Element contents
Researching and Modelling the Translation Process
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 January 2025
Summary
Translation process research is almost four decades old. Translator cognition is one of the most complex translation research areas to study. This complexity stems mainly from the difficulties involved in collecting and analyzing translation process data. The Element reviews and discusses the developments in translation process research. Specifically, it highlights the key terms in translation process research, its data sources, the developments this area has witnessed in four decades, and the efforts made in modelling the translation process so far. The work also proposes a translation process model which shows the central role monitoring plays in managing other translation subprocesses and evaluating the information being processed. Based on the issues reviewed and discussed, it is concluded that translation process research is still maturing. Making further developments in this translation research area requires addressing some contextual and methodological gaps, and investigating particular neglected research dimensions.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009338035Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 January 2025
References
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2008. A state-of-the-art review of the real-time computer-aided study of the writing process. International Journal of English Studies 8(1): 29–50.Google Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2009. Towards a new process-based indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers’ think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review 65(4): 531–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2013. What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics 34(1): 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2014a. Arab students’ use of monitoring in their EFL composing: The role of linguistic knowledge. In Bailey, K. M. and Damerow, R. M., eds., The Teaching and Learning of English in the Arabic-speaking World. New York: Routledge, pp. 32–47.Google Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2014b. Recent developments in EFL writing fluency measurement. In Muller, T., Adamson, J., Brown, P., and Herder, S., eds., Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 196–212.Google Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12(3): 322–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2019a. Using think-aloud protocols and interviews in investigating writers’ composing processes: Combining concurrent and retrospective data. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 42(2): 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2019b. Eye-tracking in recent L2 learner process research: A review of areas, issues, and methodological approaches. System 83: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2020. Translator and Interpreter Education Research. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. 2021. Remodeling writers’ composing processes: Implications for writing assessment. Assessing Writing 50: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alamargot, D., and Chanquoy, L. 2001. Through the Models of Writing. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F. 2005. Bridging the gap between declarative and procedural knowledge in the training of translators: Meta-reflection under scrutiny. Meta 50(4): 1–16.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Campos, L. 2009. Translation technology in time: Investigating the impact of translation memory systems and time pressure on types of internal and external support. In Jakobsen, A. L., Mees, I. M., and Göpferich, S., eds., Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press, pp. 191–218.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. 2010. Cognitive approaches. In Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L., eds., Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., and Hurtado Albir, A. 2017. Evolution, challenges, and perspectives for research on cognitive aspects of translation. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., and Jakobsen, A. L. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alves, F., and Vale, C. 2011. On drafting and revision in translation: A corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. In Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., and Čulo, O., eds., Annotation, Exploitation and Evaluation of Parallel Corpora. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
Alves, F., Pagano, A., and da Silva, I. A. 2009. A new window on translators’ cognitive activity: Methodological issues in the combined use of eye tracking, key logging and retrospective protocols. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F., and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
Angelone, E. 2010a. Optimizing process-oriented translator training using freeware and FOSS screen recording applications. In Sandrini, P. and González, M. García, eds., Translation and Openness. Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck Press, pp. 131–143.Google Scholar
Angelone, E. 2010b. Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In Shreve, G. M. and Angelone, E., eds., Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelone, E. 2012. The place of screen recording in process-oriented translator training. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 14: 41–56.Google Scholar
Angelone, E. 2019. Process-oriented assessment of problems and errors in translation: Expanding horizons through screen recording. In Huertas-Barros, E., Vandepitte, S., and Iglesias-Fernandez, E., eds., Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araghian, R., Ghonsooly, B., and Ghanizadeh, A. 2018. Investigating problem-solving strategies of translation trainees with high and low levels of self-efficacy. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1(1): 74–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asare, E. 2016. Ethnography of communication. In Angelelli, C. V. and Baer, B. J., eds., Researching Translation and Interpreting. New York: Routledge, pp. 212–219.Google Scholar
Balling, L. W., Hvelplund, K. T., and Sjørup, A. C. 2014. Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta 59(2): 234–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardaji, A. G. 2009. Procedures, techniques, strategies: Translation process operators. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 17(3): 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, S. 2001. Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 13(2): 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, D. C. 1993. Mozartians, Beethovians, and the teaching of writing. The Quarterly 15(2): 15–18.Google Scholar
Borg, C. 2018. The phases of the translation process: Are they always three? Conference Proceedings. Breaking Barriers: 79–91.Google Scholar
