UNDERSTANDING TRANSLATORS’ UNDERSTANDING · of translation protocols for the study of translation processes. ... psychological and attitudinal factors, ... (Understanding translators’

Jeanne Dancette

UNDERSTANDING TRANSLATORS’ UNDERSTANDING

Abstract: Trying to understand cognitive mechanisms underlying creative and intellectual tasks is a challenge to psycho-cognitive research. In translation studies, scholars turned their attention to cognitivism as they were trying to go beyond traditional linguistic and comparative approaches. Interest for this kind of research flourished in the 1980s and 1990s when they sought answers to the theoretical and practical questions pertaining to the act of translation and how to teach it.

This contribution, originated in a previously published paper from 1995, assesses the progress of cognitive research in translation studies. Questions of meaning, conceptualisation, creativity, etc. are at the centre of this paper, which focuses on the processes involved in the interpretation of meaning in specialised texts while revisiting an experiment in the light of today’s developments.

Keywords: cognitive process, conceptualisation, creativity, meaning, think-aloud protocols, translation, understanding, world knowledge.

This article focuses on the cognitive mechanisms involved in the interpretation of meaning in translation and discusses experimental research on comprehension.1 We will begin by presenting an update of the developments that have taken place since the original publication of this research. This will then be followed by a short report of the original experiment and lastly by the discussion of the conclusions reached at that time, in light of today’s developments.

Revisiting a previous report is useful in order to assess the progress of cognitive research in translation studies. All in all, it appears that recent literature concerning the question of meaning and comprehension has reinforced our first results and confirmed our intuitions, even if some debates have shifted to new theoretical paradigms. We will show that in translation, just as in all social

1 The first discussion of this research appeared in the article “Extraction du sens en traduction:

le phénomène des incompréhensions” in Translation and Meaning, Part 3, Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1995.

Jeanne Dancette 66

practices, research has to integrate the role of structures (language, norms) and of human individuality (agent), as theorised by the social scientist Giddens (1984).

1. Update on the Study of Translation Processes

Since the initial publication of this research (Dancette 1995b), we have pursued work in the field of translation processes. Now, fifteen years later, we still feel relatively comfortable with the concepts, methodological choices and conclusions presented at that time. Nevertheless, there have been some new theoretical developments, a few of which we’d like to discuss in this article: those pertaining to meaning, conceptualisation, creativity and finally, the validity of translation protocols for the study of translation processes.

Meaning The study of meaning has given rise to complex debates in philosophy,

semantics, semiology and more recently psychology and translation studies. Each specialist has the need and desire to tailor their definition of meaning to the requirements of their own field, as mentioned by Leech: “So a philosopher may define meaning for his purposes, in terms of truth and falsehood; a behaviourist psychologist in terms of stimulus and response; a literary critic in terms of the reader’s response; and so on. Naturally, their definitions, springing from diverse frames of reference, will have little in common” (Leech 1983: 3). He identifies seven types of meaning – conceptual, connotative, social, affective, reflected, collocative and thematic (Leech 1983: 9–20).

Traditional linguistics distinguishes between linguistic (or literal) meaning and contextual meaning (also called psychological or affective meaning). Literal meaning is understood as being communicated by linguistic elements, whereas contextual meaning comes from the act of communication, and therefore includes its connotative, social, affective, collocative and aesthetic or formal dimensions. From a linguistic point of view, comprehension results from the confrontation and the synthesis of both literal and contextual meaning.

Translation studies have been influenced by a longstanding debate on meaning between traditional and discursive linguistics, which resulted in the apparition of the cognitive school in linguistics (Jackendoff 1985; Langacker 1987: 157; Lakoff 1987). For cognitive linguists, “meaning, although created from linguistic expressions in conformity with linguistic conventions, cannot be dissociated from world knowledge” (Langacker 1987: 157).

