Download Report

IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management: the Metacognitive State
of Problem-Solving of Professional (experienced) Translators and
Students of Translation Studies
Zahra Amirian &
Mohamad J. Baghiat,
University of Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Uncertainty is a cognitive state of indecision that may be indicated by a distinct class
of behaviors in the process of translation (Angelone and Shreve, 2011). Uncertainty is
related to the problem solving of a translator during the translation activity. This
explanatory study attempted to investigate differences in Uncertainty and Uncertainty
Management (UCM) between one professional translator-a person who has at least
ten years of experience in translation activity- and non-professional translators by
using two methodologies; screen recording and Think aloud protocols in retrospect.
This study marked the substantial differences in encountering and managing
uncertainty among different groups of participants: BA Graduated translation studies
students of University of Isfahan, MA Graduated Translation studies students of
University of Isfahan, and a member of English department of University of Isfahan
who has more than 14 years of experience in translating and teaching translation. This
study by analyzing interruptions as signs of uncertainty, manifesting in the process of
translation activity in pause, cursor movement, clicking, deleting, adding, dictionary
looks-up and so on, found that students are more uncertain at word level and at
comprehension, transfer level of uncertainty behavior whereas a professional
translator is more or less uncertain at text, context level and at production level of
uncertainty behavior. A professional translator manages uncertainties at the first and
last stages of uncertainty management whereas student translators postpone
uncertainty management to the last stages. This paper is one of the first studies
concerning metacognitive activity which may be useful in training novice translators.
Keywords: Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management, Decision making, Screen
recording, Interruption
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
223
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
1. Introduction
Uncertainly principle or principle of indeterminacy may relate to the physicist Werner
Heisenberg, whose work on quantum mechanics. It’s came to the conclusion which it
was impossible to observe the speed and position of a particle (Pym, 2010). “The
more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known
in this instant, and vice versa” (Heisenberg, 1927 p.172). Uncertainty principle is
affected by a humanistic effect called observer effect; each translator comprehend,
explain justify and interpret the text under translation process differently and from
their point of view. That’s why stable comprehension can never be fulfilled.
Uncertainty analysis related to translation process activity. The analysis of translation
process needs a great deal of complexity which is observable indirectly through some
methods in empirical-experimental research on translation processes (Albir, 2008).
Among them is Think aloud protocols (TAPs), (Ericsson& Simon, 1984; Sandrock,
1982; Gerloff, 1988; Tirkkonnen-condit, 1989; Lorscher,1991;Kussmaul, 1991;
Fraser, 1993;Kiraly, 1995). Triangulation which related to use different methods;
TAPs, interview, questionnaires and physiological measurement like: Translog
software established by Jakobsen and schou (1999) by which researcher can observe
the process of Text production in observing key-logging and keyboard recording,
Screen recording, Camtasia software (http://www.techsmith.com) and more recently
Eye tracking (O’Brien 2006) which gathers data by pupil movements and fixations.
Other research uses some modern techniques like investigation of brain activity with
the aid of electroencephalography (EEG) (Kurz, 1993) and Neuroimaging (fMRI)
(Buchweitz, 2007).
Uncertainty is broadly defined by Shreve (2011) as a cognitive state of indecision,
indicated by a particular class of behaviors which is occurring potentially during the
process of translation. Uncertainty behaviors are noticeable and can generally be
pertinent to some aspect of problem-solving in the core process of translation activity.
The behaviors are conspicuous by “interruptions” in the process of translation,
related to the inability to make particular decision making. Uncertainty can be
considered potentially natural in all translation activity. (Erik Angelone & Gregory M.
Shreve, 2011)
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
224
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Observable indicators of uncertainty behaviors are the interruptions happening in the
process of translation. These interruptions are presented by some sorts of diagnostic
behavioral indicators; however, they may be studied empirically. Uncertainty
indicators, for example, include extended pauses in a source text encoding or a target
text decoding, deletion and/or revision, cursor repositioning, and some information
retrieval behavior like dictionary looks-up, internet searching, etc. there may also
exist some physiological behavior indictors, such as; eye movements, change in pupil
size and increase in certain types of brain activity or even changing in physiological
factors of skin response. (Angelone, 2010). Studies by Eglund Dimitrova (2005) and
Jakobsen (2002) shows that there are connection between revision and uncertainty in
novice translator activities; and also according to PACTE study (2005) the use of
internal, external supports by professional and novice translators purports a
connection between uncertainty and information searching behavior.
