chapter 

Translation process research at the interface

Paradigmatic, theoretical, and methodological
issues in dialogue with cognitive science, expertise
studies, and psycholinguistics

Fabio Alves
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

This chapter aims at revisiting the main assumptions of cognitive science, exper-
tise studies and psycholinguistics to discuss how they interface diachronically
and synchronically with translation process research (TPR). By revisiting the
tenets of these three disciplines, the chapter reflects upon their possible contribu-
tions to the development of TPR and proposes a paradigmatic foundation with
theoretical and methodological implications for empirical-experimental research
in translation. The chapter examines contributions from cognitive science as it
discusses cognitivism, connectionism, and embodied/situated action as a basis
for the epistemological foundations of TPR. It also considers TPR at the interface
with expertise studies and looks into how concepts such as consistently superior
performance, deliberate practice and expertise trajectory can have meaningful
implications for TPR. Finally, the chapter reviews the influence of psycholinguis-
tics on TPR from its early days in the mid-1980s, with the sole use of think-aloud
protocols, up to the state of the art of today’s research which incorporates key
logging, eye tracking, and computational modeling. The chapter also reflects
upon what TPR has gained from interfacing with these three disciplines, how
much from these disciplines it has incorporated into its own research agenda and
how TPR is now in a position to contribute to the development of other related
disciplines; therefore not only borrowing from them but also lending to them.

1. Introduction

Translation process research (TPR) has now a nearly thirty-year history within the
discipline of Translation Studies and has definitely come of age. In recent years,
TPR has gained momentum with the publication of a series of books (Göpferich,
Jakobsen and Mees (eds.) 2009; Mees, Alves and Göpferich (eds.) 2009; Göpferich,

doi 10.1075/btl.115.02alv
© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
18 Fabio Alves

Alves and Mees (eds.) 2010; Shreve and Angelone (eds.) 2010; Alvstad, Hild and
Tiselius (eds.) 2011) that provide novel insights into the intricacies and complexi-
ties of the translation process. Nevertheless, as Alves and Hurtado Albir (2010)
argue, TPR still shows a tendency to borrow extensively from other disciplines
while striving to build its own tradition of empirical-experimental research. Most
of its instruments need to be validated and put to the test in exploratory and pilot
studies in order to guarantee the reliability of data and results. They suggest that
more effort is also needed into refining experimental designs, using larger and
more representative samples, and fostering the replication of studies. Jääskeläinen
(2011) considers that one of the most significant results of systematic TPR has
been to highlight the cognitive complexity of translating. She cautions, however,
that, although research questions and hypotheses in TPR have arisen within the
field of Translation Studies, the methods of data elicitation and analysis, as well
as some of the theoretical frameworks, have come from a variety of other fields.
Among them, Jääskeläinen (2000, 2011) mentions cognitive psychology and writ-
ing research. Muñoz (2010a) and O’Brien (2013) also consider cognitive science,
expertise studies, linguistics, neuroscience, and psychology among other disci-
plines that have also substantially influenced TPR. Some of these disciplines seem
to have had a direct impact on TPR whereas others have affected TPR indirectly.
In this chapter, I would like to argue that, among all these neighboring disciplines,
cognitive science, expertise studies and psycholinguistics are disciplines with a
direct impact on the foundations of TPR and can provide it with a paradigmatic
orientation for the academic consolidation of the field. It is therefore relevant to
consider the basic tenets of these three disciplines and reflect upon their contribu-
tion to and impact on TPR. This chapter aims at revisiting the main assumptions
of cognitive science, expertise studies and psycholinguistics to discuss how they
interface diachronically and synchronically with TPR. Section 1 examines TPR at
the interface with cognitive science in the light of its three main epistemological
currents: cognitivism, connectionism, and embodied/situated action. Section 2
discusses how TPR interfaces with expertise studies and draws on the concepts
of consistently superior performance, deliberate practice and expertise trajectory
to foster the dialogue between these two fields of research. Section 3 reviews the
influence of psycholinguistics on TPR from its early days in the mid-1980s, with
the sole use of think-aloud protocols, up to the state of the art of today’s research
which incorporates key logging, eye tracking, and computational modeling.
Section 4 attempts to look at TPR from a combined perspective that integrates
contributions from cognitive science, expertise studies, and psycholinguistics. The
chapter closes with some concluding remarks on what TPR has gained from inter-
facing with these disciplines and what it still needs to achieve in order to become
an even stronger field of research in its own right.
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 19

2. Cognitive Science and Translation Process Research

Similarly to TPR, cognitive science is a relatively young discipline. It fosters the

interdisciplinary scientific study of the mind and its processes, drawing on, among
other disciplines, anthropology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, neuroscience,
philosophy, and psychology (Mandler 2002). Cognitive science investigates intel-
ligence and behavior, focusing on how information is represented, processed, and
transformed through faculties such as perception, language, memory, and reason-
ing in biological nervous systems. It also looks at how machines perform tasks that
emulate human cognitive activity which need some type of language, memory,
and reasoning in order to be accomplished. There are three main epistemological
currents in cognitive science, namely cognitivism, connectionism, and embodied/
situated cognition. Each one of them, I will argue, has influenced TPR on different
occasions and has somehow contributed to its development.
Cognitivism grew out of cognitive psychology in the late 1950s as a reaction
against behaviorism (Mandler 2002). It presupposes that human mental activ-
ity can best be understood in terms of representational structures in the mind
and computational procedures that operate on those structures. For cognitivists,
human cognition is viewed mainly as a modular activity that is heavily special-
ized and operationally encapsulated in order to enable information processing
to unfold efficiently (Fodor 1983). Theoretically, cognitivism postulates that cog-
nition entails discrete, internal mental states, i.e. representations, which can be
described in terms of rules and/or algorithms. Representation is therefore a cru-
cial tenet for cognitivists. Epistemologically, cognitivism is related to positivism
and insists on the use of experimentation and rigorous measurements to validate
robust evidence only. Cognitivists tend to assume that cognitive processes are
symbolic and linear in nature and controlled from a central cognitive proces-
sor. Research along this paradigmatic line sees cognition as a specialized form
of information processing and has focused on studies of inner mechanisms of
human thought, including the role of attention, memory, problem solving and
decision making.
Connectionism arises in the mid-1980s from dissatisfaction with the
assumption that cognition is basically symbolic and serial and defends a view of
human cognition from the perspective of parallel distributed processing, PDP,
(Rummelhart and McClelland 1986). For connectionists, human cognition is
viewed from the perspective of neural networks that operate in a distributed fash-
ion with no need whatsoever of central symbolic processing to be implemented.
To test assumptions about human cognitive processing, connectionism uses an
architecture distributed in nodes throughout an artificial neural network which
emulates the synaptic chains of the human brain. Hebbian learning, triggered by
20 Fabio Alves

certain node activations, regulates the configuration of these emergent processes.

