Cognitive Approaches to Translation Process: Current Trends, Challenges and

Future Development
Xiao Kairong
College of International Studies, Southwest University
kairongxiao@163.com
1

Introduction
A balanced development of translation studies as a discipline entails effective researches
in all the three branches of Descriptive Translation Studies mapped by James Holmes (1972),
namely the product-, function- and process-oriented studies. With more research findings in
the first two fields made in the latter part of the 20th century, the process-oriented research
acquires promising momentum in the first decade of the 21st century, as it borrows the latest
theoretical models and research methods from the neighboring cognitive disciplines, such as
cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics, neurophysiology and computational linguistics.
New methods of gathering multi-media data about translator behaviour and large-scale joint
research projects have emerged with findings about the underlying nature of translation as a
cognitive activity. These findings are unimaginable previously with the traditional research
methods.
The exciting development in the process-oriented research is leading some researchers
to propose the emergence of a cognitive translation studies. However, before the favoured
new branch is established, some problems remain to be solved and some theoretical and
methodological issues remain to be considered. This present paper attempts to sort out the
problems and challenges in the cognitive research of translation process based on the review
of the present achievements in the empirical researches of translation so as to suggest the
potential direction of development in cognitive translation studies.
2 Theoretical models of translation process
Several theoretical models have been put forward by researchers to offer accounts of the
metal processes carried out by the translators or interpreters. Six of the most representative
models are classified into three groups according to their theoretic basis: the Interpretive
Theory of Translation, Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Psychology Models, and Cognitive
Pragmatic Model.
2.1 Interpretive Theory of Translation
As one of the earliest attempts to the account of the translation process, Seleskovitch
(1968) and Lederer (1981) were pioneering researchers in taking a cognitive approach to
translation process from the 1960s through the 1980s. They proposed the Interpretive Theory
of Translation (ITT) to identify three interrelated phases of translation/interpreting process:
understanding, deverbalization and re-expression. Understanding is the process of
generating sense, involving not only the linguistic knowledge, but also some other cognitive
inputs including encyclopedic knowledge and contextual knowledge. Memory plays an
important role with the immediate memory to store words for a short time and cognitive
memory to store the whole range of knowledge. The end product of understanding is
non-verbal synthesis. ITT postulates the existence of an intermediate phase of
deverbalization between understanding and re-expression. Re-expression is based on the
deverbalized sense, or the non-verbal synthesis rather than the linguistic form. It involves
also the work of both linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge, and is similar to monolingual
communication in that the intended meaning is expressed in the target language.
1