In the situation of translation process which is happening naturally and when the
situation is out of lab and the experiment, most indicators of uncertainty will be
nonverbal behavior and psychological factors like eye movements or skin
galvanizing. But under the experimental work, with the use of Think aloud protocols
(TAPs).As Tirkkonen-Condit (2000) pointed out it is feasible to elicit the verbal
indicators of uncertainty in the form of direct or indirect articulation. Direct
articulation include direct addresses like ‘I don’t know this collocation in English’ or
‘I don’t know how to put this collocation in Persian, target language’, indirect
addresses like ‘ is it a correct sentence in English?’ or it can be some questions about
the quality and quantity like; ‘this expression sounds much awkward and it doesn’t fit
in this context’. These information can be categorized as uncertainty behaviors and
can be assigned to a specific translation process “(comprehension, transfer,
production) or textual level, such as: lexis, collocation, phrases, syntax, sentence, or
macro level, the last of which may involve issues of cohesion, coherence, genre and
so on.” (Angelone, 2010 p.18)
There are several studies which explored the issue of uncertainty (Tirkonnen-condit,
2005; Asadi and Seguinot, 2005; Hansen 2003; Fraser, 2000). The results show that
experts are more tolerant about accepting and solving uncertainty, and they are more
likely to use monitoring ability to provide feedback regarding what to do, or don’t for
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
225
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
solving a certain problem (siren & Hakkarainen, 2002 , Hansen, 2003 , Shreve, 2006).
The studies also have found a monitoring capacity in the translation activity of
experts; professional translators deal with uncertainty through intentional generation,
audition (e.g., trying out, testing), and evaluation of tentative solution in the target text
context. (Trikkonon-Condit, 2000).
According to Angelone monitoring can be more exactly defined: “ The metacognitive
ability of translators to self-reflect on the nature and course of a problem solving
sequence, provide themselves with feedback on progress toward a solution, and
evaluate and solution regards” (2010, p.19).
Monitoring is a component of
metacognition which can be defined as the conscious, volitional strategic control over
complex cognitive tasks (Hansen, 2003). According to Siren and Hakkarainen (2002),
Sherve (2006) and Hansen (2003) monitoring skills are a fundamental characteristic
of an expert.
Meeting with uncertainty behaviors, translators try to solve the uncertainty; this
solving problems rather solving uncertainty is called uncertainty management
(UCM).Monitoring and uncertainty management are closely related (Fraser 2000).
There are abundant studies emphasizing on the importance of monitoring in
uncertainty management (Tirkkonoen-Condit, 2005; Asadi & Seguinot, 2005;
Hansen, 2003; Fraser 2000). Hansen research indicates the great ability of
professional translator in monitoring skill (2003).According to Shreve and Angelone
having this capability is because of their self-awareness of their capacity in problem
solving process through self-regulation and self-reflection (2011).
Angelone (2010) classified uncertainty management in three sequential bundles or
“triads of sequential bundles”. They emerge when the translator faces uncertainty in
the three levels of processes, comprehension-transfer-production, in translation
activity when the translator encounters a “problem nexus”. Problem nexus could be
anything that is challengeable for a translator so that he should make a decision for
solving them, “a nexus is the confluence of a given textual property and level (lexis,
term collocation. Phrase, syntax, sentence, macro-level feature) and some sort of
deficit in cognitive resources: a lack in the declarative or procedural knowledge the
translator possesses” (Shreve E. A., 2011, p. 109).
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
226
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
There are three levels of translation locus; comprehension, transfer and production
level (Shreve E. A., 2011). Comprehension level is anything deals with uncertainity
about understanding the source text. Articulate indicators like ‘I don’t know what the
meaning of this sentece here, in the source text, is’ or it could be in inarticulate forms
like extended puase, dictionaries and other interface looks-up or psychological factors
like eye point movements. Transfer level emerges when the translator cannot find an
apropirate equivalent structure (term, collocation, phrase, etc.) to use in the target
language. In whole any activity involving producing the target language can be
considered as transfer level. Production level is anything regarding editing activity
like deleting, adding, inverting, revision etc.
Besides three level of translation locus there are three fundemental uncertainity
management, problem solving strategies which must be considered in the process of
translation; problem recognition, solution proposal and solution evaluaiton( Angelone,
2010 and shreve and Angelone, 2011). These strategies can be observabale by
emperical studies.