In a way, connectionism presupposes some form of weak representations for the
models to work and, therefore, does not exclude altogether the concept of mental
representations. However, representations acquire a dynamic status in connection-
ist networks and are, therefore, considered as the results of cognitive processing
and no longer as the prerequisite for cognition. In fact, Elman et al. (1996) have
come closer to proposing an amalgam of cognitivism and connectionism by argu-
ing that perhaps the right question to ask is not whether cognitive processes are
intrinsically modular but rather whether these processes start or become modu-
lar. Connectionism, in its latest form, favors plastic, flexible configurations which
operate in parallel on the basis of recurrent networks that evolve as processing
occurs. To that extent, processing tends to become highly specialized, i.e., modu-
lar, as learning is consolidated by experience.
In the late 1980s, a third current within cognitive science appears with the
publication of Maturana and Varela’s (1988) theory of autopoiesis, a name which
designates the dynamics of a network of transformations and molecular pro-
ductions which constitute a living being. The theory considers cognition to be a
biological phenomenon and characterizes mind as a metaphor for thought pro-
cessing. The brain, as a vast network of cells which are interconnected with the
rest of the nervous system, operates according to its own interconnected internal
dynamics, its structure, in what is known as structural coupling. Maturana and
Varela’s work gave rise to a paradigmatic notion of cognition that is known as
embodied, or situated, cognition.
Maturana and Varela (1988) depart from a position that refutes the mind-
body dichotomy and insist on viewing cognition as a biological adaptation of the
species. In their perspective, the focus is on the organism’s interactions with the
environment. Therefore, for Maturana and Varela (1988), context plays a funda-
mental role in the process of acquiring knowledge. Maturana and Varela build on
the notion of circularity and autonomy of living beings and compare cognition
to a network enclosed in itself. Such network interactions are called structural
coupling. They suggest that this results in a viable alternative to the notion of
representation implied in the assumptions of both cognitivism and connection-
ism. Because of structural coupling and the system’s own dynamics, a theory of
embodied cognition can do without the notion of representation as an explanatory
abstraction for cognition.
Further research associated embodied cognition with phenomenology
(Varela, Thompson and Rosch 1991), arguing that embodiment encompasses
both the body as a living structure and the context or the environment of cogni-
tive mechanisms. In its more encompassing sense, cognition consists of enaction,
in bringing something forth through structural coupling. From the perspective
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 21

of embodied cognition, the construction of meaning refers to a specific identity

structurally coupled with the environment in its interactions. The core of the the-
ory is the molecular system which constitutes a first order system. Human beings
are seen as aggregates of cells and, as such, constitute second order autopoietic
systems, namely the dynamic systems of transformations and molecular produc-
tions which constitute a living being. Finally, social and linguistic interactions are
derivatives of the second order structural coupling and should be seen as third
order autopoietic systems.
When scrutinizing the epistemological and paradigmatic tenets of cogni-
tive science from the point of view of TPR, we observe that the first TPR studies
used mostly think-aloud protocols (TAPs), a methodology that was carried over
from cognitive psychology into translation studies via second language research
(Jääskeläinen 2011). These studies drew on models of information processing and
generally departed from a linear perspective with top-down and bottom-up pro-
cesses playing a fundamental role in the procedural description of the translation
process. TAPs, in this first generation of TPR studies, were used in rather differ-
ent ways. In her account of the development of TPR, Jääskeläinen (2011) points
out that almost all first generation TPR studies (Gerloff 1988; Jääskeläinen 1990;
Königs 1987; Krings 1986; Lörscher 1986, 1991; Séguinot 1989; Tirkkonen-Condit
1991) are simply aimed at identifying what happens in the translation process.
They could be regarded as exploratory investigations with the purpose of identi-
fying variables to be focused on in later research. In first generation TPR studies,
there was a strong focus on studying problem solving and decision making in
translation as well as an interest in describing the role of automatic and non-auto-
matic processes. These are research questions usually posited from a cognitivist
point of view and that inevitably relates first generation TPR studies to cognitivist
assumptions about information processing. In a way, this first generation of TPR
studies had no other choice than indirectly affiliating itself with cognitivism within
cognitive science. After all, this was a natural consequence of the visibility of cog-
nitivism as the mainstream paradigm for research being carried out in cognitive
science at the time.
As TPR studies progressed into the 1990s, one could perhaps begin to draw
analogies between them and connectionism. Some models of the translation pro-
cess proposed at this time, particularly Bell (1991) and Wilss (1996), still draw
heavily on models of information processing affiliated to cognitivism. Basically,
the authors refer to top-down and bottom-up processes to illustrate forms of
problem solving and decision making in translation. On the other hand, although
also sharing some analogies with models of information processing, Alves (1995),
Kiraly (1995) and some models in Danks et al. (1997) show a tendency towards a
more dynamic and recursive type of modeling by proposing a kind of architecture
22 Fabio Alves

which somehow resembles that of connectionist networks. It is, however, relevant

to note that Kiraly (1995) sees the translation process both as a social (external)
and as a cognitive (internal) activity. While his cognitive model of the translation
process draws on psycholinguistic assumptions, Kiraly also presents a social model
which could be perhaps seen in the light of a different cognitive science paradigm
(see embodied/situated cognition further in this section).
TPR seems to undergo a change of focus from the mid 1990s. With Fraser’s
(1996) criticism concerning the disparate character of TPR studies in its first ten
years (first generation studies) and a call for more rigorous and systematic stud-
ies, there also came an opportunity for reflection and search for new research
avenues. In that context, Jakobsen (2003) revisits the work of Ericsson and Simon
(1984) and carries out an investigation with professional and novice subjects per-
forming translation tasks in conjunction with TAPs (TA condition) while other
subjects worked silently (non-TA condition). Jakobsen’s findings demonstrate that
the think-aloud condition slows down the translation process considerably, has no
significant effect on the amount of revision, and significantly increases the number
of text production segments. Jakobsen (2003) insists, however, that his results in
no way invalidate the think-aloud method, but they point to the need to review
assumptions about the think-aloud procedure for the purposes and needs of TPR.
Jakobsen argues that the most obvious method of trying to answer many of the
questions raised by TPR would require quantitative analysis of key-logged data in
association with qualitative think-aloud data, spearheading the notion of trian-
gulation as a new methodological avenue for TPR (Jakobsen 1999; Alves 2003).
As from the late 1990s, the so-called second generation TPR studies have
focused on more narrowly defined questions and hypotheses (Jääskeläinen 2011).
It drew on the paradigm of triangulation and began to deal with issues related to
segmentation, regressions and phases of the translation processes. Alves (2005),
Dragsted (2005), Englund Dimitrova (2005), Jakobsen (2005), among others,
investigate specific problems which are related to recursive operations taking
place in time. In terms of an analogy, these works build on the notion of recur-
sive movements and, indirectly, on the concept of distributed parallel processing.
However, few of these TPR studies explicitly claims an affiliation to a connectionist
approach to cognition. A notable exception is Alves (2005), and later also Alves
and Gonçalves (2007), which point to analogies with connectionist networks with
many operations being carried out in parallel and only becoming amenable to
empirical-experimental investigation through data triangulation.
In the course of the last decade, TPR continued to grow in numbers and
strength and currently shows a renewed impetus and a call for more sophisticated
studies, applying more sensitive and accurate methods. In what could be called
third generation TPR studies, eye tracking has been widely incorporated into TPR
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 23