Understanding translators’ understanding 67

In the cognitive school of thought, meaning is undoubtedly seen as a construct. We can say that because of its variability and subjectivity, meaning cannot be scientifically analysed as a true research subject, apart from the individual actualisations of each person grasping it, with his/her own consciousness and sensibility.

The nature of translation also explains why meaning cannot be studied apart from the global act of translating.

In translation, meaning is always contextualised. Formal descriptions of meaning, be they syntactical, semantical or semiological, lead to analysing the conditions and modalities of the reception of statements in an act of communication, where referents, objects and events of the real world play as important a role as literal meaning. However, if the meaning of a text or a sentence can only be partially defined, it is not totally indefinite; its interpretation or construction follows constrained paths.

Contextual meaning is constructed by various types of operations which lead to the interpretation of a statement, after numerous and most often unconscious inferences and deductions have been made using extralinguistic knowledge.

In our 1995 article, we claimed that the construct of meaning by an individual occurs on both the linguistic level and the encyclopaedic level. At that time, the study of think-aloud protocols (TAPs) we did in translation seemed to support the idea that conceptualisation operations were tied to both linguistic forms and encyclopaedic knowledge. They also supported the idea that cognitive operations lean preferentially toward either form or knowledge depending on the stage in the translation process. We therefore claimed that even though the boundary between two types of meaning – linguistic and contextual – is hazy, a certain distinction is necessary if we are to precisely describe the cognitive operations at work in translation processes.

Fifteen years later, we still recognise that meaning is the unknown and that it may only be defined by context or in reference to an external reality. Moreover, the “meaning of meaning” has been reduced to what a person conceptualises and therefore to that individual’s perception of it. In Dancette 2006, we eventually concluded that meaning can not be researched apart from individual construct. The interpretation of meaning, despite its variability and subjectivity, greatly depends upon conscious work and follows certain individual and social modalities. In legal texts, for example, meaning is “dormant” until the texts are interpreted by a judiciary authority: “La manière de dire est porteuse de x significations possibles [...]. En sursis jusqu’à son interprétation finale par les tribunaux, le sens du texte est alors fixé” (Gémar 2008).

The experimental studies that flourished in the last decade shed some light on such modalities. For example, comparing groups of translators revealed

Jeanne Dancette 68

preferential patterns. Translators display tendencies opposing, for instance, bottom-up versus top-down comprehension strategies (Dancette 1995a); paradigmatic versus syntagmatic procedures (Audet 2005). Asadi & Séguinot 2005 oppose “prospective thinking” and “translating on screen.” Moreover, psychological and attitudinal factors, such as the translator’s “self concept” (Kussmaul 1995), his/her sensitivity to the transactional value of translation or individual resilience (Audet & Dancette 2005), have been recognised as very important in the process of translation and the construction of meaning. The question of meaning naturally leads to that of the role of conceptualisation in the construction of meaning.

Conceptualisation, World Knowledge and Concept Maps In line with new currents in linguistics as represented by Langacker,

Jackendoff, Kintsch and Fillmore, among others, research on comprehension in translation has focussed on strengthening the anchors between knowledge and comprehension in the last twenty years. The blending theory (Turner & Fauconnier), for instance, which explains the process of inference as part of comprehension, has been used to demonstrate how metonymic conceptualisations occur in translation (Fougner Rydning 2005).

In specialised discourse, more than in any other type of discourse, comprehension is closely linked to world knowledge derived from specific cognitive referents stored in a person’s memory. Understanding the semantic relations between terms in specialised texts has been considered of critical importance in both translation and terminology. Semantic relations between clauses and terms have been explored as a stepping stone for analysing conceptualisation. More specifically, knowledge representation models, and in particular concept maps, seem to open an important avenue for further exploration (Dancette & Halimi 2005: 554).

Generally speaking, concept maps are defined as graphic representations of a set of concepts and the relations between them which are extracted more or less intuitively from a text or collection of texts. Through a process of simplification and abstraction of a text’s sentences or paragraphs, a transposition is made from complex clauses to iconic semantic items on a graph to indicate the main ideas or key concepts of a text. Concept maps can therefore be used as schematic and synthetic renderings of a text in its constituent conceptual elements.