Problem recognition behaviors are often addressed directly by using Think- aloud
protocols such as ‘I don’t know what the author meant by this sentence’ or ‘hm…
uh…this word is problematic’. Non-articulated problem recognition behavior may
present itself in pauses or cursor movements, positioning in keyboard behavior.
Interface behavior; such as dictionary looks-up and internet checking. Some
psychological behaviors like eye fixation, pupil dilating or skin galvanizing can be
indicators of problem recognitions too.
Solution proposal as Tirkonnoen-Condit (2000) pointed out “trying-out” for solving
encountered problems. Indicators may include articulating a series of language
equivalents, reading through text to find out the best equivalent, choosing between
options by surfing interfaces and typing multiple choices for later-on evaluation.
Solution evaluation behaviors, then, often ensue as late stage indicators of uncertainty
management. In solution evaluation stage, the target text is almost written or it can be
synchronized with generating target text. In this stage, the translator decides among
choices that he/she puts aside in the solution proposal stage for later evaluation. Any
kind of behavior relating to editing such as revision, deleting, looking over,
skimming, scanning and perusing can be considered in this stage. Indicators can be
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
227
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
directly articulated (i.e, “this phrase doesn’t look fit in academic context”). It can also
be non-articulated by some keyboarding and interfacing behavior or some eye
movement back and forth or scanning through the text.
Shreve (2002), Alves and Gonacalves (2004) are scholars who first examined the
issue of metacognition, translation competence and expertise. The striking findings of
Tirkonnen-Condit’s on monitoring encourage other scholars to render exploration
about uncertainty management. Shreve (2009) clearly mentioned that the
metacognition occurring in translation process is as a result of cognitive problems
pertaining to translator situation and other scholars see an association between
recognizing the problem and solving them with metacognition (Davidson et al., 1994).
2. Background to the Study
2.1 Statement of Problem
This study aims to access and assess the metacognitive process of translator minds.
This paper particularly deals with uncertainty and the cognitive state of incision which
is an inherent aspect of every process of translation. This study is one of the first steps
toward the new approach in the field of translation studies; translation and cognition.
The findings may be helpful for realizing where and how uncertainty is managed by a
professional translator and what probable differences emerge in managing uncertainty
between student translators and professional translators.
Uncertainty management is imperative in producing a high quality translation,
understanding the deficiencies of graduated students of translation studies and novice
translators in contrast with the efficiencies of professional translators in managing
uncertainty may be a great help in teaching and training young translators.
2.2 Research Questions
1-
- “Vinay and Darbelent reject the word as a unit of translation since translators
focus on the semantic field rather than on the formal properties of the
individual signifier, for them, the unit is the ‘smallest segment of the
utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be
translated individually’ (1985/1995: 21). This is what they call the
lexicological unit and the unit of thought.” (munday, 2004, p. 55)As the unit
of thought is supposed to be analyzed in the process of translating the paper is
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
228
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
going to discover what is the unit of translation better to say the unit of
thought for both professional translators and students of translation studies?
2-
Uncertainty can happen in the level of word, term, collocation, phrase, syntax,
and sentence and beyond sentence level (macro level). At which textual level,
uncertainty is more/less frequent for different groups of participants?
3-
Uncertainty can emerge at the comprehension level, transfer or production
level. Wherein uncertainty is frequently repeated for different groups of
participants?
4-
Uncertainty can be managed in there stages: problem recognition, solution
proposal or solution evaluation. At which stage uncertainty is frequently
managed for different groups of participants?
5-
There are some physical factors in translation activity of each group as; time,
the number of clicking, cursor movement, pause, revisions (deleting, adding
etc.) and using interfaces like dictionaries, internet surfing etc. The existence
of these physical factors may indicate uncertainty. Which group generally is
more uncertain in the process of translation regarding physical factors in
translation process and why?
2.3 Hypothesis
1-
The unit of translation for Students (Novice translators) may be at word level
whereas the unit of translation for a professional translator may be beyond
word level and at the level of sentence and beyond sentence level.
2-
Student might be more uncertain at more text parameters like word,
collocation, phrase etc. while a professional translator is expected to be
uncertain at contextual parameters (macro level) like genre, coherence etc.
