation purpose competence in translating ,  competence in writing , ,  competing norm(s) –, ,  complex operation ,  comprehension of the ST , ,  comprehension problem , , , ,  comprehension process  computer logging –, –,  concessive connective  concurrent introspection , , , ,  see also think-aloud methodology concurrent verbalization(s) –, –, –, , ,  conjunction , , –,  conjuncts , –

connective  connotations ,  construction change ,  content revisions  content words ,  context –, , , , , , , ,  contrastive relation , , , – see also adversative relation contrastive rule  contrastive perspective , , –, –, , ,  coordinate structures –,  Cormier, M. C.  correctional planner ,  see also anticipatory planner correlation  Cowie, M. , , ,  cued recall  culture-specific concepts  D Dancette, J. –, , , , , , ,  Danish , – Danks, J. H.  Darbelnet, J. –, , ,  de Beaugrande, R. ,  de Groot, A.  decision process , , , , –, , , –, –, ,  decision-making processes , , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  declarative knowledge , , – default equivalent (translation) –, ,  degree of explicitness ,  Delisle, J. , ,  Denver, L. ,  dependent taxis 

developmental process  deverbalization hypothesis , –,  diagnose a problem ,  Diamond, B. J. , , ,  didactic translation –, , – direct conceptualizations ,  direct mappings  disjunctive ,  distance ,  distance to the ST , , ,  see also fidelity to the ST division into phases –, – Dollerup, C.  domestication  draft  drafting –,  E ecological validity , ,  economy principle  effect of TAPs  see also interference, reactivity Ekblom, R. ,  elementary logical relations  English –, –, , , –, , , , –, , , –,  Englund Dimitrova, B. , , , , , , ,  Entlastungsstrategie [relief strategy] 137, 139 Ericsson, K. A. , –, , , –, , , – Ervin, S.  evaluate a solution  evaluating , –, , , , , , –, , –, , ,  evaluation , , , ,  evaluations –, , – evaluative statement(s) –, 

Index  expectancy norms ,  experience from other domains  expert processing –,  expertise in translation , , , –, , , , – expertise paradigm , , ,  see also study of expertise expertise – explicative nuance ,  explicit text ,  explicitation hypothesis ,  explicitation, definitions of – explicitness change  Explikation 

F facilitation effect , , –, –, , – Færch, C.  Fawcett, P.  Fayol, M.  feedback , , , ,  fidelity to the ST ,  see also distance to the ST Finnish , , , ,  Fleischmann, E.  flexibility  Flower, L. ,  focus of attention ,  foreign language learning, translation as part of , –,  foreignization  formal correspondence , ,  Foulin, J. N.  Fraser, J. , –,  Frawley, W.  French –, , –,  future readers of TT , , , , –, , –,  Fält, E. 

G Gellerstam, M. ,  general factual meaning of the imperfective aspect  general Swedish reader ,  genre see text type genre conventions see text type conventions Gentzler, E.  Gerloff, P. ,  German –, ,  gerund , , – Gile, D.  global approach  global decisions  global strategies , , , ,  goal –, –, , , , , –, , , , –, ,  goal-setting , , , , , – Goldblum, M.-C.  Golding, J. R.  Goris, O. ,  Gorky, M. – Graesser, A. C. – grammaticalized aspect ,  Greek , ,  Green, D. W.  Grenoble, L. , –,  Griffin, J.  Grotjahn, R.  group level  Gunnarsson, G.  Gutt, E. A.  Gužba, F. K.  H Hakuta, K. –,  Halliday, M. A. K. –,  Hamp-Lyons, L. , – Hansen, G.  Hansen, S.  Harris, B. , 

Hasan, R. –,  Hayes, J. R. –, –, , –, , , , , ,  Hebrew – Hedberg, W.  Hellberg, S. – Hemmungs Wirtén, E.  Heredia, R. – Hermans, T. , , , ,  Hewson, L. , ,  Hinds, J.  historical present tense , , –,  Hitch, G.  Holmes, J.  hopning  Hung, E.  Hungarian –,  Hurtado Albir, A. – Hymes, D.  Hönig, H.  I idiosyncratic , , ,  ill-defined tasks ,  imperfective aspect –, – implicit logical links –, , –, –, –, – implicitation , , –,  incompleteness of TAPs – individual characteristic  individual level  individual profiles  individual variation , , , , ,  inferencing –,  inferencing from data , ,  information processing  initial norm , , ,  see also acceptability, adequacy initial phase , ,  initial planning , , , , , 