The model of conceptual maps is also applied in the analysis of specialised discourse, not only for translation but also for terminology. In terminological research, logical relations between terms can be identified and labelled, such as part-whole, agent, property, location, instrument, goal, and cause, on top of the more canonical relations of generic and specific. Organised lists of semantically


related terms are useful constructs not only for defining concepts but also for situating them in a lexical field in which categories are related to each other (Dancette 2003, 2005, 2007).

This new area of research is testimony to a new research paradigm. Indeed, the focus has shifted from the study of meaning to the study of conceptualisation, i.e. the processing of cognitive referents through inference and deduction. This avenue has proved innovative and useful in text analysis, especially to account for informative texts (more than for literary texts where formal and narrative aspects are very often distinctive parts of meaning).

Creativity and Fulfillment Creativity has always been considered a valid research question in the

comparative analysis of translations. How can creativity be defined? What accounts for creativity? Are there strategies that foster it? In the first generation of translation process studies (Dechert, Lörscher, Krings), problem-solving strategies and competence were however the main research topics. Only recently has the affective dimension been taken into account to explain translation performance and individual variability, moving away from the rationalist and globalising functional trend.

Creativity has been explored both as a means to account for the quality of a translation and to explain the feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that ensues translation. It is usually studied by examining the wording of a translation, be it target or source oriented. Recent work on translational creativity seems to indicate that there is another kind of creativity, linked to the comprehension of the original text. We define “creative comprehension” as “the ability to integrate and reconcile disparate or incongruous elements of meaning in a concise, single and coherent production” (Dancette, Audet & Jay-Rayon 2007: 116). The analysis of TAPs, interviews and translators’ journals indicate that performing a task with creativity gives satisfaction. Satisfaction appears at the very moment when a solution has been found to a translation problem. We coined the French phrase traduction aboutie (successfully completed translation) to express the subjective satisfaction of accomplishment.

In the areas of meaning, conceptualisation and creativity, it can safely be advanced that since the 1990s, research questions have become more refined and have moved from linguistic to psychological paradigms, from the realm of rationalism to the sphere of intuition. This evolution, however, does not negate the utility of previous research.

Jeanne Dancette 70

Think-aloud Protocols (TAPs), Translog, Translation Records In terms of methodology, recording translational operations with the use of

individual think-aloud protocols or objective tools supported by computer software (Translog, for example) still proves to be an interesting avenue today, twenty or thirty years after it was first explored by Dechert, Lörscher, Krings and others. In 1995, in the midst of the cognitive trend in translation studies, this kind of research seemed promising.

We thought that in theory, if not in practice, it would be possible to coherently and explicitly point to some cognitive phenomena, such as analysis process and conceptualisation building that are done when reading a text. This claim was supported by the frequently observed fact that the subject is conscious of certain steps during conceptualisation. Empirical research made this particularly evident in situations when translators were confronted by a difficulty while executing a task and was forced to break their routine because they were stuck on a problem and had to resort to more complex problem-solving strategies. In this kind of situation, a translator generally remembers his or her questions, theories, difficulties, back-tracks, expectations, etc., and he or she is generally capable of discussing them. If by chance the translator leaves traces of his or her processes (in a think-aloud protocol or on paper: deletions, notes, the translation itself), it becomes possible for the analyst to identify the different steps that characterise the conceptualisation process.

On a practical level, however, the methodological difficulties and biases inherent to the scrutiny of processes could not be ignored. The process itself is not visible, only traces left in the protocol, the translation, or an after-the-fact explanation given by the translator. What’s more, these traces are not an exact reflection of the processes, some of which, perhaps maybe even all of which, take place unbeknownst to the subject (Ericsson and Simon 1984).