3-
There are three locations for uncertainty: comprehension, transfer and
production as professional translators are more knowledgeable than Students,
it is expected that the frequent professional translator’s uncertainty be on
transfer level rather than comprehension and production level. Student on the
other hand due to their lack of knowledge and experience may be uncertain at
the level of comprehension. Also, they may be uncertain at the production
level.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
229
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
4-
Problem recognition is the most important strategy in uncertainty
management. It is expected that the most problem solving (decision making)
of a professional translators is carried out in this stage whereas student
translators may hold the managing uncertainty to the last stage of problem
solving, in solution evaluation stage.
5-
Assuming, the higher the extension or the number of physical factors is, the
more uncertain a translator may be. Student translators may have higher
extension or number of physical factors in the process of translation.
3. Methodology
Studies in metacognition are mostly benefited from using Think-aloud protocols
(Bannert & Mengelkamp, 2008), TAPs are considered the most telling report about a
complex, conscious, regulated process which is happening in the translators’ mind.
(Pressley, 2000). According to Garner (1988); Garner and Alexander (1989), TAPs
are useful for capturing articulate behaviors. Other behavior which is inarticulate such
as: information retrieval, editing, revision, deleting, eye movement, skin responses
etc. Should be gathered in some other ways like: “translog, eye tracking and screen
recording” (Pym, 2010, p. 81).
Beside the practicality of TAPs in examining the cognition in translation process,
there are some scholars like Toury (1995) who believes asking participants to
verbalize their thought while they simultaneously are translating, distracts their minds
and the result is not as valid as it meant to be. He mentioned the diversion may bring
some unconscious variable to the naturalness of translating a text.
In order to procure both articulate and inarticulate behavior, this study utilized two
methodologies; Screen recording and Think-aloud protocol in retrospect.
There are three groups of participants in this study; BA Graduated translation studies
students of University of Isfahan. MA Graduated Translation studies students of
University of Isfahan, and a member of English department of University of Isfahan
who has more than 10 years of experience in translating and teaching translation.
A short paragraph which is taken from Tehran Translation Agency interview is given
to the participants (see appendix). Their translation was monitored by Camtasiasudio
Version v7.1.0.163 software.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
230
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Participants in a survey were informed about the details of the study and they were
asked to elaborate the process of their translation while they were looking at their
translation screen recording. Some follow up question were asked elucidating the fact
that in which category every uncertainty behavior belongs to and how they were
managed.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Results
The results of this study are classified into five categories:
-
Unit of translation (word, sentence, beyond sentence level) for different
groups of participants.
-
Uncertainty locus (comprehension, transfer, production) at which uncertainty
emerges in the process of translation.
-
Uncertainty management (problem recognition, solution proposal, solution
evaluation) which is employed by participant during the translation process.
-
Textual level (lexis, term, collocation, phrase, syntax, sentential. Macro level)
in which uncertainty emerges during the translation process.
-
Physical aspects (average number of clicking, cursor movement, revision,
using interfaces, average time and pause extension) which marks the
existence of uncertainty in translation.
Unit of translation
The unit of translation refers to the linguistic level at which the source text recodifies
into the target text (Shuttleworth, 1997). It may be an individual word, term, phrase,
clause, sentence or even the text. In this study the unit of translation is categorized
into three levels; word, sentence and beyond sentence level. According to some
findings (Fraser, 1996; Tirkekko-condit, 2000), student translators are inclined to
translate at the level of word as opposed to professional translators who are prone to
translate beyond word level; sentence and textual level (beyond sentence level).
Table: 1 Unit of translation for different groups of participants.
BA Graduated students
MA Graduated Students
Professional Translators
WORD
50%
50%
0%
Sentence
45.23%
32.35%
33.33%
Beyond Sentence level
4.76%
17.64%
66.66%
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
231
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Table 1, suggests that BA and MA Graduated students are apt to translate at word
level in 50% of the cases whereas for the professional translators, there is no
observable fact in this study which shows word level translating unit. Taking sentence
level and beyond sentence level into consideration, MA graduated students and
Professional translators’ percentages are so close. On the contrary there are a
significant differences in their “beyond sentence level” unit.
The findings show that professionals are inclined to translate at beyond sentence level,
BA and MA student translators on the other hand focused on word level.
