汉英翻译单位的认知研究：翻译过程视角

List of Tables

Table 1. Dimensions and indices of text complexity (75)

Table 2.Relevant features of the subjects (92)

Table 3. Measures of WM capacity for the subjects (95)

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the measures of WM capacity (95)

Table 5. Paired samples test of complexity levels of the two STs (98)

Table 6. Symbols and conventions in the Translog linear representation (101)

Table 7.Symbols and conventions for transcribing the retrospective TAPs (103)

Table 8.TU scopes and examples (107)

Table 9.Paired samples test of TU number difference across text (109)

Table 10. A comparison of average number of TUs across text (110)

Table 11.Multivariate tests of syntactic and non-syntactic TUs (114)

Table 12. Univariate tests of syntactic and non-syntactic TUs (114)

Table 13.Multivariate Tests of TU scopes using ANOV A (115)

Table 14.Univariate Tests of TU scopes using ANOV A (116)

Table 15.Multivariate Tests of TU sizes using ANOV A (141)

Table 16.Univariate Tests of TU sizes using ANOV A (142)

Table 17.The main effect of translation experience at the level of three-word TUs (143)

List of Figures

Figure 1. Holmes’ conception of translation studies (from Toury, 1991a: 181) (27)

Figure 2. The Multiple-component WM Model

(reproduced from Baddeley, 2012) (56)

Figure 3. Model of the writing process (from Hayes, 1996:3) (78)

Figure 4. Camtasia .avi file review of onscreen activity (104)

Figure 5. A Comparison of the average number of each type of TU scopes

across text (108)

Figure 6. A comparison of TU number difference across text for all the subjects (109)

Figure 7. The most frequent TU scopes (111)

Figure 8. The least frequent TU scopes (111)

Figure 9. A comparison of syntactic and non-syntactic TUs for Text A (112)

Figure 10. A comparison of syntactic and non-syntactic TUs for Text B (113)

Figure 11. Camtasia .avi file review of onscreen activity (120)

Figure 12. Text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction

effect in terms of ‘clause’ at the high WM capacity level (131)

Figure 13. Text complexity/WM/translation experience interaction effect in

terms of ‘clause’ at the low WM capacity level (135)

Figure 14. A comparison of total number of words input into Translog

across text (139)

Figure 15. A comparison of the average TU sizes across text (140)

Figure 16.The most frequent TU size (141)

Figure 17. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity

interaction for three-word TUs at the high text complexity level (152)

Figure 18. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity

interaction for three-word TUs at the low WM capacity level (152)

Figure 19. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity

interaction for three-word TUs at the high WM capacity level (153)

Figure 20. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction

for seven-word TUs in the translation of the more complex text (157)

Figure 21. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction in terms of seven-word TUs at the level of low WM capacity (157)

Figure 22. The text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction for seven-word TUs at the level of high WM capacity (158)

Figure 23. The text complexity/translation experience interaction at the level of eight-word TU (161)

Contents Acknowledgements (i)

Abstract (iii)

摘要 (vii)

List of Abbreviations (x)

List of Tables (xi)

List of Figures (xii)

Chapter 1 Introduction (1)

1.1 Overall description and statement of the problem (1)

1.1.1 An overview of product-oriented TU research (1)

1.1.2 An overview of process-orientd TU research (2)

1.1.3 Statement of the problem (3)

1.2 Significance of the research (4)

1.2.1 Theoretical significance (4)

1.2.2 Methodological significance (5)

1.3 A pilot study (6)

1.3.1 Research design (6)

1.3.2 Data analysis (7)

1.3.3 Implications for the full research (8)

1.3.3.1 Implications for research design and methods (9)

1.3.3.2 Implications for data collection and analysis (9)

1.3.3.3 Implications for research scope and questions (10)

1.4 Methodology and triangulation of data (11)

1.5 Structure of the research (12)

Chapter 2 Literature review (13)