We always cautioned the analyst:

Therefore, it is difficult to make sweeping generalisations when using experimental data to explain processes. The empirical data on problem solving demonstrates the diversity of translation strategies employed as well as their variability not only between subjects, but also for the same subject. This leads us to interpret the experimental data with caution. If theoretical models are to be created using such data, one must not lose sight of the fact that these are localized individual cases, whatever the number of experiments. However, the observation of subjects’ translations reveals the level at which interpretation occurs and the configuration of certain operations (1995b: 5).

With all the precautions and limitations in the use of TAPs and other recording methods as scientific exploration tools, we reaffirm today our conviction that in a teaching environment, verbalizing is a useful exercise. We used the TAP methodology with our students in M.A. courses on translation


processes. Their success confirmed the formative value of this tool. Students became aware of their difficulties, mistakes and errors and were able to share their research heuristics and solutions with others (Dancette 2003). They also became aware of the affective dimension, which can foster or, on the contrary, block their creativity.

In light of the above findings, we may now turn to the experiment originally described in 1995 and to the discussion it fosters today.

2. The Experiment

This experiment was first described in Dancette (1994, 1996). The subjects were master’s students in translation (English to French), with professional experience ranging from a few months to several years. We presented a table displaying their think-aloud protocol while translating, as well as their written translation of the text. This allowed us to analyse and compare some stages and building blocks in their thinking.

In studying both the think-aloud protocols and the translations, we focussed more particularly on the conceptual variable, based on extralinguistic and pragmatic knowledge. From these observations, we attempted to identify several generalised trends, notably those concerning operations on the conceptual level. In particular, we examined the coherence of conceptual representations and the productivity and efficiency of translational operations.

Of the original five TAPs we collected, the one described in this article was chosen because it best illustrates our discussion. It proves that it was possible to categorise comprehension operations on three levels: the textual level (the source text, including the context and co-text, and the target text), the linguistic level (reading, decoding and writing the translation) and the conceptual level (which involves the creation of links between the text and personal extra-linguistic information). The data yielded by the think-aloud protocols demonstrate interaction between these different levels and highlight the key role played by conceptualisation. Although positivist research objectives would favour a descriptive model able to separate a multitude of cognitive operations into set categories, it must be noted that no model accounts for the correspondences between them. In fact, describing these correspondences is currently considered to be an unachievable task both in the field of psychology and neurolinguistics. To accomplish it would be to see into the infamous “black box,” unveiling the full array of language and communication processes. None of this is on the

Jeanne Dancette 72

agenda today. Below is the translation task given in the experiment involving eight translators.

The text to be translated:

A bad week for bonds. Benchmark 30-year Treasury bonds and shorter-term issues fell heavily on Oct. 20, as traders dumped fixed-income securities in anticipation of higher federal spending under a Clinton Administration. (Business Week, November 2, 1992) (Bold has been added to highlight the focus of our study.)

Let us review the context: On the financial market, traders, predicting Clinton’s election to the American presidency, reacted by selling their bonds because they expected an increase in federal spending, the inflationary effect of which would reduce the return of fixed-interest securities.

In what follows, we will present an excerpt of Micheline’s think-aloud protocol. The excerpt deals with the way in which she handles the lexeme traders. We have segmented the protocol by isolating each operation carried out by the subject. The right side of the table indicates the lexical unit upon which the translator was working (locus-focus) as well as her level of analysis (see Table 1).

Micheline’s written translation:

Mauvaise Rude semaine pour les obligations du Trésor. Les obligations repères à 30 ans et les émissions d’une durée inférieure ont beaucoup enregistré une forte baisse le 20 octobre. Ceci résulte d’un large mouvement de vente des titres à revenu fixe suivi par les opérateurs du marché qui ont anticipé une augmentation des dépenses fédérales sous l'administration Clinton.