 Index

intention-based evaluation  interference ,  see also effects of TAPs, reactivity interference from the ST  see also negative transfer, translationese interlingual level ,  intermediate step , ,  internalization of translation norms , , , ,  internalization of solutions ,  internalization of guidelines  Internet ,  interpretation process – intersentential connectives in Russian ,  interview ,  intra-/interlingual level ,  introspection , –, ,  see also concurrent introspection Italian ,  Ivir, V.  J Jakobsen, A. L. , –, , , –, , –, , , –, , , ,  Jakobson, R.  Jacobsson, G.  Janssen, D. , ,  Japanese  Jarrick, A.  Jarvella, R.  Jensen, A. , , , ,  Jensen, E. H.  Jonasson, K. , , , ,  Josephson, O.  journalistic  journalistic texts , – junior professional –, , – Jääskeläinen, R. , –, –, , , , , ,

, , , –, , –, , ,  K Kasper, G.  Kaufer, D. S. , ,  Kiraly, D.  Klaudy, K. , –, –,  Knott, A. , ,  knowledge-based inferences  Kollberg, P.  Koller, W.  Komissarov, V. N. , , ,  Kosta, P.  Krings, H. P. , , , , –, , –, , –, , –, , , , –, , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , –, ,  Kroll, J. F.  Kruˇcinina, I. N. – Kussmaul, P. –, , , , , ,  Kutz, W.  Künzli, A. , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  Källgren, G. ,  Källkvist, M.  L language proficiency  language students , , , , , – Laukkanen, J. , –,  Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. , , ,  Lea, J.  Lederer, M. ,  Lee-Jahnke, H.  Lehmann, C. ,  Lehrer, A. ,  Leow, R. P.  Leuven-Zwart, K. van –, –

Level 1 verbalizations – Level 2 verbalizations – Level 3 verbalizations  Levenston, E. A. ,  Levy, C. M. , , , ,  Levý, J. , , , , , , , , ,  lexical repetition , – lexical revisions  Liljestrand, B.  Lindegaard, A.  Lindgren, E.  Lindqvist, Y.  linear planner  linear – linguistic competence , ,  literal translation –, , –, , –, , – Ljapon, M. V.  Loddegaard, A.  logging software –, – long term memory (LTM) –, , ,  Long, D. L. –,  Lorenzo, M. P. , , , – LTM see long term memory Lörscher, W. , –, , , , –, –, , , –, , , ,  M Malakoff, M. E. –,  Malmkjær, K. ,  Marek, J. P.  Martin, J. , ,  Maslov, Ju. S. – Mason, I. –, –,  matricial norms  Matsuhashi, A. – maxim of literalness  maxim-based evaluation  McLaughlin, B. – Mendoza, I.  mental representation , ,  metalinguistic ability 

Index 

methods for the study of the translation process – microstrategies  minimax strategy , , ,  misunderstanding ,  mode of writing , ,  models of the translation process  models of the writing process ,  modulation  Moen, S.  monitoring , , –, , , –, , ,  monolingual discourse processing – monolingual revising –, ,  monolingual text production , , ,  monolingual writing process –, –, , –, , , – Morgan-Short, K.  morphological revisions  Mossop, B. , , , –, ,  motor skills  multiple asyndetic coordination  Munday, J.  N Nachman, O.  narrative –, , – Nash, J. G. ,  natural chronology , ,  see also chronological order, reverse chronology negative transfer  Newmark, P.  Nida, E. A. , , , ,  non-exhaustive enumeration  non-problematic decision(s) see decision process

non-problematic processing  non-specified evaluation ,  Norberg, U. –, , –, –, , , , , ,  Nord, C. , , ,  Nordlund, G.  Nørgaard-Sørensen, J. –, – norm-governed behaviour  norm-governed explicitations , , , , , , – norm-governed solutions ,  norm-governed translation  Norwegian , , ,  novices , , , , ,  Nystrand, M.  O Obler, L. K.  obligatory explicitations , –,  off-line data collection ,  Offord, D.  Olohan, M. , ,  omission of repetitions , , , –, – Onipenko, N. K.  on-line data collection , , –,  operational norms – Oppy, B. J.  optional explicitations , , ,  ordo naturalis  Orozco, M. – orthographic revisions  Osgood, C.  Øverås, L. –, –, , – overgeneralization  Ožegov, S. I. , , , 