Textual level
Uncertainty could happen in different levels of linguistic stratums; lexis, terms,
collocations, phrases, syntax, sentential and macro level. Macro level includes beyond
sentence considerations (i.e. cohesion, coherence, genre, etc.)
Table 4 represents that textual uncertainty level for professional translators are mostly
at macro level, the level of text and context. It seems that a professional translator
always worries about the whole text, context situations. Due to the rich knowledge
of vocabulary of professional translators, there is no sign of uncertainty for
professional translators at term and lexis level.
Table: 2 Textual level at which uncertainty was employed
Lexis
Term Collocation
Phrase
syntax
Sentential
Macro level
BA 11.76%
Graduated
Students
23.52%
5.88%
17.64%
17.64%
23.52%
0%
MA 17.24%
Graduated
Students
29.31%
3.44%
18.96%
8.62%
17.24%
5.17%
0%
17.64%
5.86%
17.64%
23.52%
35.29%
Professional
Translators
0%
On the other hand there is no sign of uncertainty at macro level for BA graduated
Students and a small percentage (5.17%) for MA graduated students. these findings
show that Student translators
are more uncertain at the lower levels of textual
parameters such as lexis, terms, phrase and syntax which are more leaning toward
lexical, syntactic, structural level of linguistics (text level), while professional
translators are more uncertain at levels like collocation, syntax, sentential and macro
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
232
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
level which deals mostly with semantic, discourse, pragmatic level of linguistics (text
and context).
Uncertainty locus
Uncertainty locus is related to the metacognitive location of occurrence uncertainty in
the process of translation activity. Uncertainty in the translating process may emerge
in three different locus; comprehension, transfer or production level.
Table: 3 Uncertainty locus at which uncertainty was emerged by different groups of
participants
comprehension
transfer
production
BA Graduated
18.84%
72.46%
8.69%
Students
MA Graduated
14.77%
69.31%
15.98%
Students
Professional
0%
30.76%
69.23%
Translators
There are some significant findings about table 3; professional translators show no sign
of uncertainty at the comprehension level as opposed to showing a high percentage of
uncertainty at production level. Student translators are uncertain at comprehension
level and their uncertainty at transfer level takes the highest percentage of uncertainty
emergence, at production level their existence of uncertainty is low.
The findings of this study suggest that students are more uncertain at comprehension
and transfer level. Their deficiency of knowledge in comprehending the source text
and structuralizing (finding the proper equivalence in target text) may be the basic
reason for their uncertainty emergence at these levels. On the other hand professional
translators’ uncertainty is significant at production level, regarding their contextual
perspective view; they’re more likely to check for genre, cohesion, coherence, and
etc. , after the translation is done, that’s may be the reason for their extended period of
time allocated revising the translation.
Uncertainty management
One of the important issues of this article is how the translators manage the
uncertainty. There are three strategies in which the translators do problem solving;
problem recognition, solution proposal and solution evaluation. Among these three
strategies; problem recognition plays a pivotal role in managing the uncertainty.
According to Shreve (2002) professionals have a high capacity in recognizing
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
233
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
probable problems that can lead to potential difficulty in the process of translating.
Table 4, suggests that professional translators are more able to manage the uncertainty
at the first stage, at problem recognition stage. Students on the other hand face with
problems mostly when they start translating and transferring the target text. Regarding
that problem recognition is the most effective part in uncertainty management
(Angelone, 2010), the result of this study which supports that professionals are more
capable in problem recognition stage, confirms the finding of Angelone’s study in
which “the effective determination of the nature and scope of problems sets the stage
for more efficacious subsequent solution proposal and solution evaluation” (2010
p.32). Angelone suggests that the lack of confidence and trust in students’ cognitive
resources may cause the low of problem recognition and high of solution proposal.
Table: 4 Uncertainty management of three different groups of participant
Recognition
36.19%
Solution proposal
47.61%
Solution evaluation
16.19%
BA Graduated
Students
MA Graduated
33.92%
52.67%
13.39%
Students
Professional
45.83%
16.66%
37.5%
Translators
Table 4, shows that professional translator manage uncertainty mostly at the first stage,
problem recognition. They also solve uncertainties mostly at the last stage, solution
evaluation stage; it may be as the result of their macro view in translating a text.
Physical factors
The existence of physical factors such as: pause, deleting, adding and interface
searching definitely shows some sort of uncertainty in the process of translation.
Some other factors like cursor movement, clicking and time may also represent
indirectly the uncertainty in the translation activity.
