Traducción literal vs. traducción por defecto. Un desafío para los dos constructos mediante la traducción del egipcio clásico como caso extremo

Christian Olalla Soler

doi:10.30827/sendebar.v34.27090

Authors

Christian Olalla Soler Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9251-476X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30827/sendebar.v34.27090

Keywords:

cognitive translation and interpreting studies, literal translation, default translation, observational study, keylogging, cognitive effort, Middle Egyptian

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study that compares the constructs of literal translation (Schaeffer & Carl, 2014) and default translation (Halverson, 2019) by means of an observational, exploratory study with Middle Egyptian translation as an extreme case in point. Two MA students in Egyptology at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and three recent graduates of the same MA programme took part in the study. They translated two excerpts from two Middle Egyptian literary texts into Spanish. InputLog was used to collect translation-process data and derive word-level indicators of cognitive effort from them: typos per word, word typing speed, and within-word pause. Results showed a clear link between default translations and cognitive effort (low number of typos, low number of respites, and fast writing speed). However, the assumption that deviations from literality cause greater cognitive effort was not observed. Hence, default translation may serve as a more adequate construct to describe the regular way translators perform.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allen, J. P. (2015). Middle Egyptian Literature. Cambridge University Press.

Carl, M. (2010). A computational framework for a cognitive model of human translation processes. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Translating and the Computer. 18–19 November 2010, London. https://aclanthology.org/2010.tc-1.10.pdf

Carl, M. & Schaeffer, M. (2017a). Why translation is difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 56, 43–57.

Carl, M. & Schaeffer, M. (2017b). Measuring translation literality. In A. L. Jakobsen & B. Mesa-Lao (Eds.), Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins.

Carl, M., Schaeffer, M. & Bangalore, S. (2016). The CRITT Translation Process Research Database. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 13–54). Springer.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford University Press.

Cervelló Autuori, J. (2015). Escrituras, lengua y cultura en el Antiguo Egipto. Edicions UAB.

Clark, A. (1996). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. The MIT Press.

Faber, M., Krasich, K., Bixler, R. E., Brockmole, J. R., & D’Mello, S. K. (2020). The eye–mind wandering link: Identifying gaze indices of mind wandering across tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(10), 1201–1221.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Foster, J. L. (1980). Sinuhe: The ancient Egyptian genre of narrative verse. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 39(2), 89–117.

Gieshoff, A. C. (2021). Does it help to see the speaker’s lip movements? An investigation of cognitive load and mental effort in simultaneous interpreting. Translation Cognition & Behavior, 4(1), 1-25.

Gilbert, D., Toledo-Báez, C.; Carl, M. & Espino, H. (2023). Impact of word alignment on word translation entropy and other metrics. A comparison of translation process research findings derived from different word alignment methods. In I. Lacruz (Ed.), Translation in Transition: Human and Machine Intelligence (pp. 203-235). John Benjamins.

Halverson, S. L. (2019). ‘Default’ translation. A construct for Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 187–210.

Halverson, S. L. & Muñoz Martín, R. (2019a). Default translation in Cognitive Translation Studies. A construct and methodological issues. In 6th International Conference on Cognitive Research on Translation and Interpreting. 8-10 November 2019, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.

Halverson, S. L. & Muñoz Martín, R. (2019b). Default translation in the wild. In 9th EST Congress, 9-13 September, Stellenbosch University, RSA.

Hammouri, H. M.; Sabo, R. T., Alsaadawi, R. & Kheirallah K. A. (2020). Handling skewed data: A comparison of two popular methods. Applied Sciences 10(18): 6247.

House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. TBL-Verlag Narr.

Hunziker Heeb, A; Lehr, C. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2021). Situated translators: Cognitive load and the role of emotions. In R. Muñoz Martín, S. Sun & D. Li (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies (pp. 47-65). Springer Singapore.

Ivir, V. (1981). Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. In I. Even-Zohar & G. Toury (Eds.), Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations (pp. 51–59). Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.

Jiménez-Crespo, M. Á. & Casillas, J. V. (2021). Literal is not always easier. Literal and default translation, cognitive effort, and comparable corpora. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 4(1), 98-123.

Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.

Leijten, M. & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–92.

Muñoz Martín, R. (2016). Looking toward the future of Cognitive Translation Studies. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 555–572). Wiley Blackwell.

Muñoz Martín, R. & Apfelthaler, M. (2022). A Task Segment Framework to study translation processes. Translation & Interpreting, 14(2), 8-31.

Muñoz Martín, R. & Cardona Guerra J. M. (2019). Translating in fits and starts: Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 27(4): 525–551.

Muñoz Martín, R. & Martín de León, C. (2018). Fascinatin’ rhythm – and pauses in translators’ cognitive processes. HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 57, 29–47.

Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 135(3), 370.

Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Rodopi.

Parkinson, R. B. (ed.) (1998). The Tale of Sinuhe and other ancient Egyptian poems, 1940 - 1640 BC. Oxford University Press.

Reichle, E. D. & Reingold, E. M. (2013). Neurophysiological constraints on the eye-mind link. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 361.

Rosmorduc, S. (2014). JSesh Documentation. Available at: http://jseshdoc.qenherkhopeshef.org

Schaeffer, M & Carl M. (2014). Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In U. Germann et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation (HaCaT) (pp. 29–37). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Schaeffer, M., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Balling, L. W. & Carl, M. (2016). Word translation entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research (pp. 183-210). Springer International Publishing.

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2): 405–414.

Tweedie, M. C. K. (1984). An index which distinguishes between some important exponential families. In J. K. Ghosh & J. Roy (Eds.), Statistics: Applications and New Directions—Proceedings of the Indian Statistical Institute Golden Jubilee International Conference (pp. 579–604). Indian Statistical Institute.