2.2 Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Psychology Models

Researchers have borrowed ideas to propose some more models to theorize the mental
process of the translator/interpreter from cognitive sciences, such as psycholinguistics,
cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence and neuroscience. These models are here
classified as a group as they share the hypothesis that translation is a process of decoding
the source language and recoding the target language.
One of the representative models is given by Bell (1991), who builds on the perspectives
from systemic-functional linguistics and artificial intelligence to conceive translation as of the
two phases of analysis and synthesis. The phase of analysis undergoes the specific stages of
visual recognition of the words in the source text, syntactic parsing in combination with the
structure analyser, semantic and pragmatic processing to generate a semantic representation
with the work of an idea organizer and a planner. The end product of the analysis phase is the
semantic representation, which is then reprocessed at the phase of synthesis through
pragmatic, semantic and lexico-grammatical synthesizers to be encoded in the target
language and gives rise to the translated text (Bell 1991, 55).
Different from Bell, Kiraly (1995) took a cognitive and a social perspective to propose two
models of the translation process: a social model and a cognitive model. In the social model,
translation is taken to be an activity in three interrelated situational contexts, namely that of
the source text, that of the target text and a translational context. The translational context is
particular as it cannot be observed directly due to its internal and mental traits, but is
externalized by the translators self-concept. In Kiralys cognitive model, the translators mind
is an information-processing system in which a translation comes from the interaction of
intuitive and controlled processes using linguistic and extralinguistic information (Kiraly 1995,
102). His cognitive model consists of information sources, intuitive workplace and controlled
processing centre. At the intuitive workplace, the information sources are processed without
any conscious control to produce translation. If problems emerge, they are reconsidered in
the controlled processing centre and a strategy is chosen to deal with these problems. If the
strategy failed to give a translation, the translation problem is sent back to the intuitive
workplace for a second processing with the information yet not taken into account. If the
problem remains unsolved, a tentative translation is given and accepted for lack of adequate
information (see the figure by Kiraly 1995, 101).
Wilss (1996) argues that problem-solving and decision-making are the most relevant
elements in translation. He takes a cognitive psychological perspective to view translation as
a decision-making process involving knowledge-based intelligent activities. It requires the
acquisition of organized knowledge. As schema is the representation of knowledge in mind,
the central task of cognitive approaches to translation process is to investigate the way
schemas operate. In problem-solving, the translator needs both declarative knowledge and
procedural knowledge, and six phases are listed in problem-solving: identification of
problems; clarification of problems; search and retrieval of relevant information;
problem-solving strategies; choice of solution; and evaluation of solution. There is also the
cognitive simplification to reduce inaccuracies in specific translators acts.
Translation process also involves translator/interpreters cognitive efforts. Gile (1995)
thus draws on the idea of processing capacity from the cognitive psychology to put forward a
model of efforts for interpreting process. He argues that interpreting differs from monolingual
communication in that it involves non-automatic operations that require three types of effort:
efforts related to listening and analyzing, efforts related to discourse production in
reformulation, and short-term efforts.
2

2.3 Cognitive Pragmatic Model

Gutt (1991) builds on relevance theory to develop a relevance model of translation.
According to Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995), human inferential processes are geared to the
maximization of relevance. Human cognition is either descriptive in the sense that it
establishes resemblance between an object or state of affairs in the world and a mental
representation, or interpretive in the sense that it is the resemblance between two mental
representations. Gutt argues that translation is a case of optimal interpretive resemblance in
which two utterances, or even more generally, two ostensive stimuli, interpretively resemble
each other to the extent that they share their explicatures and/or implicatures (Gutt 1991, 44).
The translators task is to transfer ostensively to the target readers or audience all relevant
aspects ostensively and inferentially conveyed by the source text. Gutt suggests that the
relevance translation theory is helpful in understanding and explicating the mental faculties of
the translator/interpreter.
2.4 Inadequacies of the theoretic models of translation process
These theoretic models share some fundamental views about the mental process of the
translator/interpreter. Most of these models conceive translation as a cognitive process that is
dynamic, interactive and non-linear in nature. It involves the work of both the uncontrolled and
controlled, or automatic and non-automatic processing. Some consider it as consisting in
problem-solving and decision-making. Information sources are regarded as most important,
including internal and external resources with the work of long-term and short-term memory.
However, most of the models remain as a theoretic hypothesis without much empirical
evidence. Only ITT and Giles Effort Model are based on the observations of the translation
acts, but they focus on interpreting and their data gathered are too general as a result of the
old-fashioned methods, such as Think-aloud Protocols. With the newly-emerging empirical
research methods, as the ones discussed later, there is an increasing need of models that
are more relevant to the laboratory experiments to gather more specific information about the
translators mental traits in translation. While these models offering only imaginary thinking
about what is happening in the mind of the translator/interpreter, researchers are hoping to
gather more specific evidence of the translation actions, including data or observations from
experiments to justify the theoretic hypothesis. The attempts to find answers to these
questions among others characterize cognitive approaches to translation process in the first
decade of the 21st century.
3 Latest progress in cognitive researches of translation process
As was argued above, cognitive approaches to translation process develop from
theoretic thinking to more empirical verification. In the past ten years, the latest trends of the
process-oriented translation studies are marked by the news ways of data collecting, more
delicate research design, better control of variables in the experiments, and the deepening
integration of multidiscipline.
3.1 Innovative methodologies
The earlier use of methods in the process-oriented studies is mostly confined in verbal
protocols, such as the most typical one, Think-aloud Protocols (TAPs). Researchers used to
rely on the assumption that verbalizations reliably indicate cognitive behaviour (Shreve &
Angelone 2010, 6). Later, especially when it comes to the 1990s, researchers are gradually
aware of the numerous flaws with the verbal protocols and the pool of available methods has
been expanded. These methods are favoured for the data collected seem to be more
scientific, reliable and closer to the translation practice as they are gathered real time as the
translators are doing translation. According to Gpferich & Jskelinen (2009,172), all these
3