Breedveld, H. 2002. Writing and revising processes in professional translation. Across Languages and Cultures 3(1): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundgaard, K. 2017. Translator attitudes towards translator–computer interaction-findings from a workplace study. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business 56: 125–144.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, K., and Christensen, T. P. 2016. Translator–computer interaction in action: An observational process study of computer-aided translation. Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 106–130.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, K., and Christensen, T. P. 2019. Is the concordance feature the new black? A workplace study of translators’ interaction with translation resources while post-editing TM and MT matches. Journal of Specialised Translation 31(31): 14–37.Google Scholar
Carl, M., and Dragsted, B. 2012. Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. TC3: Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2(1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, M., Dragsted, B., and Jakobsen, A. L. 2011. A taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal 16(2): 155–168.Google Scholar
Chamot, A. U. 2001. The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In Breen, M., ed., Learner Contribution to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. Harlow: Longman, pp. 27–54.Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 1993. Writing strategies and writers’ tools. English Today 9(2): 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., and Hayes, J. R. 2001. Fluency in writing: Generating texts in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1): 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. P. 2011. Studies on the mental processes in translation memory-assisted translation – The state of the art. Trans-kom. ZeitschriftfürTranslationswissenschaft und Fachkommunikation 4(2): 137–160.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. P., and Schjoldager, A. 2011. The impact of translation memory (TM) technology on cognitive processes: Student-translators’ retrospective comments in an online questionnaire. In Sharp, B., Zock, M., Carl, M., and Jakobsen, A. L., eds., Human-Machine Interaction in Translation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 119–130.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Routledge .Google Scholar
Daems, J., Vandepitte, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., and Macken, L. 2017. Translation methods and experience: A comparative analysis of human translation and post-editing with students and professional translators. Meta 62(2): 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dam-Jensen, , and Heine, C. 2009. Process research methods and their application in the didactics of text production and translation. Transkom 2(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Dam-Jensen, H., and Heine, C. 2013. Writing and translation process research: Bridging the gap (Introduction). Journal of Writing Research 5(1): 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danks, H. J., and Griffin, J. 1997. Reading and translation: A psycholinguistic perspective. In Danks, H. J., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B., and McBeath, M. K., eds., Cognitive Processing in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 161–175.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W., and Sandrock, U. 1986. Thinking-aloud protocols: The decomposition of language processing. In Cook, V., ed., Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 111–126.Google Scholar
de Lima Fonseca, N. B. 2019. Analysing the impact of TAPs on temporal, technical and cognitive effort in monolingual post-editing. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27(4): 552–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, B. J., and Shreve, G. M. 2017. Deliberate practice and neurocognitive optimization of translation expertise. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 476–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B. 2004. Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. PhD dissertation. (Copenhagen Working Papers in LSP 4.) Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Dragsted, B. 2006. Computer-aided translation as a distributed cognitive task. Pragmatics & Cognition 14(2): 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B. 2010. Co-ordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on unchartered territory. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E., eds., Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B., and Carl, M. 2013. Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data. Journal of Writing Research 5(1): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B., and Hansen, E. G. 2008. Comprehension and production in translation. In Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., and Mees, I. M., eds., Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. 2014. Challenges of translation process research at the workplace. MonTI 7(2): 355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B., and Tiselius, E. 2009. Exploring retrospection as a research method for studying the translation process and the interpreting process. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F., and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 109–134.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, B., and Tiselius, E. 2014. Retrospection in interpreting and translation: Explaining the process? MonTI 1: 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K., and Simon, H. 1980. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87(3): 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, D., and Hjort-Pedersen, M. 2009. Manifestations of inference processes in legal translation. In Jakobsen, A. L., Mees, I. M., and Göpferich, S., eds., Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press, pp. 107–124.Google Scholar
Faigley, L., Cherry, R. D.و Jolliffe, D. A., and Skinner, A. 1985. Assessing Writers’ Knowledge and Processes of Composing. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. 1977. Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English 39(4): 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. 1980. The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication 31(1): 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication 32(4): 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego-Hernández, D. 2015. The use of corpora as translation resources: A study based on a survey of Spanish professional translators. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 23(3): 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, P. 1986. Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process: Talkaloud protocols of translation. In House, J. and Blum‐Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. 1987. Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: Some uses of think‐aloud protocol data. In Færch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, pp. 135–158.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. 1988. From French to English: A Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals, and Professional Translators. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, USA.Google Scholar