P Paduˇceva, E. V. ,  Papai, V.  Paradis, M. ,  parallel planner  parallelism , –, – paraphrasing ,  participle phrase ,  pause length –, , , , , –, ,  pause patterns , ,  perception  Perecman, E.  Perego, E. –,  perfect  perfective aspect –,  phases –, , –, – plan(s) , , , ,  planning phase  planning , –, , , –, , , –, , , , , –, , , , – pluperfect –, , – point of orientation ,  polarity ,  post-editing , – postponing decisions , –, , ,  post-writing phase  pragmatic adaptation of the TT  see also future readers of TT pragmatic explicitations , – pragmatic strategies  preliminary norms – preterite in Russian –, –, – in Swedish –, , – pre-writing phase  primary equivalent associations , , , –

 Index

primary problem indicators  principle of iconicity  principled statements ,  problem indicator model  problem indicators , , –,  problem representations –, , , –,  problem-solving , –, –, –, , , ,  procedural knowledge , , –,  see also declarative knowledge; proceduralization proceduralization  process norms  process profiles –, , , –, ,  processing resources , ,  processing speed ,  see also translation speed product norms  professional competence in translation , ,  professional norms  professional Russian-Swedish translation ,  professional translation , – professional translator, operational definition of  professionalization of translation – prompt  proper names ,  prototypical form of expertise  prototypical statements of norms  psychological processing units  Pul’kina, I. M.  Puurtinen, T. 

Pym, A. –, , , , , 

Q quality of the translated text , , , ,  quantitative analyses 

R Ransdell, S. E. , , ,  reactivity – see also effect of TAPs, interference readability  reader responsibility language  reader-based prose  reading the ST , , –, , , –, , ,  recency of the task  Recker, Ja.  recognition ,  recurrent patterns in translated texts – reformulation in the TL – regress  Reiss, K. , ,  relation norm ,  relief strategy see Entlastungsstrategie repetition see lexical repetition, omission of repetitions replication ,  researcher-subject interaction  retrieval of information  retrieval of solution strategies  retrospection – reverbalizations in L1 ,  reverse chronology  see also chronological order, natural chronology revision (change in the TT) , 

revision in monolingual writing –, –, –,  revision in translation , , –, , – revision categories see classification system of revisions rewrite  Robinson, D. – Romaine, S.  Rozental’, D. E. ,  Rudolph, E.  rule-based evaluation  Russian , , , –, , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , –, –, –, –, – Russian-speaking reader  S sample , , – Sandakova, O.  Sanders, T. , , ,  Sannikov, V. Z. – Scardamalia, M. ,  Schilperoord, J.  Schmidt, M. A. , , ,  Schmied, J. ,  Schmitt, P. A. ,  Schriver, K. A.  Schäffler, H. ,  Schäffner, C.  Scriptlog –, , – Secco, T.  secondary problem indicators  Seely, M. R.  segment initial pauses , –, ,  segment  segmentation parameters  segmentation pattern , , ,  segmentation , –, , , , – Séguinot, C. , , , 

Index  Seleskovitch, D. ,  Sell, M. A.  semantic competence , ,  semantic evaluation  semantic explicitation  semantic shift ,  senior professionals , – sense-oriented translating –,  see also sign-oriented translating sequentiality ,  Severinson Eklundh, K. ,  Sherwood, B. ,  Shevchenko, T. G. , , , , –, , – shifts in translation  Sholl, A.  short term memory (STM) , –, , , , ,  short term memory capacity , , , ,  Shreve, G. –, , –, , ,  Shuttleworth, M. , , ,  Sidiropoulou, M. , –,  Sidorova, M. Ju.  sign-oriented translating –, ,  see also sense-oriented translating Simon, H. , –, , –,  Širjaev, E. N.  Sirotinina, O. B.  SL knowledge  SL norms ,  Smagorinsky, P. ,  Smith, J. , , , – Snell-Hornby, M.  Snodgrass, J. G.  socialization 