We can observe that Micheline begins her work directly on the conceptual level by looking at logical propositions. Intuitively, while she does not yet entirely understand the relationships between the concepts in the text, she focuses on the central predicate dumped and, right from the beginning, considers the actant traders to be secondary. In fact, she neutralizes it (ils in operation 1). In operation 2, she finds large movement de vente as a solution to her translation problem. She has what Cunningham (1987) calls a “creative response” that fully satisfies her. This expression allows her to further neutralize traders, since she elides it. She justifies this elision in operation 3: “Je m’en fiche que ce soit


traders. Traders, c’est « M. Tout-le-monde » qui négocie sur le marché; donc je l’élimine,” even if this justification is incorrect (traders are not just anybody, M. Tout le monde, that is unless we consider pension fund administrators and bank managers to be just anybody!). However, later in her translation, the neutralization strategy that pleases her so much must be modified (operation 5) because anticipating requires a human actant. At this point, eureka!, she spontaneously comes up with two competitive translations, négociants and opérateurs de marché, both of which are accurate. They have come to her naturally, while she worked on another segment.

Table 1. Micheline’s Protocol

Nature of the

Operation Verbalisation Process Locus-Focus

Level of Analysis

1 Neutralisation of “traders”

Dumped, je pense qu’ils s’en sont débarrassés.

“dumped”

Semantic

Consult. Rob. Collins Monitor: lexical

To dump… to dump something… voilà, ils s’en sont débarrassés… ils disent ah! Good, ça c’est intéressant vendre, écouler à bas prix, le dumping mais c’est pas ça, voilà se débarrasser de, bazarder.

2 Neutralisation / depersonalisation

Ce 20 octobre. À la suite d’un large mouvement de vente...

“dumped” Semantic

3 Monitor: elision

Je m’en fiche que ce soit traders. Traders, c’est « M. Tout-le-monde » qui négocie sur le marché; donc je l’élimine.

“traders” Conceptual

4 Translation … de vente des titres à revenu fixe

“dumped” Lexical

Reading … à savoir les obligations, securities… higher spending… administration…

Sentence Syntagmatic

5 Translation (mouvement de vente) suivi! Alors suivi, (mouvement) largement suivi par…

“…traders dumped”

Syntagmatic

6 Deneutralisation: actantiation

les négociants ou les opérateurs du marché anticipant…

“traders” / “anticipating

Semantic

7 Monitoring C’est bien, ça; ça me plaît, les opérateurs.

Sentence Syntagmatic

Jeanne Dancette 74

The three dimensional table displaying her approach demonstrates the fluidity in her thinking. It shows how easily she makes the transition between levels (see Figure 1).

Fig. 1. The Three-Dimensional Map

Although she begins on the conceptual level in (1) and (1–2), she sidetracks to the linguistic level by consulting the dictionary (2) in order to get a clearer understanding of the word dumped. From the list of equivalences presented in the dictionary, she chooses vendre which, in turn, initiates the idiomatic expression large mouvement de vente. At this point, the conceptual and linguistic levels are perfectly compatible. She can therefore translate quite freely, “responding creatively.” She then moves on to the following segment: anticipating higher spending. The participial proposition anticipating forces Micheline to look for a subject for the proposition. She must therefore come back to traders, which activates a new lexical choice, négociant, opérateur, as equivalents for traders.

When we analysed the data provided by this TAP, we found Micheline’s approach to effectively illustrate the concept of “cognitive mapping”


(McGonicle 1986: 143–146). Micheline conceptualises the portion of the sentence by projecting it on a “model of reality” already in place in her memory. The linguistic constraints of the text (both original and translation) cause her to elaborate on this model. She then proceeds to make the necessary semantic adjustments as her model of reality becomes more accurate. We have an image of the evolution of her reasoning.

3. Discussion

The case presented in this article shows the translator’s idiosyncratic way of constructing meaning, as well as her method of translating. When compared with other subjects taking part in the experiment, it proved very different from some. Comparing allows us to easily recognise behaviours typical to a certain calibre of translator. For example, the “neutralisation” of traders was attempted by several translators among our group of eight. It corresponds to a common strategy among more experienced translators. We have observed that the most efficient ones utilise a wide range of strategies that allow them to continue the translation, leaving the problem momentarily unresolved. They will come back to it while working on another segment.

