Theoretical modelling of the translation process

Abstract

Translation Studies has undergone a significant transformation from a practice which relied on intuitive knowledge to a discipline with systematic approaches that have contributed in illuminating the intricate nature of translation. In the study of the translation process, for example, scholars and practitioners have introduced various models that explain the diverse dimensions of translation, covering cognitive, cultural, linguistic, sociological, and alternative perspectives. Although there has been an extensive exploration of the translation process through the cognitive lens, there is very little understanding of how it unfolds within other theoretical frameworks. This paper addresses this gap by introducing the concept of process modelling, illustrating how scholars from different theoretical backgrounds have dissected the translation process into distinct components. The objective is to emphasize that translation, as the process of “text production” in a different language, is a multifaceted operation involving several stages or phases. Through the lens of process modelling, the paper contributes to a deeper comprehension of the complexities inherent in translation.

Keywords translation phases; process modelling; translation process research; translation act; translation event

1. Introduction

Translation Studies (TS) has undertaken a significant journey towards independence from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, a transformation emphasized by scholars such as Bassnett (2005, 2012) and Bassnett and Lefevere (1992). The advancements in Translation Process Research (TPR) discussed by Alves (2021) underscore the evolution of TS into a more disciplined and respected academic field. In the early days of TS, people relied on intuition and reflections on how translators worked. This period, marked by an instinctive understanding of the translation process, eventually shifted with a reflexive turn (Dizdar, 2012). The shift led to various ways of studying the translation process. Researchers now recognize that translating involves different subprocesses or stages, leading to the conclusion that translation is a dynamic and multifaceted activity. Presently, several existing models in the field have elevated the status of TS and deepened our understanding of the complexities of translation. Whether scrutinizing translation through a cognitive lens (e.g., Alves, 2021), exploring the dynamics between source and target cultures, delving into the nuances of language and symbols, approaching it from a sociological viewpoint, or investigating alternative methods, the common thread is that translation involves a confluence of multiple sub-processes. This shared characteristic can be effectively examined through the lens of process modelling. This paper therefore explains the concept of process modelling and illustrates how scholars with different theoretical perspectives have broken down the translation process into distinct components. The goal is to emphasize that (different forms of) translation, as the process of creating a text in another language, involves several stages of operation.

2. Concept of process model(ling)

According to Curtis et al. (1992), a process model is an abstract description of a process, which captures crucial elements for its purpose. In simpler terms, it outlines the sequence of activities that contribute to the attainment of a specific goal (Kentjmcdonald, 2018). Process models are widely used to represent and analyze recurring activities across various sectors, facilitating the understanding of operations within a specific domain. In business, process modelling is the analytical representation or illustration of an organization’s processes. It helps visualize current workflows (as-is) and optimize them for better efficiency (to-be), aiding in productivity and operational improvement (Team Kissflow, 2024). Similarly, in manufacturing, process models are employed to illustrate all the stages and steps involved in the production process. This can include everything from the initial design phase to the assembly line and quality control (Mendling et al., 2007).

In (Software) Engineering and Design, process models are employed to articulate and understand the activities and information necessary for developing a software system. This involves a structured representation that outlines the steps, tasks, and information flow throughout the software development lifecycle. Scholars such as Curtis et al. (1992), Sommerville (1996), and Wynn and Clarkson (2018) have contributed to the understanding and application of these process models. Regardless of where they are used, all process models have some common features. One key characteristic is that they are a visual or graphical representation of a process lifecycle, which is the different stages through which the process is followed. Most process models follow a step-by-step order, where each phase is completed before moving on to the next one. In translation studies, Chesterman (2013) posits that process models function both as an act and an event. This implies that these models operate both as cognitive processes (acts) and as observable sociological occurrences (events).

2.1 Cognitive process modelling

Translation as an act, popularly known as act of translating — or translation act, refers to the cognitive process involved in translating. This is the description of what happens in the mind of translators when they are working, presently studied under the now broader subfield of Cognitive Translation & Interpreting Studies (CTIS) (Rojo López & Martín, 2022). Referring to Toury (2012), Chesterman (as cited in Rojo López & Martín, 2022) asserts that the translation act is centred in the human brain. Given the challenge of visualizing the mental processes of translators and interpreters during work, scholars have endeavoured to model the series of activities within the translator’s brain. This process model (see Tymoczko, 2010) speculates that the mental architecture during a translation or interpretation session is divided into various stages or cognitive operations. To shed light on these cognitive operations, several methodological approaches have been adopted. In his comprehensive overview of Translation Process Research (TPR), Jakobsen (2017) identifies three distinct phases that mark its evolution. The initial phase was characterised by the Think Aloud Protocol (TAP). TAP involved asking translators to verbalize their thoughts during translation, with the hope of gaining access into their thought processes (e.g., Dechert & Sandrock, 1984; Gerloff, 1986; Krings, 1986; Lörscher, 1986; Königs, 1987; Kiraly, 1995; Tirkkonen-Condit, 2005). Building upon this, the second phase introduces technological advancements, integrating keylogging and eye-tracking methodologies. It was believed that these techniques would provide a more objective and detailed analysis by capturing translators’ keystrokes and eye movements to illuminate their cognitive activities (Jakobsen, 2014; Alves, 2015; Orrego-Carmona et al., 2018). The most recent phase represents a paradigm shift, which incorporates methods rooted in data analytics and data sciences. This approach harnesses computational techniques to analyse extensive datasets, which claims to offer detailed insights into translation processes that extend beyond the scope of traditional methodologies (Carl et al., 2019; Vanroy et al., 2021; Wen, 2021; Carl, 2023).

2.2 Sociological process modelling

The second model views the translation process as an observable sociological event, rather than solely a cognitive activity. It considers the translation process as an interaction between cognitive functions and various external elements, such as clients, quality controllers, tools, and workflows. This model, supported by scholars like Gideon Toury and Hanna Risku, underscores the dual nature of translation, which involves both cognitive and environmental factors. Toury’s (2012) concept of the translation event emphasizes that translation is influenced by external variables, including socio-cultural contexts and audience expectations. His broader theory of translation norms suggests that these external factors shape and guide translators’ practices through socially accepted conventions (as cited in Risku & Rogl, 2021). Similarly, Risku and Rogl (2021) argue that cognitive processes in Translation Studies extend beyond the internal mental workings. They introduce the concepts of situated cognition and embodied cognition, which highlight the importance of environmental influences and physical experiences in the translation process. According to Risku and Rogl (2021), understanding translation cognition involves considering how external contexts and embodied experiences interact with cognitive functions, thus providing a more holistic view of the translation process.

3. Process models in translation

In the preceding paragraphs, we have established that the idea of process model is widely used in different fields to outline step-by-step workflows for specific goals. It has equally been elaborated in translation studies that it covers both the mental process of the translator and the observable social aspects (see Chesterman, 2012, for example). Various scholars have modelled the translation process differently, either focusing on the translator’s cognitive activities or treating translation as a social event. Some scholars argue for a two-phase translation process, while others suggest three stages, and some believe in numerous operations. Table 1 summarizes some of these different models, wherein the terms stage, phase, operation, and activity” are used interchangeably in this paper to represent the same fundamental concept. This equivalence is substantiated by the fact that operation or activity encompasses the actions taking place within the broader context of stages or phases or steps.

Table 1
Models of the translation process

Two-phase models			Three-phase models		Multi-phase models
Wilss (1982)		SLT identification	Nida (1964)	Analysis	Kußmaul (1995)	preparation
		TLT reconstruction)		transfer		incubation
Bell (1991)		analysis		restructuring		illumination
		synthesis	Seleskovitch (1975)	comprehension		evaluation
Dragsted (2010) Jakobsen (2011)		meaning construction		Deverbalisation		specification
		meaning representation		re-expression		preparation
Carl & Kay (2011) Hansen Schirra & Gutermuth (2015:59)		ST processing TT production	Delisle (1982)	comprehension,	Sager (1994)	translation
				Reformulation		evaluation/revision
				verification (justification
			Gile (1995)	ST Comprehension
				ST Meaning Transfer
Ogawa (2021)		comprehension			Randaccio (2012)	anticipation
		translation/ rendering		TT proposition revision
Hvelplund (2019) Fontanet (2005)		comprehension	Levý (1967)	Erfassen der Vorlage		resource exploitation
		reformulation		Interpretation der Vorlage
				Umsetzung der Vorlage
			Mossop (2000)	Pre-drafting		co-operation
				Drafting		revision;
				Post-drafting
			Lomheim (1999)	comprehension		translating.
				relay	Vinay and Darbelnet (1995)	Identification
				formulation		Examination
						Reconstitution
						evaluation
						function analysis
			Massey et al. (2013)	orientation
				drafting
				revision
Multi-phase model (contd.)					Nord (2005)	ST analysis
Wilss (1996,)	identification of problems
	clarification (description) of problems					ST compatibility test
	search and retrieval of relevant informatio					analysis of TT elements
	problem-solving strategies
	choice of solution					ST Restructuring
	evaluation of solution

• Source: Author (2024).

Table 1 provides an overview of various translation models, organized into three primary categories: two-phase models, three-phase models, and multi-phase models. This table systematically lists prominent scholars and their respective contributions to the field of translation studies, delineating the specific phases or processes articulated in their models. The subsequent subsections will detail each of these stages as represented in the table, offering a comprehensive examination of the methodologies and theoretical frameworks proposed by these scholars.

3.1 Two-phase model

From the early stages when the field of translation studies sought recognition, the debate on identifying the components of the translation process was a prominent aspect that played a central role in the theoretical endeavors of translation scholars. Wilss (1982) posited the existence of universal regularities within the translation process. He outlined a chronological sequencing of textual operations, where the translator assumes the roles of both a source text (ST) receiver and a target text (TT) sender. This process involves a two-step approach, encompassing source-language text identification and target-language text reconstruction. From the perspective of translation pedagogy, Wilss (1982) described translation competence as comprising three partial competences: first-language competence (L1), second-language competence (L2), and a supercompetence enabling mediation (through decision-making) between L1 and L2. These competences function within the framework of the cognitive translation process.

Similarly, Bell (1991) specifies that the translation process, though complex, involves two major phases: the analysis (decoding or comprehension) of the contents of the ST and the synthesis of the ST information into the TT (pp. 45–60). From a cognitive perspective, Bell (1991) acknowledges the intricacy of this process, asserting that, for each unit of sense, the translator performs these two actions at various levels of memory—from sound and word recognition to sentence parsing, up to the comprehension of the entire text structure. In other words, the analysis of the ST begins at the lower-level word recognition and extends to the comprehension of the entire textual structure.

More recently, for the purpose of analyzing the translation process with the aid of the latest technology, such as eye-tracking and keylogging, it is common among scholars to identify the two phases as ‘meaning construction’ and meaning representation (Dragsted, 2010; Jakobsen, 2011). Although meaning construction is often used as a synonym for comprehension of the text, it can also be accomplished in the meaning representation or Bell’s (1991) text reconstruction phase. It is also possible to construct meaning during the representation phase of operation. What we understand from the standpoint of process data studies is that meaning construction is not a phase per se but a kind of operation that characterizes the complex process of translation. For this reason, other process studies (Carl & Kay, 2011; Hansen-Schirra & Gutermuth, 2015; Ogawa, 2021) may refer to the two as source-text processing, which involves comprehension, or understanding of the ST, and TT production. Giraldo Ospina et al. (2024) have emphasized that text comprehension, including working memory and attention, is essential for accurate translation.

3.2 Three-phase models

On the other hand, some models stipulate that the translation process is composed of three distinct phases. One such model is found in the Interpretive Theory of Translation (the Theory of Sense) developed by Seleskovitch (1975). Although this theory was originally developed for interpreting, Gile (2009) argues that interpreting involves the same process as written translation. Seleskovitch’s (1975) theory posits that translation and interpretation encompass three main phases: comprehension, déverbalisation, and re-expression. Comprehension, the initial phase, involves generating the sense of the source text (ST) by integrating cognitive inputs, linguistic knowledge, real-world knowledge, and contextual knowledge, all processed through human memory. The translator analyzes these components to apprehend the ST’s sense, leading to déverbalisation (stripping the message of its linguistic form) and re-expression (transferring the meaning into another language).

Similarly, Nida (1964), influenced by Chomsky’s generative grammar, views translation as a special form of communication divided into three phases: analysis of the ST into its basic semantic components, transfer into the target language (TT), and restructuring of the TT draft. Gile (1995) shares this view, distinguishing between comprehension of the ST, transfer of its meaning, and revision of the TT proposition. Delisle (1982) also identifies three stages in translation from a linguistic perspective: comprehension, reformulation, and verification (justification). Levý, in collaboration with Popovič and Miko (cf. van den Broeck, 1998), describes the translation process within structuralist literary theory as involving three sequential stages: (a) Erfassen der Vorlage (mental capture of the ST meaning), (b) Interpretation der Vorlage (ST interpretation), and (c) Umsetzung der Vorlage (implementation of ST interpretation).

Additionally, Lomheim’s subtitling studies reveal three phases: comprehension, relay, and formulation (Qvale, 2003). The comprehension phase involves analyzing the ST to form a mental picture of its message. The relay phase replaces source-language units with target-language units, and the formulation phase involves putting the translation into written form. Mossop (2000) also outlines a three-phase process: predrafting, drafting, and post-drafting, with self-revision and other-revision distinguishing between internal and external review processes (Borg, 2018). In Translation Studies, the transition from self-revision to other-revision signifies the end of the translation process as an act and marks the initiation of the process model as an event. This shift emphasizes the collaborative and iterative nature of translation.

3.3 Multi-phase models

Some scholars argue that the stages of the translation process should perhaps contain more than just two or three stages. They contend that, as a problem-solving and creative process, translation involves several stages, similar to the four-phase model of the human mind during creative processes suggested by psychologists (Poincaré, 1913, as cited in Kußmaul, 1995). Kußmaul (1995) aligns this model with translation, asserting that the preparation phase corresponds to the comprehension stage of translation, where active decisions are made to establish the meaning of the source text (ST) in relation to the anticipated function of the target text (TT). Many other translation scholars view translation as a creative process (e.g., Reiß & Vermeer, 2013; Fontanet, 2017; Kadiu, 2019; Apfelthaler, 2021). In a volume edited by Carl (2021), several contributors report their observations from experiments involving machine and human translations and acknowledge the uniquely creative nature of human translation. They recognize translation as a complex activity.

Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet (1995) proposed a four-step process for translating from the ST to the TT, based on linguistic theory and cognitive decision-making processes:

1. Identify Units of Translation: Translators mentally recognize and select meaningful linguistic units in the ST based on context, meaning, and the intended message.

2. Examine the ST: Translators engage in cognitive activities to thoroughly examine the ST, evaluating its descriptive, affective, and intellectual content, and making decisions on how to convey this content in the TT, including choices related to language nuances, tone, and faithful representation.

3. Reconstitute the Situation: Translators mentally reconstruct the context that gave rise to the ST message, understanding broader contexts, cultural nuances, and communicative intent, and making decisions to convey these elements in the TT.

4. Weigh Up and Evaluate Stylistic Effects: Cognitive processes assess the stylistic features of the ST, understanding literary or rhetorical devices and their impact, and deciding how to replicate or adapt these effects in the TT.

Fontanet (2017) argues that Poincaré’s four stages should be seen as operations rather than phases, occurring multiple times during translation. Mackenzie (1998) similarly compares the translation process to the creative problem-solving process, stressing that translation requires no predetermined solution but entails creative strategies. Mackenzie (1998) also draws parallels between Sager’s (1994) stages—specification, preparation, translation, and evaluation/revision—and the creative process stages. The parallels include specification and preparation with the creative process’s initial phases, incubation and illumination with translation stages, and verification with evaluation/revision.

Randaccio (2012) presents a five-phase model that aligns with the sociological perspective on translation:

1. Anticipation: Translators establish the context for the ST and TT, including authorship, purpose, and audience, and gather resources such as dictionaries and similar texts.

2. Resource Exploitation: Analyzing the texts and resources collected during Anticipation.

3. Co-operation: Collaborating with other translators and experts to address translation challenges.

4. Translating: Engaging in the actual translation process.

5. Revision: Finalizing the text based on preceding phases.

The sociological perspective emphasizes collaboration and recognizes translation as a social event influenced by various actors and factors. During the Anticipation phase, translators understand the social context of both the ST and TT. The Co-operation phase explicitly embodies the sociological perspective as translators collaborate to resolve challenges, involving multiple experts. The Revision phase reflects the culmination of collective efforts and decision-making within the social context of translation. Nord (2005, pp. 37-38) suggests that the translation process is not restricted to a linear approach but involves a “[circular path that contains a number of smaller circular movements (or loops) that keep recurring between ST situation and ST, between TT situation and TT”. This view is supported by Gile (2009), who notes that recent models incorporate actions, tests, and feedback as integral to comprehension and production processes. Nord (2005) emphasizes that the initial step involves analyzing the translation brief, which informs subsequent ST analysis and TT production. The translator must continuously verify that decisions align with the TT’s purpose, reflecting an iterative and dynamic translation process.

4. Conclusion

This paper has explored the diverse theoretical perspectives of scholars on the stages of the translation process, illuminating these stages within the overarching framework of process models, categorized into either the translation act or the translation event. It is important to note that the proponents of each of these models provide plausible justifications for their proposals, particularly those inspired by practice. This is not uncommon in a practice-oriented profession like translation. As Kadiu (2019, p. 8) notes, “theorizing takes place during the translating process itself, in the act of undertaking a translation and attempting to articulate our experience of it, of facing a translation dilemma and reflecting on possible solutions”. Holmes (2000) specifies that the relationship between theory and practice is dialectical. Translation theory utilizes insights from research, which, as observed, is derived from the practical exercise of the translation profession. Several theoretical positions in the literature are products of descriptive studies resulting from rigorous experimental research within the descriptive branch of Translation Studies (Ji, 2019).

Finally, regardless of the theoretical or pedagogical justifications (Gile, 1995, 2009) for partitioning the translation process, it is essential to recognize that translating is an extremely complex activity that cannot be confined to specific phases. User activity data has revealed that seven types of activities can characterize a single translation session, according to Schaeffer et al. (2016). Translation Process Research specialists have found that translation processes are much less sequential (sentence-by-sentence, chunk-by-chunk) and much less stratificational than predicted by earlier translation models. Hurtado Albir and Alves (2009) assert that difficulties in investigating the translation process are magnified by the various phases through which the process unfolds and by the complexity of the interwoven abilities and forms of specialized knowledge involved.

• Research dataset
  Part of the article is based on the author’s PhD dissertation, Identifying and Improving Reading Comprehension in the Translation Process: A Visualisation Approach (Nwachukwu, 2017), obtained from Stellenbosch University, South Africa, in 2017.
• Funding
  The first draft of this article was compiled and updated during the author's research stay at KU Leuven, supported by the Coimbra Group Scholarship for Young African Researchers. The author gratefully acknowledges this funding.
• Image copyright
  Not applicable.
• Approval by ethics committee
  Not applicable.
• Publisher
  Cadernos de Tradução is a publication of the Graduate Program in Translation Studies at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. The journal Cadernos de Tradução is hosted by the Portal de Periódicos UFSC. The ideas expressed in this paper are the responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the university.
• Technical editing
  Alice S. Rezende – Ingrid Bignardi – João G. P. Silveira – Kamila Oliveira

Data availability statement

The data from this research, which are not included in this work, may be made available by the author upon request.

References

• Alves, F. (2015). Translation Process Research at the Interface: Paradigmatic, Theoretical, and Methodological Issues in Dialogue with Cognitive Science, Expertise Studies, and Psycholinguistics. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting (pp. 17–40). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.02alv
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.02alv
• Alves, F. (2021). Foreword. In M. Carl (Ed.), Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research (pp. 7–8). Springer.
• Apfelthaler, M. (2021). Empathy. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 59–65). John Benjamins B. V.
• Bassnett, S. (2005). Translation studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Bassnett, S. (2012). Translation Studies at a Cross-roads. Target, 24(1), 15–25.
• Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1992). General editors preface. In A. Lefevere (Ed.), Translation/history/culture: A Sourcebook (pp. 11–12). Routledge.
• Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice Longman.
• Borg, C. (2018). The Phases of the Translation Process: Are They Always Three? The Junior College Multi-Disciplinary Conference: Research, Practice and Collaboration, 79.
• Carl, M. (2021). Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research. Springer.
• Carl, M. (2023). Models of the Translation Process and the Free Energy Principle. Entropy, 25(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25060928
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/e25060928
• Carl, M., & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and Typing Activities During Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 56(4), 952–975. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar
  » https://doi.org/10.7202/1011262ar
• Carl, M., Tonge, A., & Lacruz, I. (2019). A Systems Theory Perspective on the Translation Process. Translation, Cognition and Behavior, 2(2), 211–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00026.car
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00026.car
• Chesterman, A. (2012). Models in Translation Studies. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 108–114). John Benjamins.
• Chesterman, A. (2013). Models of What Processes? Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8, 155–168.
• Curtis, B., Kellner, M. I., & Over, J. (1992). Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 75–90.
• Dechert, H. W., & Sandrock, U. (1984). Thinking‐aloud Protocols: The Decomposition of Language Processing. In V. Cook (Ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Learning (pp. 111-126). Pergamon.
• Delisle, J. (1982). L’analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction: Initiation à la traduction française de textes pragmatiques anglais Presse de l’Université d’Ottawa.
• Dizdar, D. (2012). General Translation Theory. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 59–65). John Benjamins B. V.
• Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Uncharted Territory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 41–62). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra
• Fontanet, M. (2005). Temps de créativité en traduction. Meta, 50(2), 432-447. https://doi.org/10.7202/010992ar
  » https://doi.org/10.7202/010992ar
• Fontanet, M. (2017). The Translation Process and its Creative Facets in a Hermeneutic Perspective. In L. Cercel, M. Agnetta & M. T. A. Lozano (Eds.), Kreativität und Hermeneutik in der Translation (pp. 217–243). Narr Francke Attempto.
• Gerloff, P. (1986). Second Language Learners’ Reports on the Interpretive Process. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 243-262). Gunter Narr.
• Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training John Benjamins.
• Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training John Benjamins.
• Giraldo Ospina, D. L., Naranjo Ruíz, M., & Suárez de la Torre, M. (2024). Exploring Cognitive Processes in Specialized Text Post-Editing: A Mixed Methods Approach Integrating Eye-Tracking and Verbalization Protocols. Cadernos de Tradução, 44(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5935/1678-3453.20240001
  » https://doi.org/10.5935/1678-3453.20240001
• Hansen-Schirra, S., & Gutermuth, S. (2015). Approaching Comprehensibility in Translation Studies. In K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth & S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and Comprehensibility (pp. 53–76). Frank & Timme GmbH Verlag.
• Holmes, J. S. (2000). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 172–185). Routledge.
• Hurtado Albir, A., & Alves, F. (2009). Translation as a Cognitive Ability. In J. Munday (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (pp. 54–73). Routledge.
• Hvelplund, K. T. (2019). Digital Resources in the Translation Process–Attention, Cognitive Effort and Processing Flow. Perspectives, 27(4), 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1575883
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1575883
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). Tracking Translators’ Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Translog. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies (pp. 37–55). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2014). The Development and Current State of Translation Process Research. In E. Brems, R. Meylaerts & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), The Known Unknowns of Translation (pp. 65–88). John Benjamins.
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2017). Translation Process Research. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 19–49). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch2
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch2
• Ji, M. (2019). Advances in Empirical Translation Studies. In M. Ji & M. Oakes (Eds.), Advances in Empirical Translation Studies: Developing Translation Resources and Technologies (pp. 1–12). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525695.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525695.001
• Kadiu, S. (2019). Reflexive-Translation-Studies: Translation as Critical Reflection UCL Press.
• Kentjmcdonald. (2018, August 31). What is a process model? Inside Product https://www.insideproduct.com/blog/2018/08/31/what-is-a-process-model/
  » https://www.insideproduct.com/blog/2018/08/31/what-is-a-process-model/
• Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to Translation The Kent University Press.
• Königs, F. (1987). Was beim Übersetzen passiert: Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen. Die Neueren Sprachen, 2, 162-185.
• Krings, H. P. (1986). Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French (L2). In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 263-276). Tübingen.
• Kußmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator John Benjamins.
• Levý, J. (1967). Translation as a decision process. In To honor Roman Jakobson (Vol. 2, pp. 1171-1182). Mouton.
• Lomheim, S. (1999). The writing on the screen: Subtitling: A case study from Norwegian broadcasting. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Word, text, translation (pp. 190-207). Multilingual Matters.
• Lörscher, W. (1986). Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 277-292). Tübingen.
• Mackenzie, R. (1998). Creative Problem-Solving and Translator Training. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ Strategies and Creativity: Selected papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995 (pp. 201–206). John Benjamins.
• Massey, G., Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Hunziker Heeb, A. (2013). Defining Phases of the Translation Process: Revision as a Case In Point. In 2. Sektionentagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik eV, Aachen, 19-20. September 2013.
• Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & Cardoso, J. (2007). What Makes Process Models Understandable? In G. Alonso, P. Dadam & M. Rosemann (Eds.), BPM 2007, LNCS 4714 (pp. 48–63). Springer-Verlag.
• Mossop, B. (2000). The Workplace Procedures of Professional Translators. In A. Chesterman, N. G. San Salvador & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Translation in Context: Selected Papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998 (pp. 39–48). John Benjamins.
• Nida, E. A. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating Brill.
• Nord, C. (2005). Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis Rodopi B. V.
• Nwachukwu, J. F. (2017). Identifying and improving reading comprehension in the translation process: A visualisation approach [Doctoral dissertation]. Stellenbosch University.
• Ogawa, H. (2021). Difficulty in English-Japanese Translation: Cognitive Effort and Text/Translator Characteristics. Kent State University.
• Orrego-Carmona, D., Dutka, Ł., & Szarkowska, A. (2018). Using Translation Process Research to Explore the Creation of Subtitles: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Professional and Trainee Subtitlers. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 30, 150-180.
• Qvale, P. (2003). From St. Jerome to Hypertext: Translation in Theory and Practice St. Jerome.
• Randaccio, M. (2012). Translation and Language Teaching: Translation as a Useful Teaching Resource. In F. Gori & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspetti della didattica e dell’apprendimento delle lingue straniere: Contributi dei collaboratori del Centro Linguistico dell’Università di Trieste (pp. 78–91). EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste.
• Reiß, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (2013). Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained Routledge.
• Risku, H., & Rogl, R. (2021). Translation and Situated, Embodied, Distributed, Embedded and Extended Cognition. In F. Alves & A. L. Jakobsen (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 478–499). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003167983
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003167983
• Rojo López, A. M., & Martín, R. M. (2022). Translation Process Research. In F. Zanettin & C. Rundle (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology (pp. 356–372). Routledge.
• Sager, J. C. (1994). Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of Automation (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Schaeffer, M., Carl, M., & Lacruz, I. (2016). Measuring Cognitive Translation Effort with Activity Units. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2), 331–345.
• Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire: Étude de la traduction Didier.
• Sommerville, I. (1996). Software Process Models. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(1), 269–271.
• Team Kissflow. (2024, March 20). Business Process Modeling: Definition, Benefits, and Examples Kissflow. https://kissflow.com/workflow/bpm/business-process-modeling/
  » https://kissflow.com/workflow/bpm/business-process-modeling/
• Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research. Meta, 50(2), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar
  » https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar
• Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies – and beyond (Revised ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Tymoczko, M. (2010). Models of Translation Process Research. In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 77–89). Routledge.
• Van den Broeck, R. (1998). Translational Interpretation: A Complex Strategic Game. In A. Beylard-Ozeroff, J. Králová & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Translators’ Strategies and Creativity: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995 (pp. 1–13). John Benjamins.
• Vanroy, B., Schaeffer, M., & Macken, L. (2021). Comparing the Effect of Product-Based Metrics on the Translation Process. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634639
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634639
• Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation John Benjamins.
• Wen, Q. (2021). Empirical Studies in Translation Process Research: A Review of Current Methods and Findings. In X. Zuo & X. Zhang (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp. 77–90). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367335894
  » https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367335894
• Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Gunter Narr Verlag.
• Wilss, W. (1996). Translation as Intelligent Behaviour. Benjamins Translation Library, 18, 161–168.
• Wynn, D. C., & Clarkson, P. J. (2018). Process Models in Design and Development. Research in Engineering Design, 29, 161–202.

Edited by

• Section editors
  Andréia Guerini – Willian Moura

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Nov 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  27 Dec 2023
• Reviewed
  26 Sept 2024
• Accepted
  12 Aug 2024
• Published
  Sept 2024