socio-cultural setting , ,  socio-culturally based beliefs  Solganik, G. Ja.  Spanish –,  specification of meaning , ,  ST unit  ST-based evaluation  Stepovik, D. V. , –, –, , , ,  Sternberg, R. J. – STM see short term memory strategic explicitations – strategic processing  see also problem-solving strategy notion – Stratman, J. F. , , – Strömquist, S.  Strömqvist, S. , , , ,  Stuart, K.  study of expertise  see also expertise paradigm stylistic evaluation  stylistic features of the Russian ST , –,  stylistic preferences ,  subcategories of syntactic revisions  subgroup level  subjective theories of translation – subordinate clause – subphases  successive events , ,  successive preterite verb forms  Suh, S.  Sullivan, K.  Swamer, S. S.  Swedish stylistics  Swedish , –, , , , –, , , , , , –, –, , –, , –, , –, , –, –, , , ,

–, , –, –, –, , ,  Švedova, N. Ju. , ,  syntactic revisions – T TA  see also think-aloud methodology Talking Aloud  TAPs  task analysis ,  task definition , –, , ,  task environment –,  task performance , , , ,  Teich, E.  Teleman, U. –, , ,  temporal and/or causal connective ,  temporal data  temporal interpretation , – temporal relation , , –, –, –, –, – tendency to explicitation –, , , , , ,  tense system, in Russian ,  in Swedish , ,  tense systems ,  tentative translation solutions , , , , , , , , ,  tests for statistical significance ,  text difficulty  text generation in monolingual writing , – text generation in translation –, , , –, –,  text representation , , , ,  text type –, , , , , , , , ,

 Index –, , , , –,  text type conventions , ,  text-building strategies  textual knowledge  textuality  textual-linguistic norms  thematic time ,  think-aloud methodology – see also concurrent introspection think-aloud methodology in studies of the translation process , – time –, , , –, , , , , –, , –, , –, –, –,  time-coded data ,  Tirkkonen-Condit, S. , –, , –, , , , , –,  TL correctness , – TL norms , , ,  TL reader  see also future readers of TT TL rules  Tolstoj (Tolstoy), L. ,  Tommola, J.  top-down processing ,  Torrance, M.  Toury, G. , , –, , , , –, –, –, –, , , , , , – Trabasso, T.  training programs for translators, see translator training programs transfer of SL text segments  translation ability –, , , –,  translation brief , , , , , –, – see also communicative purpose, translation purpose

translation law ,  translation maxims  translation norm , –, –, , , , –,  translation norms , , , , –, – translation principles , , , , – translation procedures ,  translation purpose , , , , –,  see also communicative purpose, translation brief translation speed  see also processing speed translation strategies  see also strategy notion translation students –, , , , , , –, , –, , , –, –, , ,  translation studies  translation task , , – see also ill-defined tasks translationese ,  translation-inherent explicitations ,  translation-relevant analysis of the ST  translator competence –, –, , , –, , ,  translator training program(s) –, , , , – Translog  Trask, R. L.  triangulation , ,  typological differences between Russian and Swedish – typological distance  U Ukrainian , ,  unbounded  universal of translation –, –, , , , 

use of aids see aids USSR  V/W Wærn, Y.  validity , ,  see also ecological validity validity of computer logging  validity of TAPs , –,  value criteria  van den Bergh, H.  Van den Broek, P.  van der Pool, E.  van Waes, L. , –, , ,  van Wijk, C.  Warburton, T.  Vehmas-Lehto, I. –, , , –,  Weinreich, U.  Weiss, D.  Weissbrod, R. –, – Wengelin, Å. ,  Venuti, L. ,  verbatim memory  Vermeer, H. , ,  Whitney, P.  video recordings as data , , , , ,  Wiemelt, J.  Wieselgren, A. M.  Wikborg, E. ,  Wikland, L.  Wilss, W. , ,  Vinay, J.-P. –, , ,  visual-spatial sketchpad  word order , ,  in Swedish  word-for-word translation  working memory ,  see also short term memory working memory capacity, see short term memory capacity world knowledge , ,  writer responsibility  writer responsibility language  writer-based prose 

Index  Writing Assignment –,  writing phase 

Z Zachava-Nekrasova, I. M. 