In addition, the capacity to distinguish primary and secondary concepts in a text presents an interesting topic for the study of translation processes; Kussmaul (1995) effectively uses Fillmore’s concepts of “foregrounding of semantic features” and the opposite operation, the “shadowing of semantic features,” which imply a capacity to monitor and sequence the processes of conceptualisation.

Furthermore, it would seem that certain translators spontaneously create a macrostructure of the text or of a segment of text and work at a very complex operational level (macro-operations), and on several different levels simultaneously (poly-operations). They work at once on conceptual and linguistic components, on comprehension and the search for equivalents. Bottom-up and top-down operations combine and complement each other.

The Double Helix Revisited In previous writings, we used this metaphor to represent the parallel process

of both comprehension and expression (Dancette l995a). The model can be applied to the analysis of translation protocols, be they TAPs, Translog or other computer protocols. If we were to transpose Micheline’s TAP and its coding

Jeanne Dancette 76

onto the double helix graph, we could record operations on the semantic, lexical and conceptual levels.

This model illustrates how the units in the source-text are used as prompts for different operations taking place at various levels of analysis depending on the focus. It helps to classify the data successively processed by the subject and shows the very tentative, sometimes shaky, way translation takes place. In particular, it shows the relations between linguistic operations (such as decoding, analysing, interlingual rendering), cognitive operations (such as linguistic judgments, plausibility checks of possible interpretations) and metacognitive operations (such as adequacy of the strategies to the pragmatic constraints of the task). It illustrates the dynamics of the process, the scope and diversity of operations.

The double helix model incorporates various factors at play in the translation process on five axes, as shown in Figure 2 below, along two intertwining curves, one accounting for comprehension processes, the other for expression processes.

Five Axes to Analyse the Translation Process The following figure generalises the double helix scheme to all translation

operations. They may occur on the referential (and in literary texts, intra-referential), the formal, the semantic, the narrative and translational levels.

Fig. 2. The Double Helix on Five Axes

It metaphorically illustrates the fact that the operations are determined by many constraints: referential (the outside world, or the inner world of the literary text), formal (the characteristics of the text, style, emphasis, prosody, rhythm),


semantic (the meaning of linguistic units), narrative (macrostructural elements of a narrative text such as register, indirect discourse, hypotyposis) and translational (ethics and professional norms, societal expectations). The double helix model metaphorically maps a part of the “translation act.” The translation act, a phrase mirroring Grice’s “speech act” (l975), accounts for the dynamics of translation, in its cognitive and pragmatic complexity, with its psychological and social constraints. This act is submitted to principles and rules and results from a sort of “transaction,” in Grice’s meaning. Such transactions are the expression of the intentionality of the subject, i.e. the translator.

Conclusion

In the last twenty years translation process studies have diversified. Some have particularised longitudinal studies of expertise on large groups while others have focussed on very individual aspects of the translation act, such as creativity, involvement, conceptualisation and sensitivity to formal elements in the text. The field has grown, revealing a tension in research between what Giddens (1984) calls the “structure,” i.e. the social factors (including linguistic structures and social norms) or the “human agency,” i.e. the individual actor. Translation is a social practice. As such, it both involves the subject (agency) and collective forms of social life. Subjectivity is integrated in the praxis.

Translation research and training have much to gain from the cognitive sciences, especially cognitive psychology, cognitive semantics and even cognitive terminology. Vice versa, studying the modes of building meaning in translation is an interesting source of material to enrich our understanding of human communication. Subjectivity and social norms are involved.

Revisiting previous research has allowed us to assess the progress of research done in the field, gauge the limitations of some tools and methods and reconcile some differences between diverging approaches.

REFERENCES

Asadi, P. and C. Séguinot (2005). “Shortcuts, Strategies and General Patterns in a Process Study of Nine Professionals.” Meta, 50(2): 522–547.

