Inside The Monitor Model: Processes Of Default And Challenged Translation Production

Michaël Carl · Barbara Dragsted

86 citations0/0 files storedCBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Translation Studies and Practices Natural Language Processing Techniques Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Abstract

It has been the subject of debate in the translation process literature whether human translation is a sequential and iterative process of comprehension-transfer- production or whether and to what extent comprehension and production activities may occur in parallel. Tirkkonen-Condit (2005) suggests a “monitor model” according to which translators start in a literal default rendering mode, and a monitor interrupts the default procedure when a problem occurs. This paper proposes an extension of the monitor model in which comprehension and production are processed in parallel by the default procedure. The monitor supervises text production processes, and triggers disintegration of the translation activity into chunks of sequential reading and writing behavior. To investigate this hypothesis, we compare text copying with translation activities under the assumption that text copying represents a typical literal default rendering procedure. Both, translation and text copying, require decoding, retrieval and encoding of textual segments, but translation requires in addition a transfer step into the target language. Comparing reading and writing behaviour obtained in the copying and translation experiments, we observe surprisingly many similarities, which also suggests similarities in the underlying processes. Copyists deviate from the default literal text reproduction into more effortful text understanding, and much of the translators’ behaviour looks like simple text copying. During translation as well as during text copying we observe that translators and copyists resort to sequential reading and writing patterns which seem to be triggered through target text production problems.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 86 citations exist upstream.

References

2005The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research 2012Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes 2010Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task 2003Progression analysis (PA): investigating writing strategies at the workplace 2008Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task

Cited by

2015The CRITT Translation Process Research Database 2017Translation Process Research 2015Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation 2014Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes 2015Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms 2014Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator 2017Evolution, Challenges, and Perspectives for Research on Cognitive Aspects of Translation 2017EEG and Universal Language Processing in Translation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.