methods can be labeled as either soft as they are qualitative and subjective in nature, or
hard as they gather quantitative and objective data.
3.1.1 Soft methods
The so-called soft methods are mostly verbal reports, including TAPs, dialogue protocols,
retrospection, Integrated Problems and Decision Reporting (IPDR). These methods are often
combined with questionnaires (e.g. Yousself 1989), interviews (e.g. Shih 2006) and
translation journals or diaries (e.g. Bergen 2006; Fox 2000) to elicit informants verbal
responses or accounts. In terms of the time of eliciting the data, the verbal reporting methods
are distinguished between concurrent and retrospective reporting. The former takes place
simultaneously with the task performance, while the latter takes place after the task
performance. The time factor is now a great concern about the validity and reliability of the
date elicited in the experiment. Think-aloud was the first method used on the individual
translator to report their mental activities in translating, while retrospection has been
increasingly used, particularly together with other hard methods. Dialogue protocols began
to be used in the late 1980s on two or more translators working on the same text (e.g. House
1988; Kumaul 1995). Although dialogue protocols are reported to be superior to think-aloud
as the former yields richer data, the question whether the negotiating and debating between
the partner translators have any effect on the efficiency of the translation has been a concern.
Another frequently used verbal report is IPDR, which requires subjects to write down
comments on the problems they encounter during a translation task and how they have
solved them. It is more subjective as the subjects may write down what they consider to be
most important or relevant, and more often used for didactic purposes. Verbal reports include
also some methods borrowed from sociology or psychology, such as questionnaires,
interviews and translation journals or diaries.
3.1.2 Hard methods
The so-called hard methods emerge with the combination of the latest advancement of
technologies and development of new software. They are keystroke logging with Translog,
video and screen recording with Proxy and Camtasia, and eye-tracking with relevant
software.
In the late 1990s, the TRAP group employed Translog to record the keyboard and mouse
activities during a translation process. This marks the early introduction of keystroke logging
into the research of translation process (see Jackobsen 1998). One interest with the
keystroke logging research is in pauses, which have been seen as the indicators of cognitive
processes, especially planning processes. The length of pauses and the number of pauses
may indicate the complexity of the linguistic units that are processed in the pauses. Keystroke
logging data are often complemented by think-aloud or retrospective reports rather than
concurrent verbalization as the latter may impose interference on the translator, most
probably on the pause.
Video and screen recordings are used for their advantage of showing the subjects
actions, faces and the electronic sources or web-sites they are using in translation. These
data offer richer aspects of the translator behaviours and the information sources elicited with
the help of think-aloud and retrospection to provide account of the problems they encounter
and strategies they adopt to solve them.
Eye-tracking is a fairly recent method introduced in translation studies (see OBrien 2005;
Dragsted & Hansen 2007). Its basic hypothesis is that eye movements and pupil dilation
correlate with the perceptual and cognitive processes going on as the subjects doing
translation on the computer. Relevant researches have shown, for example, that the pupil
4