methodology, thus requiring further integration of tools (Carl 2011) and the need
of strengthening data triangulation for the sake of data analysis (Carl and Dragsted
2012; Dragsted 2012; Hvelplund 2011). Thus, eye tracking provided TPR with
more robust data, allowing the correlation of writing and reading activities per-
formed in real time. The focus on computational modeling also increases (Alves
and Vale 2009; Alves and Vale 2011; Carl and Kay 2011) as well as the view of
translation as a dynamic, cyclic and recursive all-encompassing process, a view
which one could associate with the notion of distributed parallel processing pos-
tulated by connectionism.
It is an almost unanimous assumption among TPR researchers that the trans-
lation process has to be seen within the scope of a complex cognitive network
of knowledge, abilities and strategies. As such, the translation process is geared
to the configuration and implementation of emergent (language) processes that
result from the translator’s personal interaction with the task of translation.
Nevertheless, few TPR studies directly claim affiliation to the paradigm of cogni-
tion as embodied action. From an epistemological perspective, we could argue
that the translation process, apart from its mental characteristics, cannot be dis-
sociated from the social/cultural environment it is embedded in. It is, therefore,
embodied action per se. Among the few studies which claim an affiliation with an
embodied view of cognition, Hansen (2003) has used phenomenology to account
for instances of intersubjectivity in the analysis of translation process data. Risku
(2002) also considers cognition from an embodied, situated perspective, arguing
that her central goal of research is to model authentic translator actions and thus
establish a deeper understanding of how translations are produced. Kiraly’s (1995)
model can also be seen in that light. These studies are, however, few in numbers.
This is due, perhaps, to the intrinsic nature of TPR with studies focusing on the
control of variables and on more narrowly defined research questions and hypoth-
eses. Although TPR is epistemologically related to embodied, situated cognitive
processes, paradigmatically TPR needs to anchor itself on foundations that allow
empirical-experimental analyses of objective data. And connectionism, I would
like to argue, is a paradigm better suited to achieve that goal. Overall, the fact that
most TPR studies do not claim a direct affiliation to a particular cognitive sci-
ence paradigm does not imply that such an affiliation does not exist or cannot be
ascribed to them. In fact, a clearer affiliation between TPR studies and a particu-
lar cognitive science paradigm would be important in order to strengthen links
between these two related fields of research and, indirectly, assert TPR as an area
of research in its own right.
24 Fabio Alves

3. Expertise Studies and Translation Process Research

Like Translation Studies and cognitive science, expertise and expert performance
is also a young discipline. However, as stated by Ericsson et al. (2006), a significant
milestone is reached when a field of scientific research matures to a point that
warrants the publication of its first handbook. The publication of The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance in 2006 can be seen in that light.
Similarly to cognitive science, research on expertise and expert performance
originates from cognitive psychology (Ericsson and Crutcher 1990; Glaser 1992;
Scardamalia and Bereiter 1991) and aims at differentiating between experts and
experienced non-experts. This assumption explicitly differentiates between experi-
ence, measured mostly in numbers of years of practice, and expertise, a concept
that relates unequivocally to consistently superior performance in a given domain.
In that light, experience and expertise do not necessarily equate one another.
Ericsson et al. (2006) claim that expertise is an acquired skill and the only innate
genetic factors critical to successful expert performance are body mass and height
(Ericsson 2000). And, they insist, this is different from views that presuppose the
need of a basic endowment, such as abilities, mental capacities and innate talent,
as a condition for expert performance (Gardner 1993).
Expertise studies investigates the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that
distinguish experts from less experienced people who do not perform as experts
do (Ericsson et al 2006). The discipline is concerned with those particular traits
that allow individuals to achieve consistently superior performance on a specified
set of representative tasks for a given domain that can be administered to any
subject (Ericsson and Charness 1997). Ericsson (2000) is perhaps the first paper
to address the question of expertise in relation to the domain of translation and
interpreting. Although his research focuses primarily on interpreting, it paves the
way for a discussion within the discipline of Translation Studies and, consequently
in TPR, about the role of expert knowledge in translation from the perspective of
expertise studies.
Seeking to strengthen the links between TPR and studies of expertise and
expert performance, Shreve (2006) suggests that the term translation competence,
viewed from the perspective of expertise studies, can be defined as the ability of
the translator to use multiple cognitive resources relevant to perform a transla-
tion task. Over time these multiple cognitive resources relevant to translation can
evolve and become what Ericsson and Charness (1997) define as being consis-
tently superior performance, i.e., a type of specialized behavior able to successfully
cope with adverse conditions and yet maintain a high standard of quality. PACTE
(2003), for instance, clearly states that their model of translation competence con-
siders this competence as a form of expert knowledge. Shreve (2006) makes a
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 25

more specific proposal for a theoretical framework for situating translation exper-
tise within empirical translation studies.
Shreve (2006) argues that one could refer to these multiple translation-rele-
vant cognitive resources as translation competence. However, Shreve (2006) points
out that from a cognitive perspective, competence could be seen as declarative and
procedural knowledge from a variety of cognitive domains accumulated through
training and experience and then stored and organized in a translator’s long-term
memory. Therefore, using the terminology of expertise studies, expertise in trans-
lation would be a term which better accounts for the complexities entailed in the
behavior of expert translators.
According to Ericsson and Charness (1997), this high level of consistently
superior performance can be considered as a result of deliberate practice, a
concept that presupposes the engagement of apprentices in training activities
especially designed for the purpose of developing high performance levels in a
given domain and keeping it consistent within that domain. Ericsson (2000), for
instance, applies the concept of deliberate practice to study the performance of
conference interpreters that perform complex simultaneous interpretation.
Deliberate practice can be more narrowly defined as regular engagement in
specific activities directed at performance enhancement in a particular domain,
where domain is some sort of skilled activity (Shreve 2006). This is rather different
from simply accumulating experience at performing a regular activity. Expertise
studies insists that cumulative experience in a given domain is a necessary condi-
tion for expertise. However, that does not suffice per se. According to expertise
studies, deliberate practice only occurs under the following conditions: when
(a) there is a well-defined task, (b) the task is of appropriate difficulty for the
individual, (c) there is informative feedback, and (d) there are opportunities for
repetition and the correction of errors (Ericsson 1996). Engaging in an activity
with the primary goal of improving some aspect of performance is a prerequisite
of deliberate practice.
Shreve (2006) cautions that if such conditions are not met, i.e. if deliberate
practice is absent and it lacks a critical mass of experience, then the conditions
will not suffice for the cognitive changes associated with expertise to occur. On the
other hand, Shreve argues, if the conditions of deliberate practice are met, it is pos-
sible to create the necessary conditions that enable the development of consistently
superior performance. Experience accumulated in episodic memory will give rise
to new more efficient knowledge structures capable of supporting expert behavior.
Ericsson (2000) argues that the main challenge for individuals aspiring to
become experts is to avoid the arrested development associated with automatic-
ity and to acquire metacognitive skills to support their continued learning and
improvement. Metacognition will, therefore, play a key role in the development
26 Fabio Alves