Gile, D. 2004. Integrated problem and decision reporting as a translator training tool. The Journal of Specialised Translation 2(2): 2–20.Google Scholar
Gile, D. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gile, D., and Lei, V. 2020. Translation, effort and cognition. In Alves, F. and Jakobsen, A. L., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition. London: Routledge, pp. 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S. 2009. Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: The longitudinal study TransComp. In Jakobsen, A. L., Mees, I. M., and Göpferich, S., eds., Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press, pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., and Jääskeläinen, R. 2009. Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures 10(2): 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S., and Nelezen, B. 2014. The language-(in) dependence of writing skills: Translation as a tool in writing process research and writing instruction. MonTI. Monografías de traducción e interpretación 1: 117–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., and Mees, I. M. 2008. Looking at Eyes: Eye-tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Green, A. 1998. Verbal Protocol Analysis in Language Testing Research: A Handbook. Studies in Language Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, S., and Higgins, L. 1994. Once upon a time: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in composition. In Smagorinsky, P., ed., Speaking about Writing: Reflections on Research Methodology. London: SAGE, pp. 115–140.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, A. 2013. What do professional translators think about post-editing. The Journal of Specialised Translation 19: 75–95.Google Scholar
Hansen, G. 2003. Controlling the process: Theoretical and methodological reflections on research into translation processes. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulation Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, G. 2005. Experience and emotion in empirical translation research with think-aloud and retrospection. Meta 50(2): 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, G. 2006. Retrospection methods in translator training and translation research. Journal of Specialized Translation 5(1): 2–41.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Czulo, O., and Hofmann, S. 2017. Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Belin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R., and Flower, L. 1980. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg, L. and Steinberg, E. R., eds., Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Heeb, A. H. 2016. Professional translators’ self-concepts and directionality: Indications from translation process research. The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 74–88.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. 1986. Research on Written Composition. Urbana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.Google Scholar
Hirci, N. 2012. Electronic reference resources for translators: Implications for productivity and translation quality. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6(2): 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirvonen, M. I., and Tiittula, L. M. 2018. How are translations created? Using multimodal conversation analysis to study a team translation process. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 17: 157–173.Google Scholar
House, J. 1988. Talking to oneself or thinking with others? On using different thinking-aloud methods in translation. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 17: 84–99.Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, A. H., and Alves, F. 2009. Translation as a cognitive activity. In Munday, J., ed., The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 54–73.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye‐Tracking and Key‐Logging Study. PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2014. Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 1: 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2017. Four fundamental types of reading during translation. In Jakobsen, A. L. and Mesa‐Lao, B., eds., Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2019. Digital resources in the translation process-attention, cognitive effort and processing flow. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27(4): 510–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, K. T. 2023. Institutional translation and the translation process. In Svoboda, T., Biel, Ł, and Sosoni, V., eds., Institutional Translator Training. London: Routledge, pp. 92–110.Google Scholar
Hwang, M., and Lee, H. 2017. Development and validation of the English writing strategy inventory. System 68: 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immonen, S. 2006. Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 18(2): 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 1987. What Happens in a Translation Process: Think‐Aloud Protocols of Translation. Unpublished Pro gradu Thesis. Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 1989. Translation assignment in professional vs. non‐professional translation: A think‐aloud protocol study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 1999. Tapping the Process: An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 2000. Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and Jääskeläinen, R., eds., Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, R. 2002. Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 14(1): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 1999. Logging target text production with Translog. In Hansen, G., ed, Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 2002. Orientation, segmentation, and revision in translation. In Hansen, G., ed., Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 191–204.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 2003. Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 2011. Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. In Alvstad, C., Tiselius, E., and Hild, A., eds., Methods and Strategies of Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 2017. Translation process research. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. 2018. Moving translation, revision, and post-editing boundaries. In Dam, H. V., Brøgger, M. N., and Zethsen, K. K., eds., Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Jensen, K. T. H. 2008. Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. In Gopferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., and Mees, I. M., eds., Looking at Eyes: Eye-tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L., and Schou, L. 1999. Translog documentation. In Hansen, G., ed., Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen Studies in Language 24, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 151–186.Google Scholar