dilation creases with cognitive load (Gpferich 2008, 56). Therefore eye-tracking is used to
elicit data about the translators eye movements, which offer insight into the translators
mental activities. Eye-tracking is preferred by researchers as it is found to increase the
ecological validity for the on-intrusive feature of the equipment available today (Gpferich &
Jskelinen 2009, 173).
Apart from the use of these technologies and software, researches also introduce
methods from the neurosciences, such as EEG, and neuro-imaging techniques, such as
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRT) and positron emission tomography (PET).
Another trend of methodological innovation is found in the change from the use of single
method in a research to the integration of more methods, as each of the above-mentioned
methods has its own advantages, disadvantages and specific focus or emphasis. Recently,
triangulation has been gradually adopted by more researchers to elicit data of different types
and aspects so as to improve the quality, validity and reliability of the research findings (Alves
2003). Triangulation is a term that refers to the use of two or more than two methods in a
single study. According to Shreve & Angelone (2010, 6), the research of the past decade
shows an increasing reliance on multiple methodologies, and the majority of the empirical
studies in Translation and Cognition edited by him make use of one or more of the new
methods. Angelone (2010), for example, uses screen recording and think-aloud in the
research of the problem-solving behavior of professional and student translators. Dragsted
(2010) employs keystroke logging and eye-tracking to explore source text comprehension
and target text production. Fabio Alves and his colleagues are more innovative in integrating
process-based and product-based research methods, namely the combination of corpus
analysis and keystroke logging, eye-tracking and retrospection to the research translation
unit associated with cognitive effort during a translation task (Alves, et al. 2010).
3.2 Increasing interdisciplinarity
Research of translation process has enjoyed a close relationship with the neighbouring
disciplines such as psychology, linguistics, and psycholinguistics, in both model building and
methodology borrowing. The models discussed in part 2 have introduced such notions as
memory, information processing, relevance, effort, etc. from psychology and other cognitive
sciences. The methodologies in the previous part are also mostly borrowed from the
neighbouring cognitive sciences.
The integration of translation studies and cognitive sciences is increasingly remarkable
in the past decade. One chapter of the book Translation and Cognition (Shreve and Angelone
2010) is given to the discussion of interdisciplinary approaches, with the title Integration of
translation process research and the cognitive sciences. These interdisciplinary researches
include the expert-performance perspective exploration of expertise in interpreting, the
search of neuro-physiological correlates of expertise in interpretingand the study of the
prompting cognates in the bilingual lexicon. These research findings are the strong proof of
the productive forces of the sister disciplines, such as psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics,
cognitive psychology, neuro-physiology when they are integrated with translation process
research. The interdisciplinary approaches have contributed to the research of translation
process some inspiring notions and concepts, namely expertise, bilingual ability, conceptual
representation, prompting cognates, metacognition, etc. Meanwhile, some traditional
concepts such as competence, translation unit and strategies have been redefined and
re-examined to their new vitality.
Another indicator of the interdisciplinary trend of translation process research is seen in
the fact that an increasing number of researchers from neighbouring subject fields extend
5

their interest into the field of translation studies. Among the 22 contributors to the book
Translation and Cognition, 7 of them are based in other cognitive sciences, e.g. psychology,
neuro-physiology, cognitive linguistics, and computational linguistics. They either cooperate
with translation researchers, or adopt translation process researches with the models and
methods in their own fields to probe into the mental mechanism of this particular bilingual
activity translation.
3.3 Large-scale collaboration in research design
The translation process researches in earlier years were characterized by a relative slow
development, isolatedness in the research design, and a small number of subjects confined
mostly to translation students or trainees rather than professional translators. Lack of more
scientific research methods and data acquiring measures are the main reasons for the
limitations of the process researches, which lead to the less convincing research findings. In
recent years, especially in the first decade of the 21st century, international collaboration
marks a new trend in establishing large-scale research projects. Researchers from different
countries and language background have formed a number of communities in carrying out
empirical investigation from different perspectives on subjects from different backgrounds.
These projects and communities include, among others, the TRAP and EYE-TO-IT at
Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, LETRA at the Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais in Brezail, the PACTE group at the University of Barcelona and the PETRA project at
the University of Granada in Spain, the TransComp project at the University of Graz in
Australia, and the CTP project at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Swiss. Most of
these projects involve researches from more than one country, for example the EYE-TO-IT
project has the researchers from Australia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
These projects carry out process researches of the both translation students and professional
translators with a wider range and bigger number of subjects, better control of variables and
more language pairs involved.
These large-scale collaborative research communities and projects have also yielded
valuable research findings, including Hansen (1999), Tirkkonen-Condit and Jskelinen
(2000), Alves (2003), Gpferich et al.(2008), Shreve & Angelone (2010), and OBrien (2011).
Research findings also appeared in special issues of influential journals, including a 2005
special edition of Meta with the title of Processes and Pathways in Translation and
Interpreting and a 2009 special edition of Across Languages and Cultures entitled Process
Research into Translation Competence. These research fruits have broadened our
theoretical and methodological horizons in translation process research. They show us not
only what is potential in human mind, but also how we can go about exploring the mind to
examine its contents. They represent the recent progress and latest trends in research design,
methods and increasing interdisciplinarity in cognitive translation process research (Shreve &
Angelone 2010, 2).
4 Challenges for cognitive approaches to translation process
Despite the remarkable progress in data acquiring methods, research design, variable
control, and project size in translation process research, the cognitive approaches to
translation process as a relatively new paradigm are facing some challenges and potential
problems are expected to emerge. A clear understanding of the challenges will give us a
picture of what might be the future direction to develop the cognitive translation studies as
theoretic framework. The challenges can be summarized as building of theoretic models,
evaluation of methodologies and establishment of data documentation systems.
6

4.1 Theoretic Model building

As Shreve & Angelone (2010: 12) suggest, model building is of paramount concern for
the translation process research. Those models built on linguistics, literary theories or cultural
studies are either product- or function-oriented or focus on linguistic comparing without much
concern about the mental traits of the translator during translation. The aforementioned
theoretic models established on the basis of the neighbouring disciplines such as
psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, neuro-science, bilingualism and second language
acquisition have made tentative attempts in theorizing the mental process of translation, but
these models have the limitations as were summarized in part 2 of the present paper. They
are, for example, more or less theoretically imaginary in nature far away from the
experimental research design. The research topics addressed in these models are therefore
confined to relatively smaller coverage and the description of the process is rather general for
lack of scientific data to support. This is the old story of process research in the last century.
Recently, with the advancement of new technologies, newly merging research
methodologies and data eliciting measures have made it possible to carry out large-scale
experiments in laboratory situations to observe many different aspects of translator behavior.
Empirical researches must be done with the direction of appropriate theoretic models and
without a robust theoretical apparatus, we cannot hope to integrate and consolidate these
massive amounts of data into a consistent understanding of translation and cognition
(Shreve & Angelone 2010: 12). A robust model for the purpose of directing empirical
research is helpful in providing hypotheses about the research topics, guiding researchers to
make testable claims and experimental research design, and offering frameworks for the
analysis of the research findings. As Gpferich & Jskelinen (2009,178) argues, some of
the previous researches, for example the verbal reporting, might be based on false
assumptions or might be inadvertently supporting misguided conceptions about the nature of
translating, fundamentally due to the lack of theoretical guiding in research design.
The building of one or more theoretic models for translation process will also initiate the
critical thinking about the present empirical researches. With more research projects
emerging on an annual basis, researchers in this field might be too optimistic in taking the
cognitive and empirical researches. The critical examination of the validity of the research
design and accountability of the research findings under the direction of the theoretic models
will help nurture this promising research paradigm to develop in a way it is desired.
4.2 Evaluation of Methodologies
As was discussed in part 3, methodological progress has been most remarkable in the
translation process research, but all the methods adopted up to now, either the verbal
reporting like think-aloud, retrospection, interview or the hard ones like keystroke-logging,
eye-tracking, video recordings, have their advantages and disadvantages when applied to the
specific research topics. The researchers might highlight the advantages and ignore the
disadvantages. Empirical researches preferred by researchers for the scientific nature as
they provide factual evidence are also criticized for the validity and reliability problems. There
should be some critical evaluation of the empirical research methods to help find most
appropriate methods for certain topics so as to increase the accountability of the research.
There is also concern about the ecological validity of the methods in laboratory
experiments. People might have questions about the external interference into the translators
when they are asked to do translation in a situation totally different from their workplace.
Some researchers (e.g. Ericsson & Simon 1980,106) have reported the slowing-down effect
of the concurrent reporting in think-aloud experiment, while some others find the effect of
7

think-aloud on the translating strategies, for example fewer formal correspondence at the
lexical level (Jskelinen 2000, 79) or increase of revisions in verbal reporting experiments
(Krings 2001, 229). The methods of translation journals or diaries might change the
translation process itself as the subjects would be more aware of the problem-solving
processes. Therefore, such questions remain to be answered as whether these methods will
change the research object, or whether the data reflect the object of the research accurately,
or to what degree will the methods interfere with the translation process. A general concern
with the methodological evaluation is whether these effects and interferences change
remarkably the translation product and the way the translators translate.
Evaluation of methodologies is to be made on a contrastive basis, or to compare different
methods for the choice of the most appropriate one in a specific research design. Another
benefit of the methodological evaluation is the combination of more methods in a single study.
Triangulation has already been adopted by some researchers, but there is still the question of
the number and nature of methods to be combined to produce what effect.
4.3 Data documentation
The use of new methods and technologies has yielded massive amounts of multi-media
data, including voices, videos, images, and figures about translator behaviour. Some
large-scale internationally collaborative projects, such as EYE-TO-IT, have acquired
experimental data covering multiple language pairs, a variety of cultural contexts and
translators from very different backgrounds. Some researchers also employ contrastive and
comparable corpora to verify the empirical findings. A challenge is how to go about analyzing
and interpreting these massive amounts of data available now through the use of new
methods (Shreve & Angelone 2010, 11-12). If these massive data could be stored, retrievable
and shared by other researchers, the empirical research will be of better value.
In view of this, some researchers (e.g. Gpferich & Jskelinen 2009, 185) suggest to
set up an Internet portal that provides access to a data archive so that all researchers could
share. In this archive, all data could be retrieved with the criteria by which they are stored.
The Internet portal could also provide access for the researchers to upload their own data to
be shared by others through the archive to carry out contrastive studies between different
groups of subjects. In view of this idea, it is of great concern to establish a translation process
research data archive, or the asset management systems (AMS) for storing, archiving,
annotating, and analyzing digital resources of any type, such as texts, graphics, videos, and
sound files. Gpferich and his colleagues in the TransComp Group have begun such a job
(Gpferich & Jskelinen 2009, 186). They made all the materials used in TransComp
available to the scientific community in the asset management system, such as the source
texts, the translation assignments, model translations, the questionnaires used, and all data
obtained in the experiments, such as the TAPs, the log files, and the screen recordings
(see http://gams.uni-graz.at/container:tc). Such Internet-based data storage and sharing
system is just beginning to appear as a special case. With the expansion of translation
process research projects, deepening of the research topics, this type of data storage and
sharing system on a global basis will be a welcome trend in the near future.
5 Conclusion
Different from the time when the imaginary theoretical thinking about translation process
prevailed, the first decade of the 21st century saw remarkable progress in innovative data
eliciting methods, increasing interdisciplinarity in research approaches and formation of
large-scale collaborative research communities. These exciting progress has led some
scholars (e.g. Halverson 2010; Muoz 2010) to argue in favour of establishing a new
8

research framework, namely the Cognitive Translatology in Halversons terminology, or

Cognitive Translation Studies in Munozs terminology. But before optimistically welcoming the
establishment of that framework, we have to be fully aware of the challenges that the
cognitive approaches to translation face, including the theoretic model building,
methodological evaluation, data documentation and subject matter specification. These
challenges also point to the direction of the future development in the field of cognitive
translation studies.

References
Alves, Fabio. 2003.Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process-Oriented Research.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner & Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010.
Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and
Process-based Translation Research. In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory
Shreve & Erik Angelone, 109-142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bell, Roger. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York:
Longman.
Bergen, D. 2006. Learner Strategies and Learner Autonomy in Translator Training. In
Translation and Interpretation Training and Research, edited by Tommola, J. & Y.
Gambier. 119-126. Turku: University of Turku.
Dragsted, Babara. and Gorm Hansen. 2007. Speaking Your Translation: Exploiting
Synergies Between Translation and Interpreting. In Interpreting Studies and Beyond: A
Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, edited by Pchhacker, F., A. L. Jakobsen & I. Mees,
251-274. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Dragsted, Babara. 2010. Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An
Eye on Uncharted Territory. In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve &
Erik Angelone, 41-62. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ericsson, Anders & H. Simon. 1980. Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review. 3:
215-251.
Fox, O. 2000. The Use of Translation Diaries in a Process-oriented Translation Teaching
Methodology. In Developing Translation Competence, edited by Schffner, C. & B. Adab,
115-352. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand-Methoden-Perspektiven.
Tbingen: Narr, 2008.
Gpferich, Susanne, Arnt Lykke. Jakobsen, And I. M. Mees. eds. 2008. Looking at Eyes: Eye
Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Copenhagen:
Sammfundslitteratur.
Gpferich, Susanne & Riitta Jskelinen. 2009. Process Research into the Development of
Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?. Across
Languages and Cultures, 10: 169-191.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Halverson, Sandra. 2010. Cognitive Translation Studies: Developments in Theory and
Method. In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone,
349-369. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
9

Hansen, Gyde. ed. 1999. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results.
Copenhagen: Sammfundslitteratur.
Holmes, James. 1972. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies Unpublished
manuscripts, Amsterdam: Translation Studies Section, Department of General Studies,
reprinted in Laurence Venuti. ed. 2000. The Translation Studies Reader, 172185.
London and New York: Routledge.
House, Julianne. 1988. Talking to Oneself or Thinking with Others? On Using Different
Thinking-aloud Methods in Translation. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen. 17: 84-99.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1998. Logging Time Delay in Translation. In LSP Texts and the
Process of Translation, edited by Gyde Hansen, 173-101. Copenhagen: Copenhagen
Business School.
Jskelinen, Riitta. 2000. Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on Translating. In
Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Outlooks of
Empirical Research, edited by Riitta Jskelinen & Son Tirkkonen-Condit, 71-82.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kiraly, Donald. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State
University Press.
Krings, Hans-Peter. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation
Post-editing Processes. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Kumaul, P. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lederer, M. 1981. La Traduction Simultane. Paris: Minard.
Muoz Martin, Ricardo. 2010. On Paradigm and Cognitive Translatology. In Translation and
Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone, 169-187. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
OBrien, Sharon. 2005. Methodologies for Measuring the Correlation between Post-editing
Effort and Machine Translatability. Machine Translation,1:37-58.
OBrien, Sharon. 2011. Cognitive Explorations of Translation: Eyes, Keys, Taps. London &
New York: Continuum.
Seleskovitch, D. 1968. Linterprte dans les confrences internatinales: problmes de
langage et de communication. Paris: Minard, 1968. trans. 1978. Interpreting for
International Conferences, Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.
Shih, C. Y. 2006. Revision from Translators Point of View. Target 2: 295-312.
Shreve, Gregory & Erik Angelone. 2010. Translation and Cognition: Recent Development.
In Translation and Cognition, edited by Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone, 1-13.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shreve, Gregory. & Erik Angelone. eds. 2010. Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Son and Riitta Jskelinen. eds. 2000.Tapping and Mapping the
Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Wilss, Wolf. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Youssef, A. F. 1989. Cognitive Processes in Written Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
10