of expertise in translation (Shreve 2006; Alves and Gonçalves 2007). In short,

expertise studies has demonstrated that expert knowledge and expert performance
are acquired skills.
Empirical studies also show that there is no necessary correlation between
domain expertise and general cognitive capacities such as intelligence or memory.
Ericsson et al (2006) insist that the single biggest factor in the evolution of exper-
tise is deliberate practice. And that requires a particular type of trajectory in order
to lead novices on the path to expertise.
The notion of expertise trajectory was introduced by Lajoie (2003) to explain
the path, through experience and practice that leads to a type of behavior that
is characteristic of consistently superior performance found among experts.
Drawing on Lajoie, Shreve (2006) argues that in the case of translation, exper-
tise trajectory must include an increase in cognitive performance in four dis-
tinct areas, namely, (1) linguistic knowledge in L1 and L2; (2) knowledge of the
source and target culture, including domain knowledge of specialized subjects,
(3) knowledge of textual conventions in L1 and L2, (4) specific knowledge of
translation, namely, knowledge about how to translate using strategies and pro-
cedures, technological tools and strategies for retrieving necessary information.
Empirical evidence (Alves 2005; Alves and Gonçalves 2007) suggests that these
four cognitive domains need to be integrated to allow a novice translator to suc-
cessfully complete their training.
Even if, as we have seen in the previous section, TPR studies usually do not
seek an explicit affiliation to a cognitive science paradigm, the situation somehow
changes when TPR meets expertise studies. Some TPR studies focusing on the
translation process, and particularly those studies related to translation competence,
show a clear tendency to seek an affiliation with studies of expert performance.
As far as the study of the translation process is concerned, Jakobsen (2005)
is one of the few empirical works in TPR clearly affiliated to Ericsson’s (2000)
account of expertise and expert performance. Jakobsen (2005) focuses on the
analysis of instances of peak performance, namely instances in the translation
process where more than 60 keys are pressed sequentially, without interruption, in
an attempt to identify cases of consistently superior performance in which expert
translators are capable of processing longer units of text. This also allows the inves-
tigation of domain-specificity, i.e. instances of peak performance in the domains
in which the translator has specialized, offering a practical avenue for investigating
peak performance.
Dragsted (2005) also looks into how novice and professional translators behave
with respect to processing more or less difficult texts. She points to two modes
of processing, an analytic mode (with short average segment size, low produc-
tion speed and long pauses, processing at word/phrase level, many single-word
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 27

segments, and few exceptionally long segments) and an integrated processing mode
(with long average segment size, high production speed and short pauses, process-
ing at clause/sentence level, few single-word segments, and many exceptionally
long segments). Dragsted (2005) shows that regardless of the level of text difficulty,
novice translators mainly favor an analytic mode type of processing whereas profes-
sional translators tend to work on an integrated processing mode when translating
familiar, easy texts but are likely to revert to an analytic processing mode when
faced with a text that they found difficult. Dragsted also suggests that this change
in behavior could be related to characteristics of long-term working memory, a
concept that she borrows from Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) and indirectly relates
her research to the type of expertise defined and defended by Ericsson et al (2006).
Alves (2005) builds on the concept of deliberate practice to present a study of
novice translators’ performance observed in classroom settings and looks at the
role of declarative knowledge as a tool to increase the level of awareness among
students. Alves (2005) shows that an increase in meta-cognitive activity is the
key to promote awareness raising and, thus, increment the quality of translator’s
training.
Englund Dimitrova (2005) also draws on the expertise paradigm and on
the notion of triangulation in her study of translators working in the language
pair Russian/Swedish to make a comparison of subjects with different amounts
of translation experience, directly assessing the relationship between experience
and expertise. In her study, Englund Dimitrova (2005) analyses one particular
type of explicitation, namely instances of increased cohesive explicitness realized
in the target texts.
As far as the study of the translation competence is concerned, PACTE
(2003), for instance, draws on Anderson’s (1983) distinction between procedural
and declarative knowledge to define translation competence mainly as a type of
procedural knowledge, that is, knowing how, rather than a type of declarative
knowledge, that is, knowing what (or knowing that). PACTE’s model of transla-
tion competence has been put to the empirical-experimental test (PACTE 2005)
and provided robust evidence about translation as a form of expert knowledge
(PACTE 2011).
From the perspective of translation competence acquisition, PACTE (2003)
considers it to be a process of restructuring and development of novice knowledge
which evolves from a stage of pre-translation competence – including here the
capacity of bilinguals to translate – and goes gradually through the stages of nov-
ice, advanced, competent, proficient and expert translators (Dreyfus and Dreyfus
1986) to become a form of specialized knowledge. This is the basis for PACTE’s
model of translation competence acquisition which indirectly shares assumptions
related to the notion of expertise trajectory (Lajoie 2003).
28 Fabio Alves

Alves and Gonçalves (2007) also consider that translation competence evolves
gradually and postulate a cline from what they call narrow-band and broad-band
translators, namely a cline that entails a set of cognitive behaviors that go from
the mere transfer of linguistically encoded items to the point where the translator
fully integrates a more complex body of sub-competences and is willing to take
conscious responsibility for his/her decisions. Alves and Gonçalves (2007) claim
that narrow-band and broadband translators share potential cognitive character-
istics. However, one observes changes of degree and kind in the levels of transla-
tion competence as this competence develops and matures and procedural and
declarative knowledge about translation become forms of specialized knowledge.
For Alves and Gonçalves (2007) the development of translation competence
shows similarities to a fully recurrent connectionist network. As such, translation
competence is the result of an increment in competence levels generated by the
gradual increase of comprehensible input stemming from existing cognitive sys-
tems. These stages of restructuring and development are in line with the notion
of expertise trajectory and also assume a connectionist view of cognitive devel-
opment in which acquisition of knowledge occurs gradually resulting in more
complex processes as learning matures.
Göpferich (2008) also considers translation competence from the perspective
of expert performance and refers to Ericsson and Smith (1991) and Ericsson and
Charness (1997) to ground some of the assumptions of her translation compe-
tence model. Like PACTE’s and Alves and Gonçalves’s (2007), Göpferich’s model
is componential in nature and shares some of the traits that characterize several
sub-competences in translation proposed by the PACTE model. However, differ-
ently from PACTE, Göpferich embeds the acquisition of translation competence
in her translation competence model and highlights its internal dynamics.
In their review of TPR literature and in line with the expertise paradigm,
Hurtado Albir and Alves (2009) point out that expert performance in translation
is demonstrably an acquired skill that (i) requires a high level of meta-cognitive
activity; (ii) entails proceduralization of knowledge related to domain specificities;
(iii) requires self-regulatory behavior in terms of monitoring, resource allocation,
and planning; (iv) shows no necessary relationship of domain expertise to general
cognitive capacities such as intelligence or memory.
Finally, Jääskeläinen (2011) reminds us that evidence of features of exper-
tise in translation (Jakobsen 2005) is similar to those identified in other domains
(Ericsson et al 2006). Therefore, a closer dialogue with expertise studies is of para-
mount importance to identify common and different cognitive patterns between
expert translators and experts in other domains. Such an attempt would represent
a significant breakthrough and findings could help to establish translating as an
expert profession. After all, “expertise in translation is substance in its own right.”
(Jääskeläinen 2011, 135).
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 29