Jia, Y., Carl, M., and Wang, X. 2019. How does the post-editing of neural machine translation compare with from-scratch translation? A product and process study. The Journal of Specialised Translation 31(1): 60–86.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87(4): 329–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, R. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, M. and Ransdell, S., eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 57–71.Google Scholar
Kim, R. 2006. Use of extralinguistic knowledge in translation. Meta 51(2): 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, D. C. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, H., and Rinnert, C. 1992. Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning 42(2): 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koglin, A., and Cunha, R. 2019. Investigating the post-editing effort associated with machinetranslated metaphors: A process-driven analysis. The Journal of Specialised Translation 31: 38–59.Google Scholar
Königs, F. G. 1986. Der Vorgang des Übersetzens: Theoretische Modelle und praktischer Vollzug. Zum Verhältnis von Theorie und Praxis in der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Lebende Sprachen 1(1): 5–12.Google Scholar
Königs, F. G. 1987. Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die neueren Sprachen 86(2): 162–185.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. 1986. Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In House, J. and Blum‐Kulka, S., eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 263–275.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. 1987. The use of introspective data in translation. In Faerch, C. and Kasper, G., eds., Introspection in Second‐Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 159–175.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. 1988. Blick in die ‘black box’ – Eine Fallstudie zum Übersetzungsprozess bei Berufsübersetzern. In Arntz, R., ed., Textlinguistik und Fachsprache. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 393–412.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing Processes. Kent: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, H. 2016. What’s happening when nothing’s happening? Combining eyetracking and keylogging to explore cognitive processing during pauses in translation production. Across Languages and Cultures 17(1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumpulainen, M. 2015. On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research. Translation & Interpreting 7(1): 47–58.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, P. 1997. Comprehension processes and translation. A think-aloud protocol (TAP) study. In Snell-Hornby, M., Jettmarová, Z., and Kaindl, K., eds., Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected Papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, P., and Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1995. Think-aloud protocol analysis in translation studies. TTR: Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8(1): 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznik, A., and Olalla-Soler, C. 2018. Results of PACTE Group’s experimental research on translation competence acquisition. The acquisition of the instrumental sub-competence. Across Languages and Cultures 19(1): 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvėdytė, V., and Baranauskienė, R. 2005. Translation strategies in the process of translation: A Psycholinguistic investigation. Journal of Young Scientists 3(7): 189–195.Google Scholar
Lauffer, S. 2002. The translation process: An analysis of observational methodology. Cadernos de traduçao 2(10): 59–74.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, M. 2013. Translators on translation memory (TM): Results of an ethnographic study in three translation services and agencies. Translation & Interpreting 5(2): 1–13.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., and Morgan-Short, K. 2004. To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(1): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1999. Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. M. and Hagoort, P., eds., The Neurocognition of Language. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–122.Google Scholar
Levý, J. 1967. Translation as a decision process. In Friedrich, P., ed., To Honour Román Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Mouton: The Hague, pp. 1171–1182.Google Scholar
Levy, C. M., and Ransdell, S. E. 1996. Writing signatures. In Levy, C. M. and Ransdel, S. E., eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 149–161.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2004. Trustworthiness of think-aloud protocols in the study of translation processes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(3): 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., and Cheng, M. 2011. Monologue vs. dialogue verbal reporting: Research subjects’ perceptions. Journal of Translation Studies 10(1): 43–56.Google Scholar
Li, D., Lei, V., and He, Y. 2019. Researching Cognitive Processes of Translation. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, W. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. 1992. Investigating the translation process. Meta 37(3): 426–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, W. 2002. A model for the analysis of translation processes within a framework of systemic linguistics. Cadernos de Tradução 2(10): 97–112.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. 2005. The translation process: Methods and problems of its investigation. Meta 50(2): 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, G., and Ehrensberger-Dow, M. 2011. Commenting on translation: Implications for translator training. The Journal of Specialised Translation 16: 26–41.Google Scholar
Massey, G., and Ehrensberger-Dow, M. 2013. Evaluating translation processes: Opportunities and challenges. In Kiraly, D. C., Hansen, S., and Maksymski, K., eds., New Prospects and Perspectives for Educating Language Mediators. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