Audet, L. (2005). La création dans le processus traductif; Analyse théorique et empirique de la littérarité (PhD thesis in linguistics). Montréal, Université de Montréal.

Jeanne Dancette 78

Audet, L. and J. Dancette (2005). “Le mouvement de la création dans la traduction littéraire.” In: A. Künzli (ed.). Recherches empiriques sur les processus de traduction et d’interprétation. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée. 81: 5–24.

Cunningham, J.W. (1987). “Toward a Pedagogy of Inferential Comprehension and Creative Response.” In: R. Teirney et al. (eds.). Understanding Reader’s Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dancette, J. (1994). “Comprehension in the Translation Process: An Analysis of Think-Aloud Protocols.” Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Insights, Aims, Visions (Selected papers from the Second ‘Language International’ Conference. Elsinore, Denmark, 4–6 June 1993) C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds.). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dancette, J. (1995a). Parcours de traduction: analyse expérimentale du processus de compréhension. Lille: P.U.L.

Dancette, J. (1995b). “L’extraction du sens en traduction; le phénomène des incompréhensions.” In: M. Thelen and B. Lewandowska (eds.). Translation and Meaning. Part 3: 2–11. Maastricht: Faculty of Translation and Interpreting.

Dancette, J. (2003). “Le protocole verbal, un outil d’autoformation en traduction.” In: G. Mareschal et al. (eds.). La formation à la traduction professionnelle: 65–82. Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Dancette, J. (2005). “Les relations lexico-sémantiques (RLS), moyen de structuration des connaissances dans les domaines spécialisés.” In: Y. Politis, G. Henneron, R. Palermiti (eds.). L’organisation des connaissances; approches conceptuelles: 83–96. Paris: L’Hartmann.

Dancette, J. (2006). “Dans les coulisses de la traduction; lieu et modalités du travail sur le sens.” Colloque international: Le sens et la traduction, ESIT. In: M. Lederer (ed.). Le sens en traduction: 63–80. Paris: Lettres modernes, Minard, Collection Cahiers Champollion.

Dancette, J. (2007). “Semantic relations in retailing.” Terminology 13(2). Dancette, J. and N. Ménard (1996). “Modèles empiriques et expérimentaux en

traductologie: questions d’épistémologie.” Meta 41(1): 139–157. Dancette, J. and S. Halimi (2005). “La représentation des connaissances et son apport à

l’étude du processus de traduction.” Meta 50(2): 548–459. Dancette, J., L. Audet and L. Jay-Rayon (2007). “Axes et critères de la créativité en

traduction.” Meta 52(1): 108–122. Dechert, H.W. (1987). “Analyzing Language Processing through Verbal Protocols.” In:

Introspection in Second Language Research, Faerch and G. Kasper. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ericsson, K.A. and H.A. Simon (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fougner Rydning, A. (2005). “The return of sense on the scene of translation studies.” Meta 50(2): 392–404.

Gémar, J.-C. (2008). “Forme et sens du message juridique en traduction.” Int J Semiot Law 21: 323–335. Published online. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.


Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Grice, P.H. (1975). “Logic and Conversation.” In: P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Jackendoff, R. (1985). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Krings, H.P. (1986). Was in die Köpfen von Übersetzern Vorgeht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things – What Categories Reveal about

the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 1. Stanford: Stanford

University Press. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation

Strategies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. McGonigle, B. (1986). “Representations and Strategies During Inference.” In: Myers,

Terry, K. Brown and McGonigle (eds.). Reasoning and Discourse Processes: 141–164. New York: Academic Press.

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and S. Condit (eds.) (1989). Empirical Studies in Translation and Linguistics. Joensuu, Finland: Joensuun yliopiston monistuskeskus.

Jeanne Dancette 80

Documents

UNDERSTANDING TRANSLATORS’ UNDERSTANDING · of translation protocols for the study of translation processes. ... psychological and attitudinal factors, ... (Understanding translators’