4. Psycholinguistics and Translation Process Research

On a broader perspective, psycholinguistics can be understood as the study of

human language processing concerning investigations of the psychological foun-
dations of language (Garman 1990). It deals with written and spoken language,
their comprehension and production, and the nature of linguistic systems and
models of processing. In line with cognitive science and expertise studies, the
origins of psycholinguistics also relate to cognitive psychology. Psycholinguistics
is concerned with how people, children and adults alike, acquire, learn, under-
stand and produce language in the context of first, second, and multilingual
language use. It is also concerned with studies of reading and writing processes
among children and adults in different situations. Therefore, as a field of inquiry,
psycholinguistics shares with TPR a closely related object of study, namely how
understanding/reading relates to production/writing in cases of oral and/or writ-
ten translation.
Theoretically, psycholinguistic models of language processing focus on the
nature of the language signal, the biological foundations of language, including
auditory and visual systems, the organization of language in the brain, and articu-
latory and manual systems to account for the perception and production of speech
and writing, lexical storage and retrieval, and the comprehension and production
of multiword utterances (Garman 1990).
Methodologically, psycholinguistics has a strong focus on experimentation,
precise measurements and statistical analysis of data. First psycholinguistic studies
consisted of behavioral tasks with subjects being presented with linguistic stimuli
and asked to perform an action under controlled settings. Rigorous experimental
design has, therefore, been considered extremely important to allow significant
results and generate robust evidence. In a second stage, psycholinguistic research
also used primary data such as eye tracking to study online language processing
(Rayner 1978), encompassing reading and writing processes. Just and Carpenter’s
(1980) eye-mind assumption strengthens this line of research by suggesting a cor-
relation between eye movements, and particularly eye fixations, with instances of
effortful cognitive processing. More recently, neuroimaging has offered psycho-
linguistics non-invasive techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET);
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); event-related potentials (ERPs) in
electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG); and tran-
scranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Complementarily, computational modeling
has become a useful and promising way to allow insights into hypotheses and
predictions made by psycholinguistic researchers (Carl and Kay 2011).
Psycholinguistics has also shown an interest in studying bilingualism. Studies
tend to focus on how bilinguals manage to produce relatively pure monolingual
language output when the communicative setting requires them to do so (de
30 Fabio Alves

Groot and Christoffels 2007). Models of bilingualism usually assume the exis-
tence of control processes that activate and/or inhibit language output so that
speakers can alternate successfully between languages and concentrate on produc-
tion without interference. Incidentally, this has fostered research in interpreting
within Translation Studies. Moser-Mercer (1997) and Shlesinger (1995, 2000),
for instance, have drawn on standard psycholinguistic paradigms to discuss the
specific control processes involved in simultaneous interpreting, such as working
memory capacity, different language activation thresholds, the ear-voice span, etc.
Models in simultaneous interpreting build on models of bilingualism and assign
language subsets, language cues and language tags as central roles that have to
be chosen to allow interpreters to perform adequately (de Groot and Christoffels
2007). However, control processes in simultaneous interpreting are assumed to be
even more complex due to the need to co-activate simultaneously the languages
involved in the process of interpreting (Dillinger 1990).
Gile (1995, 1998), for instance, distinguishes four attention-demanding com-
ponents in simultaneous interpretation, namely comprehension, production,
memory, and coordination. The latter component seems to play a strategic role in
controlling cognitive processes in simultaneous interpretation by overseeing the
operations of the other three components and by allocating cognitive resources
according to the needs of the tasks.
One may argue that similar processes also occur in written translation.
However, control processes are quite different and demand more conscious inter-
ventions. Jakobsen (2002) builds on the notion of cognitive rhythm (Schilperoord
1996), i.e. rhythmic patterns related to editing procedures in text production as
measured by pause intervals, to investigate and characterize three distinct phases
in the translation process, namely orientation, drafting and revision. However,
from a standard psycholinguistic point of view, there are several conditions that
may interfere with the results of experiments. There are pauses in the translation
process that not necessarily relate to the cognitive rhythm of text production. They
may be the result of fatigue, distraction or the need to interrupt the process due to
external circumstances. One might attempt to control all sources of interference
in a laboratory setting. However, doing this would reduce the level of naturalness
under which a translation task is carried out. This could have negative implica-
tions in terms of ecological validity and could render the task unnatural. Assuring
a reasonable level of ecological validity for the translation task under investigation
is a major problem in terms of developing a rigorous experimental design with
controlled variables.
Lately, eye tracking has emerged as a new, complementary source of primary
data in TPR studies. O’Brien (2006) is one of the first studies that attempt to inves-
tigate cognitive processes that were not accessible through introspection and/or
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 31

key logging. By providing information about saccadic movements and eye fixa-
tions, TPR studies can build on Just and Carpenters’ (1980) eye-mind assump-
tion that eye fixations point to stronger processing effort to investigate effort in
reading and correlate it to writing processes. Differences in eye fixations in source
and target areas of interest can indicate where processing effort is located and to
what extent reading and/or writing activities might overlap each other. With more
control and rigor over its methodological procedures, TPR is now in a position
to replicate empirical-experimental studies. One interesting example is Jakobsen
and Jensen’s (2008) study of prototypical reading patterns for understanding, pre-
paring to translate, sight translation and written translation. Carried out in the
language pair English/Danish, the study was replicated by Alves, Pagano and Silva
(2011) for the language pair English/Portuguese. Although results differ in the
two studies, probably due to different subject profiles and degree of familiarity
with specific tasks (sight translation, for instance), they nevertheless strengthen
TPR by providing evidence of potential replicability and comparability. Another
interesting example of this new wave of TPR studies is Carl and Dragsted (2012).
By triangulating key-logging and eye-tracking data, the authors found robust evi-
dence that allows them to claim that, cognitively speaking, problem solving in
translation is target text driven.
Another important aspect in the latest generation TPR studies is the statis-
tical analysis of translation process data. Balling (2008) states that, almost by
definition, experimental work and statistics play a central role in psycholinguis-
tics and this should also be the case in TPR studies. Balling discusses the differ-
ences between factorial designs, such as ANOVA, which require strict statistical
control between experimental groups, and regression designs that allow statisti-
cal control of a number of variables which cannot be controlled experimentally.
Balling argues that it is particularly important in more naturalistic tasks to study
complex processes such as translation. This is another argument about how TPR
can benefit from a closer dialogue with psycholinguistic methods. Indirectly, by
fostering and strengthening interdisciplinary links with psycholinguistics, TPR
studies could provide further insights into the intricacies and complexities of the
translation process.
Jääskeläinen (2011) points out that it is typical in psycholinguistics to break
up research questions into small and controllable sub-questions and then answer
them one by one. TPR could learn from that approach and thus avoid the inevita-
ble feeling of frustration when research does not provide robust evidence because
a myriad of questions were all asked at once. However, as Jääskeläinen (2011) also
argues, breaking up the research question is not unproblematic either because it
may have negative implications for issues related to ecological validity, and ques-
tions concerning performance and behavior seen from a situated perspective.
32 Fabio Alves

More recently, pupillometry has also been used in TPR with the relative
change in pupil dilation being considered an indicator of change in cognitive
effort (Hyönä, Tommola and Ajala 1995). O’Brien (2006) assumes that the higher
percentage change in pupil dilation, the more cognitive effort is expended in the
processing of a translation memory (TM) match. Pavlovic and Jensen (2009)
have somewhat modified this assumption and assume that higher percentage
change in pupil dilation is synonymous with more cognitive effort being invested
into a given translation task. Hvelplund (2011) argues that pupillary response
latencies are quite varied between the participants of his study and probably also
within-participant from one attention unit to another. He suggests that one way
to deal with the between-participant differences could be to calculate baseline
measurements of pupillary response latency for each participant prior to the actual
translation task. As can be seen, a lot of further research is needed in TPR to
clarify such issues.
In addition to the triangulation of key-logging and eye-tracking data, and
qualitative data generated through introspection, neuroimaging could also per-
haps be used in TPR as a non-invasive techniques in ways similar to what is done
in psycholinguistics. This has been little explored in TPR so far. On the other hand,
computational modeling with a strong statistical focus has become a useful and
promising way to allow insights into hypotheses and predictions made in TPR
studies (Alves and Gonçalves 2013; Carl and Kay 2011). Jakobsen (2011) rightly
mentions that the integration of eye tracking and key logging now allows research-
ers to study in greater detail what source and target text units are being processed
at a given point in time, to identify what steps are involved in this process, what
segments are read and aligned, and how this whole process is monitored. Jakobsen
(2011) adds that in time one should expect the successful development of a com-
putational model of human translation. But that, he cautions, will depend on an
improvement in the quality of the recorded data, primarily in the way fixations are
identified in the mapping algorithms, and on the improvement of computational
systems for the automatic interpretation of translation process data.

5. Translation Process Research at the interface: Paradigmatic, theoretical

and methodological implications

In Sections 2, 3 and 4, we have seen that, although not all TPR studies necessarily
claim an affiliation to cognitive science, expertise studies and/or psycholinguis-
tics, there are clear indications that such links exist and traditions from the three
other disciplines do have an impact on how TPR has evolved. The thoughts and
considerations raised in this chapter are, by no means, novel in TPR literature.
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 33

Other TPR researchers have dealt with similar issues over the years and reflected
upon issues related to complementarity and mutual benefits between TPR and
other neighboring disciplines. The interface between TPR and cognitive science,
expertise studies and psycholinguistics is, therefore, a question which has been
revisited many times and will probably continue to demand further scrutiny in
the years to come.
Muñoz (2010a, 2010b, 2014), for instance, reflects upon cognitive paradigms
that might be in line with fundamental TPR assumptions. He chooses to use the
term cognitive translatology to account for cognitive studies of translation in a sit-
uated context. Muñoz (2010a) reviews the development of cognitive science from
its beginnings, based on an information-processing paradigm, i.e. cognitivism,
and later developments that include connectionism and situated cognition. Muñoz
(2010b) views translating as an interpersonal activity; a type of activity that fosters
the interplay between theory and research and requires a specific experimental
paradigm in cognitive translatology. In both works, Muñoz’s reasoning shares
several analogies with some of the views presented in this chapter. In his conclu-
sions, he also makes a plea towards strengthening TPR by establishing closer and
reciprocal links with cognitively related disciplines.
More recently, Ehrensberger-Dow, Göpferich and O’Brien (2013) have edited
a volume focusing on interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process
research. They have taken up the interface question once again and fostered the
discussion between TPR and neighboring disciplines. O’Brien (2013) and Risku
and Windhager (2013) offer, together with the other eight articles in the same vol-
ume, relevant discussions about interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting
process research.
O’Brien (2013) examines TPR at the interface with linguistics, psychology,
neuroscience, cognitive science, reading and writing research, and language
technology. She argues that, while TPR has borrowed extensively from these dis-
ciplines, the influence of cognitive approaches to translation, or cognitive trans-
latology as she prefers to call it, on these disciplines is minimal. O’Brien (2013)
makes some suggestions for future developments so that cognitive translatology
could also have an impact on these other disciplines, therefore increasing mutual
benefits.
Risku and Windhager (2013) also argue that referring to current develop-
ments in cognitive science is indispensable for TPR. They claim that one such
development is the recognition of the extended nature of human cognition and
highlight the importance to embed research in relation to technologies and actions
situated in its socio-cultural environment. They argue that particularly sociology,
with its actor-network and activity theories, should be included in a situated cog-
nition approach for describing the cognitive aspects of translation.
34 Fabio Alves

Muñoz (2010a, 2010b), O’Brien (2013) and Risku and Windhager (2013)
use the term cognitive translatology from a broader perspective than the one I
chose for the current chapter. While their thoughts can be extended to encom-
pass cognitively related actions in anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and other
related disciplines, the focus of this chapter is more narrowly defined on the links
between TPR studies and neighboring disciplines which could directly contribute
to strengthening a research field which is empirical-experimental in nature. My
current standpoint is that complementarity and reciprocity should be pursued
between TPR, cognitive science, expertise studies and psycholinguistics so that
borrowing becomes bi- or multi-directional. Instead of only borrowing from these
disciplines, TPR studies have the potential to corroborate theoretical assumptions
by putting hypotheses to the empirical-experimental test. With the current ad-
vances in TPR research and the likely advances in the computational modeling
of human translation processes, these related areas have much to gain with closer
affiliation links and probably nothing to lose in the process.

6. Concluding remarks

Throughout this chapter, we have seen that TPR has built its paradigmatic and
methodological foundations on the basis of borrowings from cognitively related
disciplines. As Hurtado Albir and Alves (2009) and Alves and Hurtado Albir
(2010) argue, these other disciplines have a much longer standing tradition of
empirical-experimental investigation and this has enabled them to reach a stron-
ger internal consensus in terms of how to approach their object of scrutiny. The
authors have insisted that TPR still lacks such a tradition and, therefore, needs to
devote efforts to strengthen results both in terms of reliability, ecological validity,
and replication of studies.
However, as we have also seen, TPR is now in a position to make further
advancements and perhaps evolve on the basis of a common core that not only
borrows from neighboring disciplines but also contributes to their development.
There are, at present, several research groups pursing such goals. Among them, we
can list CRITT at Copenhagen Business School, LETRA at Federal University of
Minas Gerais, Brazil, PACTE at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and PETRA
at Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. There are also other indi-
vidual researchers and groups at Aston University, Dublin City University, Kent
State University, Oslo University, University of Stockholm, University of Eastern
Finland, Universidad Nacional del Aconcagua who also consider such interface
issues to be extremely important for the development of TPR. These research-
ers and their respective groups have come together in a Thematic Network on
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 35

Empirical and Experimental Research in Translation, TREC, (http://pagines.uab.

cat/trec/) financed under the auspices of the Spanish Ministry for Science and
Technology (2011–2013) to strengthen links and actions among the TPR com-
munity. Also, a series of international workshops on TPR organized by Susanne
Göpferich in Graz in 2009 and in Giessen in 2011, and by Ricardo Muñoz in 2013
and in 2015 in the Canary Islands is also evidence of joint efforts in that direction.
As stated in the very beginning of this chapter, TPR has now a nearly thirty-
year history within the discipline of Translation Studies and has definitely come of
age. There is confidence and hope that in the course of the next years, researchers
will harvest the fruit of hard work on TPR and see the field benefit from adopting
common paradigmatic and methodological frameworks, thus consolidating TPR
as an area of research in its own right.

References

Alves, Fabio. 1995. Zwischen Schweigen und Sprechen: Wie bildet sich eine transkulturelle Brücke?:
eine psycholinguistisch orientierte Untersuchung von Übersetzungsvorgängen zwischen por-
tugiesischen und brasilianischen Übersetzern. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
Alves, Fabio (ed.). 2003. Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research
(Benjamins Translation Library 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.45
Alves, Fabio. 2005. “Bridging the Gap between Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in the
Training of Translators: Meta-Reflection under Scrutiny.” Meta 50 (4): online. [available
at http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2005/v50/n4/019861ar.pdf]. DOI: 10.7202/019861ar
Alves, Fabio, and José Luiz Gonçalves. 2007. “Modelling Translator’s Competence: Relevance
and Expertise under Scrutiny.” In Translation Studies: Doubts and Directions. Selected papers
from the IV Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies, ed. by Y.  Gambier,
M. Shlesinger, and R. Stolze, 41–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/btl.72.07alv
Alves, Fabio, and José Luiz Gonçalves. 2013. “Investigating the Conceptual-Procedural Dis-
tinction in the Translation Process: A Relevance-Theoretic Analysis of Micro and Macro
Translation Units.” Target 25 (1): 107–124. DOI: 10.1075/target.25.1.09alv
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor A. L. da Silva. 2011. “Towards an Investigation of READ-
ING modalities in/for Translation: An Exploratory Study using Eye-tracking Data.” In Cog-
nitive explorations of translation, ed. by S. O’Brien, 175–196. London: Continuum.
Alves, Fabio, and Amparo Hurtado Albir. 2010. “Cognitive Approaches to Translation.” In The
John Benjamins Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Y. Gambier, and L. van Doorslaer,
28–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hts.1.cog1
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale. 2009. “Probing the Unit of Translation in Time: Aspects of the
Design and Development of a Web Application for Storing, Annotating, and Querying
Translation Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (1): 251–273.
DOI: 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5
36 Fabio Alves

Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale. 2011. “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus Lin-
guistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Computation, Corpora,
Cognition. 1 (1): 105–122.
Alvstad, Cecilia, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius (eds). 2011. Methods and Strategies of Pro-
cess Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies (Benjamins Translation Library
94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.94
Anderson, John Robert. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Balling, Laura. 2008. “A Brief Introduction to Regression Designs and Mixed-effects Modelling
by a recent Convert.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-tracking Studies of Reading and Translation
Processing (Copenhagen Studies in Language Series 36), ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt
Likke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees, 175–191. Copenhagen: Samfunslitterattur.
Bell, Robert. 1991. Translation and Translating. London: Longman.
Carl, Michael. 2011. “Patterns of Shallow text Production in Translation.” In Proceedings of the
8th International NLPCS Workshop (Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Sciences).
Special Theme: Human-machine Interaction in Translation (Copenhagen Studies in Lan-
guage 41), ed. by Bernardette Sharp, Michael Zock, Michael Carl, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen,
143–151. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Carl, Michael, and Martin Kay. 2011. “Gazing and typing Activities during Translation: A Com-
parative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4):
952–975. DOI: 10.7202/1011262ar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of default
and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition
2 (1): 127–143.
Danks, Joseph, Gregory Shreve, Stephan Fountain, and Michael McBeath (eds). 1997. Cognitive
Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
de Groot, Annette, and Ingrid K. Christoffels. 2007. “Processes and Mechanisms of Bilingual
Control: Insights from Monolingual task Performance Extended to Simultaneous Interpre-
tation.” Journal of Translation Studies 10 (1): 17–41.
Dillinger, Mike. 1990. “Comprehension during Interpreting: What do Interpreters Know that
Bilinguals Don’t.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3: 41–58.
Dragsted, Barbara. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation Differences across Levels of Expertise
and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI: 10.1075/target.17.1.04dra
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation: Correlating Product and Pro-
cess data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98. DOI: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Stuart E. Dreyfus. 1986. Mind over Machine: The Power of Human
Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Susanne Göpferich, and Sharon O’Brien (eds). 2013. “Introduc-
tion. Inter-disciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Special Issue.”
Target 25 (1): 3–4. DOI: 10.1075/target.25.1.07ehr
Elman, Jeffrey, Elizabeth Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi,
and Kim Plunkett. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Develop-
ment. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.64
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 37

Ericsson, K. Anders. 1996. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Introduction to some of

the Issues.” In The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and
Sciences, Sports and Games, ed. by K. A. Ericsson, 1–50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ericsson, K. Anders. 2000. “Expertise in Interpreting: An Expert-performance Perspective.”
Interpreting 5 (2): 187–220. DOI: 10.1075/intp.5.2.08eri
Ericsson, K. Anders, and N. Charness. 1997. “Cognitive and Developmental Factors in Expert
Performance.” In Expertise in Context: Human and Machine, ed. by P. Feltovich, K. M. Ford,
and R. R. Hoffman, 3–41. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Ericsson, K. Anders, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman (eds). 2006. The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511816796
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Robert J. Crutcher. 1990. “The Nature of Exceptional Performance.”
In Lifespan Development and Behavior, P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, and R. M. Lerner,
188–218. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Walter Kintsch. 1995. “Long-term Working Memory.” Psychological
Review 102 (2): 211–245. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
Ericsson, K. Anders, and J. Smith. 1991. Prospects and Limits of the Empirical Study of Exper-
tise: An Introduction. In Towards a General Theory of Expertise, ed. by K. A. Ericsson and
J. Smith, 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Fraser, Janet. 1996. “The Translator Investigated: Learning from Translation Process Analysis.”
The Translator 2 (1): 65–79. DOI: 10.1080/13556509.1996.10798964
Gardner, Howard.1993. Multiple Intelligences. The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Garman, Michael 1990. Psycholinguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gerloff, Pamela Ann. 1988. From French to English: a look at the Translation Process in Students,
Bilinguals and Professional Translators. Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.8
Gile, Daniel. 1998. “Observational Studies and Experimental Studies in the Investigation of
Conference Interpretation.” Target 10 (1): 69–93. DOI: 10.1075/target.10.1.04gil
Glaser, Robert. 1992. “Expert Knowledge and Processes of Thinking.” In Enhancing Thinking
Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, ed. by D. Halpern, 63–75. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand – Methoden – Perspektivent
(Translationswissenschaf 4). Tübingen: Narr.
Göpferich, Susanne, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger Mees (eds). 2009. Behind the Mind: Meth-
ods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (Copenhagen Studies in Language
37). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Göpferich, Susanne, Fabio Alves, and Inger Mees (eds). 2010. New Approaches in Translation
Process Research (Copenhagen Studies in Language 39). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Hansen, Gyde (ed.). 1999. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results (Copenhagen
Studies in Language 24). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
38 Fabio Alves

Hansen, Gyde 2003. “Controlling the Process: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on
Research into Translation Processes.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-
oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 26–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-
tracking and Key-logging Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School.
Hurtado Albir, Amparo, and Fabio Alves. 2009. “Translation as a Cognitive Activity.” In The
Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, ed. by Jeremy Munday, 210–234. London:
Routledge.
Hyönä, Jukka, Jorma Tommola, and Anna-Mari Alaja. 1995. “Pupil Dilation as a Measure of
Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and other Language Tasks.” Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology 48 (A): 598–612. DOI: 10.1080/14640749508401407
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1990. Features of Successful Translation Processes: A Think-Aloud Protocol
Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Joensuu.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2000. “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on translation.” In
Tapping and mapping the process of translation: outlooks on Empirical Research, ed. by Sonja
Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 71–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/btl.37.08jaa
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2011. “Studying the Translation Process.” In The Oxford Handbook of Trans-
lation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjaer and Kevin Windle, 123–135. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1999. “Logging Target text Production with Translog.” In Probing the
Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen:
Samfundsfundslitteratur.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2002. “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” In
Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product (Copenhagen Studies in Language 27),
ed. by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2003. “Effects of think Aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Seg-
mentation.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research, ed. by
Fabio Alves, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.45.08jak
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2005. “Instances of Peak Performance in Translation.” Lebende Sprachen
50 (3): 111–116. DOI: 10.1515/LES.2005.111
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2011. “Tracking Translators’ Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Trans-
log.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation
Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 37–55. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.94.06jak
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund Jensen. 2008. “Eye Movement Behav-
iour across four Different types of Reading task.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-tracking Stud-
ies of Reading and Translation Processing (Copenhagen Studies in Language 36), ed. by
S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Kiraly, Donald. 1995. Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process. Kent: The Kent State Uni-
versity Press.
Just, Marcel A., and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to
Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87 (4): 329–354. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
Königs, Frank G. 1987. “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische
Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” Die Neueren Sprachen 86: 162–185.
 Chapter 2. Translation process research at the interface 39

Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirische Untersuchung
zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen:
Narr.
Lajoie, Susanne P. 2003. “Transitions and Trajectories for Studies of Expertise.” Educational
Researcher 32 (8): 21–25. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032008021
Lörscher, Wolfgang 1986. “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of
Translation Performance.” In Interlingual and intercultural Communication: Discourse and
Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by Juliane House and
Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 277–292. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Lörscher, Wolfgang 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strate-
gies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Mandler, George. 2002. “Origins of the Cognitive (R)evolution.” Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences 38: 339–353. DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.10066
Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela. 1988. The Tree of Knowledge. Boston: Shamballa.
Mees, Inger, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich (eds). 2009. Methodology, Technology and
Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (Copenhagen
Studies in Language 39). Copenhague: Samfundslitteratur.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1997. “Methodological Issues in Interpreting Research: An Introduc-
tion to the Ascona Workshops.” Interpreting 2: 1–11. DOI: 10.1075/intp.2.1-2.01mos
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010a. “Leave no Stone Unturned. On the Development of Cognitive
Translatology.” Journal of Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (2): 145–162.
DOI: 10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010b. “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” In Translation
and Cognition, ed. by Gregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 169–187. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2014. “Situating Translation Expertise: A Review with a Sketch of a
Model.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from
Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, ed. by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 2–56.
Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies
in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2013. “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.”
Target 25 (1): 5–17. DOI: 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
PACTE. 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model.” In Triangulating Translation:
Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.45.06pac
PACTE. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.”
Meta 50 (2): 609–619. DOI: 10.7202/011004ar
PACTE. 2011. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Transla-
tion Problems and Translation Competence.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research:
Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and
Elisabet Tiselius, 317–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.94.22pac
Pavlović, Nataša, and Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund Jensen. 2009. “Eye Tracking Translation
Directionality.” In Translation Research Projects 2, ed, by A. Pym and A. Perekrestenko,
101–119. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Rayner, Keith. 1978. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing.” Psychological
Bulletin 85: 618–660. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618
40 Fabio Alves

Risku, Hanna. 2002. “Situatedness in Translation Studies.” Cognitive Research Systems 3: 523–
533. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager. 2013. “Extended Translation: A Sociocognitive Research
Agenda.” Target 25 (1): 33–45. DOI: 10.1075/target.25.1.04ris
Rummelhart, David E., and James McClelland. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Press.
Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter. 1991. “Literate Expertise.” In Toward a General Theory
of Expertise, ed. by K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith, 172–194. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Séguinot, Candace (ed.). 1989. The Translation Process. Toronto: H. G. Publications.
Schilperoord, J. 1996. It’s about Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in text Production.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Stranger in Paradigms: What lies ahead for Simultaneous Interpret-
ing Research.” Target 7 (1): 7–28. DOI: 10.1075/target.7.1.03shl
Shlesinger, Miriam. 2000. “Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know What Really
Happens?” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by
Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 3–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/btl.37.03shl
Shreve, Gregory. 2006. “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Transla-
tion Studies 9 (1): 27–42.
Shreve, Gregory, and Erik Angelone (eds). 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ata.xv
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja (ed.). 1991. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Varela, Francisco, Evan Thompson, and E. Eleanor Rosch.1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive
Science and Human Experience. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/btl.15