Translation process research (TPR) has been said to be in need of being reembedded in a new conceptual and methodological framework (Muñoz ed. 2016). The main reason for this is that meaning has been found or claimed to be ‘4EA’: embodied, embedded, enacted, extended, and affective. The further claim is that traditional TPR (Jakobsen 2017), using keylogging, eyetracking and retrospective think aloud in lab-oriented experiments, is unable to capture the complexity, concreteness and situatedness of this new construction of meaning. In the new construction, cognition and meaning are not only in our heads, but in our bodies or even in networks (Risku and Windhager 2013). The kind of translation that is done in a lab is artificial and ecologically invalid, it has been claimed. Real translation is best studies in professional translation workplaces (Ehrensberger-Dow et al 2015), and the best method to study translation here is by using anthropological field study methodology.
While much of this criticism carries considerable conviction, there is still much to be said in favour of experimental, process-oriented work. It is not yet clear how field-study methodology will enhance either our understanding of the dependence of human cognition on brain, body, environment, situation and technology, or will reveal how these factors impact on translators’ cognition and decision making.
A case will be made for claiming that translation exists in many places, is equally real in them all, should be studied in them all, and can be relevantly studied with an array of different methodologies. [Go to the full record in the library's catalogue]
This video is presented here with the permission of the speakers.
Any downloading, storage, reproduction, and redistribution are strictly prohibited
without the prior permission of the respective speakers.
Go to Full Disclaimer.
This video is archived and disseminated for educational purposes only. It is presented here with the permission of the speakers, who have mandated the means of dissemination.
Statements of fact and opinions expressed are those of the inditextual participants. The HKBU and its Library assume no responsibility for the accuracy, validity, or completeness of the information presented.
Any downloading, storage, reproduction, and redistribution, in part or in whole, are strictly prohibited without the prior permission of the respective speakers. Please strictly observe the copyright law.