Matrat, C. M. 1992. Investigating the Translation Process: Thinking-aloud Versus Joint Activity. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Matsuhashi, A. 1981. Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English 15(2): 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, K. 1994. Introspection, verbal reports and second language learning strategy research. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(2): 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X. et al. 2020. Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research 36(3): 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizowaki, T., Ogawa, H., and Yamada, M. 2023. Linear vs. non-linear translation in parallel text reading. Ampersand 10: 100124, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondahl, M., and Jensen, K. A. 1996. Lexical search strategies in translation. Meta 41(1): 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossop, B. 2000. The workplace procedures of professional translators. In Chesterman, A., Salvador, N. G. San, and Gambier, Y., eds., Translation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. 2009. Expertise and environment in translation. Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 2(1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. 2010a. On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E., eds., Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. 2010b. Leave no stone unturned: On the development of cognitive translatology. Translation & Interpreting Studies 5(2): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R. 2016. Processes of what models? On the cognitive indivisibility of translation acts and events. Translation Spaces 5(1): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R., and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R., and Olalla-Soler, C. 2022. Translating is not (only) problem-solving. The Journal of Specialised Translation 38: 3–31.Google Scholar
Neubert, A. 1997. Postulates for a theory of translation. In Danks, J. M., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B., and McBeath, M. K., eds., Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Nunes Vieira, L. 2017. Cognitive effort and different task foci in post-editing of machine translation: A think-aloud study. Across Languages and Cultures 18(1): 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, J. L., and Bolaños-Medina, A. 2018. Predictors of problem-solving in translation: Implications for translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12(3): 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2006a. Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures 7(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2006b. Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 14(3): 185–205.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2007. Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 14(3): 185–205.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2008. Processing fuzzy matches in translation memory tools: An eye-tracking analysis. Copenhagen Studies in Language 36: 79–102.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2009. Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F., and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 251–266.Google Scholar
O’Brien, S. 2015. The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Göpferich, S., and O’Brien, S., eds., Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S., O’Hagan, M., and Flanagan, M. 2010. Keeping an eye on the UI design of translation memory: How do translators use the ‘concordance’ feature? European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Delft, 1–4.Google Scholar
Oster, K. 2017. The influence of self-monitoring on the translation of cognates. In Schirra, S. Hansen-, Czulo, O., and Hofmann, S., eds., Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. L., and Burry-Stock, J. A. 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System 23(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2000. Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems of a research project. In Beeby, A., Ensinger, D., and Presas, M., eds., Investigating Translation: Selected Papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2003. Building a translation competence model. In Alves, F., ed., Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2005. Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta 50(2): 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2019. Evolution of the efficacy of the translation process in translation competence acquisition. Meta 64(1): 242–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlović, N. 2007. Directionality in Collaborative Translation Processes: A Study of Novice Translators. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain, University of Zagreb, Croatia.Google Scholar
Pavlović, N. 2009. More ways to explore the translating mind: Collaborative translation protocols. In Jakobsen, A. L., Mees, I. M., and Göpferich, S., eds., Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press, pp. 81–105.Google Scholar
Pavlović, N., and Jensen, K. 2009. Eye tracking translation directionality. Translation Research Projects 2: 93–109.Google Scholar
Perl, S. 1979. The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English 13(4): 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrić, B., and Czárl, B. 2003. Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System 31(2): 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. 2009. Using process studies in translator training: Self-discovery through lousy experiments. In Mees, I. M., Alves, F., and Göpferich, S., eds., Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 135–156.Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2011. Translator training. In Malmkjær, K. and Windle, K., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–321.Google Scholar
Qassem, M. 2024. Adequacy, fluency and cognitive processes: Evidence from translating English news articles into Arabic. Interactive Learning Environment 5: 1–16.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N.-E., and Mazgutova, D. 2017. Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviours and linguistic complexity. Language Learning 67(1): 208–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G., and van den Bergh, H. 1996. The dynamics of composing: An agenda for research into an interactive model of writing: Many questions, some answers. In Levy, C. M. and Ransdell, S., eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar
Risku, H. 2014. Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 1: 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risku, H. 2017. Ethnographies of translation and situated cognition. In Schwieter, J. W. and Ferreira, A., eds., The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., Milosevic, J., and Pein-Weber, C. 2016. Writing vs. Translating. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, I. S. 2013.Translation revision: Does the revision procedure matter? In Way, C., Vandepitte, S., Meylaerts, R., and Bartłomiejczyk, M., eds., Treks and Tracks in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, I. S. 2014. Investigating the problem-solving strategies of revisers through triangulation. An exploratory study. Translation and Interpreting Studies 9(1): 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, I. S., and Brunette, L. 2016. Should revision trainees think aloud while revising somebody else’s translation? Insights from an empirical study with professionals. Meta 61(2): 320–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, I. S., and van Waes, L. 2014. Selecting a translation revision procedure: Do common sense and statistics agree? Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 22(3): 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., and Murphy, L. 2008. The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(1): 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., and Manchon, R. 1999. The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1): 13–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Funes, M. 1999. The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-a-foreign language student: A case study. Foreign Language Annals 32(1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., and Stephens, D. L. 1989. The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition 17: 759–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rydning, A. F., and Janyan, A. 2008. Eye movement recordings as a tool for studying mental simulation of speed in text processing by professional translators. Forum: International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 6(1): 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J., and Carl, M. 2013. Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation & Interpreting Studies 8(2): 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M., Nitzke, J., Tardel, A. et al. 2019. Eye-tracking revision processes of translation students and professional translators. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27(4): 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J., Paterson, K., McGowan, V. A., White, S. J., and Malmkjær, K. 2017. Reading for Translation. In Jakobsen, A. L. and Mesa-Lao, B., eds., Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 18–54.Google Scholar
Schmid, A. 1994. Gruppenprotokolle- ein Einblick in die black box des Übersetzens. TexTconTexT 9: 121–146.Google Scholar
Séguinot, C. 1989. The translation process: An experimental study. In Séguinot, ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications, pp. 21–53.Google Scholar
Sharmin, S., Špakov, O., Räihä, K., and Jakobsen, A. L. 2008. Where on the screen do translation students look while translating, and for how long? In Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., and Mees, I. M., eds., Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 31–51 .Google Scholar
Shih, C. Y. 2006. Revision from translators’ point of view: An interview study. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 18(2): 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, C. Y. Y. 2015. Problem-solving and decision-making in translation revision: Two case studies. Across Languages and Cultures 16(1): 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, G. M. and Angelone, E. 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, G. M., and Koby, G. S. 1997. Introduction: What’s in the ‘black box’? Cognitive science and translation studies. In J. H., Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B., Fountain, , and Mcbeath, M. M. M., eds., Cognitive Process in Translation and Interpreting. London: SAGE, pp. xi–xviii.Google Scholar
Shreve, G. M., Schäffner, C., Danks, J. H., and Griffin, J. 1993. Is there a special kind of ‘reading’ for translation? An empirical investigation of reading in the translation process. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 5(1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. 1994. Speaking about Writing: Reflections on Research Methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Sun, S. 2011. Think-aloud-based translation process research: Some methodological considerations. Meta 56(4): 928–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, S. 2019. Measuring difficulty in translation and post-editing: A review. In D. Li, Lei, V., and He, Y., eds., Researching Cognitive Processes of Translation. Cham: Springer, pp. 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, S., Li, T., and Zhou, X. 2020. Effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort in translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 19: 132–151.Google Scholar
Sycz-Opoń, J. 2019. Information-seeking behaviour of translation students at the University of Silesia during legal translation–an empirical investigation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13(2): 152–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temizöz, Ö. 2013. Postediting Machine Translation Output and Its Revision: Subject-Matter Experts versus Professional Translators. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1987. A pilot study of an aspect of the translation process. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 88: 221–229.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1989. Professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In Séguinot, C., ed., The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications, pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2005. The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta 50(2): 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzawa, K. 1996. Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 5(3): 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Bruggen, J. A. 1946. Factors affecting regularity of the flow of words during written composition. Journal of Experimental Education 15(2): 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Waes, L., and Schellens, P. J. 2003. Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(6): 829–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J. P., and Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique cosparele du frangals et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vottonen, E., and Kujamäki, M. 2021. On what grounds? Justifications of student translators for their translation solutions. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 15(3): 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W. 1994. A framework for decision-making in translation. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 6(2): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, K., and Halverson, S. L. 2021. Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS): Emerging trends in epistemology and methodology. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8(2): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Hu, G., and Zhang, L. J. 2014. Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 24: 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., Wang, Y., and Fan, N. 2022. Are parallel translation tasks parallel in difficulty? An eye-tracking study. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 30(4): 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, G., He, L., and Isaacs, T. 2017. The Cognitive Processes of Taking IELTS Academic Writing Task One: An Eye-Tracking Study. The British Council.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. J., and Qin, T. L. 2018. Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Haukås, A., Bjørke, C., and Dypedahl, M., eds., Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar