Retrospective and Introspective Think-Aloud Protocols in Translation Quality Assessment: A Qual-Quan Mixed Methods Research

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 MA in Translation Studies, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch

2 Assistant Professor of TEFL, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch

Abstract

A major concern in Translation Studies (TS) has been on what really goes on in the translators’ head while they are translating (not what researchers claim is going on). Among the techniques utilized in studying such cognitive processes and systems, think-aloud protocols (TAPs) have been widely em- ployed. As a content analysis study, this Qual-Quan mixed methods research aimed at exploring the com- parative differences introspective and retrospective TAPs can cause in English-to-Persian translation quality. The selected participants were 15 MA students studying TS at Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch. The participants were required to translate two English texts into Persian, one introspectively and the other retrospectively, while the participants’ voices were audio-recorded and fully transcribed later. Relying on a recent translation quality assessment scale (Famil Khalili, 2011), the frequency distribution for the 14 encoded themes proved that the participants performed differently in introspection and retros- pection TAP phases. In fact, while the themes coherence and grammaticality had the highest frequency counts in the retrospection phase, dialogical register, linguistic functions and speech acts had a considera- ble improvement in the introspection phase.

Keywords


Austen, J. (1775). Pride and prejudice. Bantam Classics. New York: Oxford: OUP.

Bernardini, S. (2002). Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements. limits future prospect. Target, 13(2), 241-263.

Corlett, E. W. (1995). Evaluation of human work (4th ed.). CRC Press.

Eftekhary, A. A. & Aminizadeh, S. (2012). Investigating the use of thinking aloud protocols in translation of literary texts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(5), 1039-1047.

Ericsson, K. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Famil Khalili, G. (2011). Developing a valid scale for translation quality assessment in undergraduate translator training program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran.

Henry, O. (1862). The gift of the magi. New York: Simon and Schuster for Young Readers.

Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

O'Brien, S. (2013). The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1), 5-17. .

Shahrokhi, M. (2016). The effect of think aloud on the amount of translation revision. International Journal of English

15 Language and Translation Studies, 4(4),

108- 119.
Tannen, D. (2007).
Talking voices: Repetition,

dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (Vol. 26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Discourse and communication:New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (Vol. 10). Walter: Walter de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology : A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2007). Critical discourse analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of doingqualitative analysis: phenomenological psychology, groundedtheory,discourseanalysis, narrative research, andintuitive inquiry. NewYork: TheGuilfordPress.

Widdowson, H. G. (2000). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality

assessment: An argumentation-centered approach. University of Ottawa Press.Shojaei, A., & Laheghi, F. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of political ideology and control factors in news translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 2535-2540.

Woods, N. (2014). Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.


Volume 9, Issue 4
Autumn 2019
Pages 1-16