Table: 5 Physical factors representing the existence of uncertainty in the process of
translation
Average
Number
of Clicks
BA
28
Average Extended
number pause +3 s
of Cursor
movements
112
Average
Times of Revision
Deleting Inversion
11.8
7.6
Average Average
Number of
Time
Look-up/
using
interfaces
2.4
8:46
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
234
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Graduated
Students
MA
Graduated
Students
5.8
29.75
Professional
Translators
158.6
13
6.2
3.2
21
110
1.8
4
3.2
8:12
0
9:23
3
16
Some noticeable findings emerge from Table 5; extended pause +3s, using interfaces
and revision. There are no significant, eye-catching differences among Average
number of clicking, cursor movement and average time among three groups of
participants.
The average number of using interfaces shows that professional translators are more
independent of dictionary looks-up and using other interfaces like internet surfing.
The reason might be the professionals’ rich knowledge in source language and even in
the target language. It even might be support the fact that they are more inclined to
translate a text beyond word level.
Table 5,shows the numbers of pauses for professional translators are patently low.
This finding suggests the low uncertainty occurrence for professional translators
during the process of translation.
Revision as well is a behavioral indictor of uncertainty. While it is expected that the
number of uncertainty with respect to pause and revision should have been low for
professional translators, the findings of this study show that the number of revision
occurrences for professional translators are twice the number of revision occurrences
for student-translators. As it is mentioned before, this unexpected finding may be on
account of context awareness of professional translators and the need for revising
after the translation is done.
4.2 Discussion
Translation can be looked as a metacognitive activity in which a sequence of activities
interdependently processes and runs in the mind of translators during the translating.
In this process uncertainty is an inseparable, inherent metacognitive phenomenon
from the cognitive state of translators’ mind. Uncertainties can emerge and can be
managed in different location of translation process and in different level of textual
parameters. The realization and manifestation of uncertainty can be discernable in
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
235
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
‘interruptions’ that translators may have during their translation. These interruptions
may appear in physical aspect during translation as in pause, cursor movement,
clicking, time, dictionary looks-up or other interfaces searching and revision.
Metacognitive activity is so difficult to access and assess because of its complex and
hierarchal dependence on other cognitive factors. And on whole accessing
somebody’s mind seems extremely far-fetched. However, there are some indicators
which may represent for what is occurring in somebody’s mind like pause, deleting,
adding, and searching interfaces and so on. The translators themselves can be helpful
in explaining what is happening in their mind, a method which is called think aloud
protocol. Because explaining is another metacognitive activity in a person mind it
may be an intervention for the process of translating activity (Toury, 1995), this study
benefits form TAPs in retrospect beside screen recording method.
5. Conclusion
This explanatory study was conducted to see how uncertainties are managed by
professional translators in contrast to non-professional translators. Three groups of
participants; MA and BA graduated translation studies students of University of
Isfahan and a professional translator who is a member of English department of
University of Isfahan were participated in this study. This study benefited from two
methodologies; screen recording and Think-aloud protocols in retrospect to capture
the metacognition activity in the mind of participants. The goal of the study was first
to see in which sequence uncertainty occurs in the process of translation;
comprehension, transfer or production. Second it sought for the place where
uncertainty is managed; problem recognition, solution proposal or solution evaluation.
Third the study tried to find out at which textual level uncertainty mostly emerged;
lexis, term, collocation, phrase, syntax, sentential level and macro level. Fourth the
unit of translation for different groups of participants were been investigated. Finally,
some physical aspects of translation activity like clicking, pause, cursor movement,
time, using interfaces, and revision were analyzed.
The findings of this study is categorized in five classifications: unit of translation,
textual parameters at which uncertainty emerges and is managed for different groups
of participants, uncertainty locus and uncertainty management at which uncertainty is
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
236
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
employed and managed and finally physical aspect representing uncertainty for
different groups of participants.
Unit of translation for professional translator, as was expected, was at sentence and
beyond sentence level while unit of translation for student translators mostly was at
word level and relatively small at sentence level.
Regarding the employing the uncertainty at textual parameters, professional
translators more likely tend to discourse and contextual parameters like collocations,
syntax, sentential and macro level, etc. whereas students are prone to textual
parameters like word, phrase, etc.
Where uncertainty emerges and how it is managed, is the main aim of this study.
Uncertainty locus for student translators emerges mostly at transfer level (level of
structuralizing and finding equivalents) and comprehension level, whereas uncertainty
for professional translators emerges at production (level of edition) and transfer level.
Professional translators are uncertain at production level because they are more aware
of discourse, and contextual aspect of translation. Students are uncertain at
comprehension level because of their lack of knowledge and experience.
There are three strategies for managing uncertainties: problem recognition, solution
proposal and solution evaluation. The most important strategy is problem recognition.
Professional translators are inclined to use this strategy based on their experience and
knowledge in recognizing and solving problems, on the other hand students postpone
managing uncertainty to the solution proposal and solution evaluation strategies.
Professional translators, due to their contextual perspective, manage the uncertainty in
the last level of uncertainty management strategy, solution evaluation too.
Finally there are some physical factors capturing by Camtasiasudio during the
translation which shows professionals’ physical indicators, except for revision
indicators (deleting, adding, etc.),are lower than students’ indicators.
This article could be considered one of the first steps toward assessing metacognitive
problem solving in the field of translation studies, and the finding cannot be
generalized by large to the whole community of professional and non-professional
translators. Lots of further researches in every single aspect of this study have to be
conducted to reach to a close point of generalization. Different aspect of a specific
text should be taken into consideration like metaphors, figurative meanings etc. the
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
237
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
number of participants can be increased, and some other factors besides academic
licenses may be granted like the experience of the translators and their specialties.
About the Authors:
Zahra Amirian holds Ph.D. and works as an assistant professor with the Department
of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of
Isfahan, Iran.
Mohamad J. Baghiat specialized in Translation Studies is affiliated with the
University of Isfahan, Iran
References
Albir, A. H., & Alves , F. (2008). Translation as a Cognitive Activity. In J. Munday,
Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (pp. 54-73). New York:
Routledge.
Alexander, R. G. (1989). Metacogntioin: Answered and unanswered questions.
Educational Psycholgist 24, 143-158.
Alves, F. (2003). Triangulating translation: perspectives in process oriented research.
Amesterdam and Philadelphia: john Benjamins.
Angelone, E. (2010). uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem
solving in the translation task. In G. M. Shreve, & E. Angelone, Translation
and Cognition (p. 18). Amesterdam/philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Angelone, E., & Shreve, G. M. (2010). translation and cognition. New York:
Benjamin.
Buchweitz, A. (2007, March 16). Two Languages, Two Input Modalities, One Brain:
An fMRI study of Portuguese-English bilinguals and Portuguese listening and
reading comprehension effects on brain activation. unpublished PHD thesis.
Santa Catarina, Brazil: universidade Federal de santa catarina.
Davidson, Janet. Deuser, Rebecca and Stenberg, Robert. (1994). The role of
metacognition in problem sovling. In J. Metcalf, & A. P. Shimamura,
Metacognition: knowing About Knowing (pp. 207-226). Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Dimitrova, E. B. (2005). Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation process.
Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data,.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Erik Angelone and Gregory M. Shreve. (2011). uncertainty Management,
Metacognitive Bundling in problem-solving and translaitn quality. In s.
O'Brian, congitive exploration of translation (pp. 108-130). New York:
Continuum.
Fraser, J. (1993). Public accounts: using verbal protocols to investigate community
translation. Applied linguistics 14(4), 325-43.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
238
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Fraser, J. (1996). The translator investigated: Learning from translation process
analysis. the translator 2 (1), 65-79.
Fraser, J. (2000). what do real translators do? Developing the use of TAPs form
professional translators. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit, & R. Jasskelaineen, Tapping
and Mapping the processes of Translation (pp. 111-121). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Garner, R. (1988). verbal report data on cognitive and metacogntive strategies. In E. T.
Goetz, C. E. Weinstein, & P. A. Alexander, learning and study strategies:
issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 63-76). San Diego CA:
Academic Press.
Gerloff, P. (1988). From French to English: A look at the translation process in
students, biliguals and proffessional translators. Cambridge: Hardvard
University Press.
Goncalves, F. A. (2004). Modelling translator's comptenece: Relevenance and
Expertise under scrutiny. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger, & R. Stolze, Doubts
adn Directions in Translation Stuides (pp. 41-55). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Group, P. (2005). Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and metodological
issues. Meta, 609-619.
Hakkarainen, S. S. (2002). Expertise in Translation. Across Language and Cultures 3
(1), 71-82.
Hansen, G. (2003). Contorolling the process: theoretical and methodological reflecions
on research into translation process. In F. Alves, in triangulating Translation
(pp. 25-42). Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen
Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 172-198.
Jakobsen, A. L. (1999). Effect of think aloud on translation speed, revision and
segmentaion. In F. Alves, triangulating translation: perspectives in process
oriented research (pp. 73-101). Amesterdam and Philadelpha: John
Benjamins.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2002). translation drafting by professional translators and by
translation studies. In G. Hansen, Empirical Translation Studies: Process and
Product (pp. 191-204). Copenhagen: Samfundslitterature.
Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to translation: pedagogy and process. kent, OH: Kent
state university press.
Kurtz, I. (1993). EEg probability Mapping: Detecting Cerebral processes during
mental simultaneous interpreting. In The Jermome Quarterly 8 (pp. 3-5).
National Resource Center for Translation & Interpretation.
Kussmaul, P. (1991). Creativity in the translation process: empirical approaches. In v.
l.-Z. k.M., & T. Naaijkens, translation studies (pp. 91-101). The state of aret,
Amesterdam and Atlanta: GA: Rodopi.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
239
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Lorscher, W. (1991). Translation performances, Translaiton process, and Translation
strategies: A psyhcoliguistic investigation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Lorscher, W. (2005). investigating translation competence: conceptual and
Methodological issues. Meta 50 (2), 609-619.
Mengelkamp, M. B. (2008). Assessment of metacogntive skills by means of
instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalization
method affect learning? metacogntion and learning 3, 39-58.
munday, B. H. (2004). Translation: an advanced resource book. oxon: Routledge.
O'Brian, S. (2006). Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives:
Studies in Translatology 14, 185-205.
O'brion, s. (2011). congntiitve exploration of translation. London: Continiuum.
Patrica, R. G. (1989). Metacogntion: Answered and unanswered questions.
Educational psychologist 24, 143-158.
Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive
processing: Exhaustive within and between-study analysis fo think-aloud data.
In J. C. Impara, & G. Schraw, issues in Measurement of Mental Measurements
(pp. 261-296). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. New York: Routledge.
Sandrock, U. (1982). Thinking aloud protocols (TAPs). unpublished Phd thesis
universitat Kassel.
Seguinot, P. A. (2005). Shortcuts, Strategies and general patterns in Process Study of
nine Professionals. meta, 522-547.
Shreve, E. A. (2011). Uncertainty Managment, metacognitive Bundling in problemsolving and translaiton Quality. In S. O'Brion, Cognitive Exploration of
Translation (pp. 108-129). New York: Continuum.
Shreve, G. (2002). Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of
translation expertise form the perspective of expertise studies. In A. Riccardi,
Translation Studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline (pp. 150-171).
Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
Shreve, G. (2006). the deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. Journal of
translation studies, 9, 27-42.
Shreve, G. (2009). Recipient-ORietation and Metacogntion in Translation Process. In
R. Dimitriu, Minding the Translation Receiver. Brussels: Les Editions Du
Hazard.
Shreve, G. M., & angelone, E. (2010). Translation and cognition. kent. ohio: John
Benjamins.
shuttleworth, M. C. (1997). Dictioanary of translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Shuttleworth, M. C. (1997). Dictioanry of Translatin studies. Manchester: St, Jerome.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Professional versus non-professional translation: a think
aloud protocol study. In C. Seguinot, The Translation Process (pp. 73-88).
toronto: H.G Publications.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
240
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translaion Studies and Beyond. Amesterdam: John
Benjamins.
Trikkonon-Condit, S. (2000). Uncertainty in translation processes. In S. tirkkonenCondit, & R. Jaaskelainen, in tapping and mapping the process of Translation
and interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research (pp. 123-142). Amsterdam:
John Benjamin.
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
241
IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2
Uncertainty and Uncertainty Management
Amirian, Z & Baghiat, M
Appendix
Possibly, soaring thermometers and high humidity bring on our strange and terrifying
summer actions, but police officials are not sure. “There is, of course, no proof of a
connection between humidity and murder,” they say. “Why murder’s high time
should come in the summertime we really don’t know.”
International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies
ISSN: 2308-5460
July-September, 2013
www.eltsjournal.org
242