Zarubina, N. D. , ,  Zolotova, G. A. ,  Zorichina-Nil’sson, N. 

In the series Benjamins Translation Library the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 64 ENGLUND DIMITROVA, Birgitta: Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. 2005. xx, 295 pp. 63 JANZEN, Terry (ed.): Topics in Signed Language Interpreting. Theory and practice. xii, 355 pp. + index. Expected September 2005 62 POKORN, Nike K.: Challenging the Traditional Axioms. Translation into a non-mother tongue. 2005. xii, 166 pp. [EST Subseries 3] 61 HUNG, Eva (ed.): Translation and Cultural Change. Studies in history, norms and image-projection. 2005. xvi, 195 pp. 60 TENNENT, Martha (ed.): Training for the New Millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. 2005. xxvi, 276 pp. 59 MALMKJÆR, Kirsten (ed.): Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 58 BRANCHADELL, Albert and Lovell Margaret WEST (eds.): Less Translated Languages. 2005. viii, 416 pp. 57 CHERNOV, Ghelly V.: Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. A probability-prediction model. Edited with a critical foreword by Robin Setton and Adelina Hild. 2004. xxx, 268 pp. [EST Subseries 2] 56 ORERO, Pilar (ed.): Topics in Audiovisual Translation. 2004. xiv, 227 pp. 55 ANGELELLI, Claudia V.: Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. 2004. xvi, 127 pp. 54 GONZÁLEZ DAVIES, Maria: Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Activities, tasks and projects. 2004. x, 262 pp. 53 DIRIKER, Ebru: De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting. Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? 2004. x, 223 pp. 52 HALE, Sandra Beatriz: The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. 2004. xviii, 267 pp. 51 CHAN, Leo Tak-hung: Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory. Modes, issues and debates. 2004. xvi, 277 pp. 50 HANSEN, Gyde, Kirsten MALMKJÆR and Daniel GILE (eds.): Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. 2004. xiv, 320 pp. [EST Subseries 1] 49 PYM, Anthony: The Moving Text. Localization, translation, and distribution. 2004. xviii, 223 pp. 48 MAURANEN, Anna and Pekka KUJAMÄKI (eds.): Translation Universals. Do they exist? 2004. vi, 224 pp. 47 SAWYER, David B.: Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education. Curriculum and Assessment. 2004. xviii, 312 pp. 46 BRUNETTE, Louise, Georges BASTIN, Isabelle HEMLIN and Heather CLARKE (eds.): The Critical Link 3. Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Montréal, Quebec, Canada 22–26 May 2001. 2003. xii, 359 pp. 45 ALVES, Fabio (ed.): Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. 2003. x, 165 pp. 44 SINGERMAN, Robert: Jewish Translation History. A bibliography of bibliographies and studies. With an introductory essay by Gideon Toury. 2002. xxxvi, 420 pp. 43 GARZONE, Giuliana and Maurizio VIEZZI (eds.): Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. 2002. x, 337 pp. 42 HUNG, Eva (ed.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building bridges. 2002. xii, 243 pp. 41 NIDA, Eugene A.: Contexts in Translating. 2002. x, 127 pp. 40 ENGLUND DIMITROVA, Birgitta and Kenneth HYLTENSTAM (eds.): Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Interdisciplinary perspectives. 2000. xvi, 164 pp. 39 CHESTERMAN, Andrew, Natividad GALLARDO SAN SALVADOR and Yves GAMBIER (eds.): Translation in Context. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. 2000. x, 393 pp. 38 SCHÄFFNER, Christina and Beverly ADAB (eds.): Developing Translation Competence. 2000. xvi, 244 pp. 37 TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja and Riitta JÄÄSKELÄINEN (eds.): Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Outlooks on empirical research. 2000. x, 176 pp. 36 SCHMID, Monika S.: Translating the Elusive. Marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. 1999. xii, 174 pp. 35 SOMERS, Harold (ed.): Computers and Translation. A translator's guide. 2003. xvi, 351 pp. 34 GAMBIER, Yves and Henrik GOTTLIEB (eds.): (Multi) Media Translation. Concepts, practices, and research. 2001. xx, 300 pp.

33 GILE, Daniel, Helle V. DAM, Friedel DUBSLAFF, Bodil Ringe MARTINSEN and Anne SCHJOLDAGER (eds.): Getting Started in Interpreting Research. Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners. 2001. xiv, 255 pp. 32 BEEBY, Allison, Doris ENSINGER and Marisa PRESAS (eds.): Investigating Translation. Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. 2000. xiv, 296 pp. 31 ROBERTS, Roda P., Silvana E. CARR, Diana ABRAHAM and Aideen DUFOUR (eds.): The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. 2000. vii, 316 pp. 30 DOLLERUP, Cay: Tales and Translation. The Grimm Tales from Pan-Germanic narratives to shared international fairytales. 1999. xiv, 384 pp. 29 WILSS, Wolfram: Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century. Focus on German. 1999. xiii, 256 pp. 28 SETTON, Robin: Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. 1999. xvi, 397 pp. 27 BEYLARD-OZEROFF, Ann, Jana KRÁLOVÁ and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds.): Translators' Strategies and Creativity. Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. In honor of Jiří Levý and Anton Popovič. 1998. xiv, 230 pp. 26 TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Text Typology and Translation. 1997. xvi, 342 pp. 25 POLLARD, David E. (ed.): Translation and Creation. Readings of Western Literature in Early Modern China, 1840–1918. 1998. vi, 336 pp. 24 ORERO, Pilar and Juan C. SAGER (eds.): The Translator's Dialogue. Giovanni Pontiero. 1997. xiv, 252 pp. 23 GAMBIER, Yves, Daniel GILE and Christopher TAYLOR (eds.): Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and how? 1997. iv, 246 pp. 22 CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Memes of Translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory. 1997. vii, 219 pp. 21 BUSH, Peter and Kirsten MALMKJÆR (eds.): Rimbaud's Rainbow. Literary translation in higher education. 1998. x, 200 pp. 20 SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, Zuzana JETTMAROVÁ and Klaus KAINDL (eds.): Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995. 1997. x, 354 pp. 19 CARR, Silvana E., Roda P. ROBERTS, Aideen DUFOUR and Dini STEYN (eds.): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1st international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Geneva Park, Canada, 1–4 June 1995. 1997. viii, 322 pp. 18 SOMERS, Harold (ed.): Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. 1996. xii, 250 pp. 17 POYATOS, Fernando (ed.): Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media. 1997. xii, 361 pp. 16 DOLLERUP, Cay and Vibeke APPEL (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons. Papers from the Third Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 1995. 1996. viii, 338 pp. 15 WILSS, Wolfram: Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. 1996. xiii, 259 pp. 14 MELBY, Alan K. and Terry WARNER: The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language, with implications for human and machine translation. 1995. xxvi, 276 pp. 13 DELISLE, Jean and Judith WOODSWORTH (eds.): Translators through History. 1995. xvi, 346 pp. 12 BERGENHOLTZ, Henning and Sven TARP (eds.): Manual of Specialised Lexicography. The preparation of specialised dictionaries. 1995. 256 pp. 11 VINAY, Jean-Paul and Jean DARBELNET: Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation. Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager, M.-J. Hamel. 1995. xx, 359 pp. 10 KUSSMAUL, Paul: Training the Translator. 1995. x, 178 pp. 9 REY, Alain: Essays on Terminology. Translated by Juan C. Sager. With an introduction by Bruno de Bessé. 1995. xiv, 223 pp. 8 GILE, Daniel: Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. 1995. xvi, 278 pp. 7 BEAUGRANDE, Robert de, Abdullah SHUNNAQ and Mohamed Helmy HELIEL (eds.): Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. 1994. xii, 256 pp. 6 EDWARDS, Alicia B.: The Practice of Court Interpreting. 1995. xiii, 192 pp. 5 DOLLERUP, Cay and Annette LINDEGAARD (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Insights, aims and visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference Elsinore, 1993. 1994. viii, 358 pp. 4 TOURY, Gideon: Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. 1995. viii, 312 pp. 3 LAMBERT, Sylvie and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds.): Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. 1994. 362 pp. A complete list of titles in this series can be found on www.benjamins.com