2.1 Product-oriented TU Research (13)

2.1.1 Definition of product-oriented TU (14)

2.1.2 Common characteristics of product-oriented TUs (16)

2.1.3 Disagreement about the nature, scopes and sizes of product-oriented

TUs (17)

2.1.3.1 About TU nature (17)

2.1.3.2 About TU scopes and sizes (18)

2.1.4 Text type, language pair and translation experience vs. product-

oriented TUs (21)

2.1.4.1 Text type (21)

2.1.4.2 Language pairs (22)

2.1.4.3 Translation experience (23)

2.1.5 Pitfalls of the product-oriented TU research (24)

2.1.6 A summary (24)

2.2 Process-oriented TU research (26)

2.2.1 Definition of process-oriented TU (28)

2.2.2 Characteristics of process-oriented TUs (30)

2.2.3 TAPs-based TU research (31)

2.2.3.1 Gerloff’s unit of analysis system (32)

2.2.3.2 TU scopes and sizes and translation experience (34)

2.2.3.3 The influence of the TAPs as a methodology on TUs (36)

2.2.3.4 Limitations of TAPs-based TU research (37)

2.2.4 Triangulation-based TU research (39)

2.2.4.1 New observational methods: key-logging and screen-recording40

2.2.4.2 Text types, translation experience and TU (41)

2.2.4.3 Inferential process, cognitive adaptation and TU (43)

2.2.4.4 Subjective and objective TUs (45)

2.2.4.5 Micro and macro TUs (46)

2.2.4.6 Corpus linguistics and process-oriented TU research (47)

2.2.4.7 “Within method” triangulation, product- and process- data

triangulation and TU research (48)

2.2.4.8 Achievements and defects of triangulation-based TU research..49 2.3 Definition of TU in the research (50)

Chapter 3 Research design (52)

3.1 Basic concepts (52)

3.1.1 Working memory (52)

3.1.1.1 Definition of WM (53)

3.1.1.2 Conceptual evolution of WM (53)

3.1.1.3 Multi-Component Model and Constrained Capacity Model (55)

3.1.1.4 Measuring WM capacity (58)

3.1.1.5 WM and translation/TU research (60)

3.1.2 Translation expertise (63)

3.1.2.1 About expertise (64)

3.1.2.2 Definition of translation expertise (64)

3.1.2.3 Issues concerning professional behavior in translation (65)

3.1.2.4 Translation expertise profiles of the subjects in the research (67)

3.1.2.5 Translation expertise and TU research (68)

3.1.3 Text complexity (69)

3.1.3.1 Text complexity and translation difficulty (69)

3.1.3.2 Conceptualizing text complexity (70)

3.1.3.3 Indices of text complexity and the CCSS (71)

3.1.3.4 Text complexity and TU research (75)

3.1.4 Modeling translation as a text production process (77)

3.1.4.1 Orientation (79)

3.1.4.2 Drafting (79)

3.1.4.3 Revision (80)

3.1.5 A summary (80)

3.2 Research design (82)

3.2.1 Research questions (82)

3.2.2.1 Methodological considerations (83)

3.2.2.2 Methods and data: Key-logging, screen recording and the

retrospective TAPs (86)

3.2.2.3 Operationalizing the definition of TU (90)

3.2.3 The data for the research (91)

3.2.3.1 Subjects (91)

3.2.3.2 Translation brief (95)

3.2.3.3 Source texts and their levels of complexity (96)

3.2.4 Procedure and data collection (98)

3.2.4.1 Collecting the data (98)

3.2.4.2 The Translog logs and pause length (100)

3.2.4.3 The retrospective TAPs (103)

3.2.4.4 The Camtasia files (104)

3.3 A summary (104)

Chapter 4 Results and discussion (106)

4.1 Effect on the TU scopes (106)

4.1.1 Comparison of the average number of each type of the TU scopes

across text (108)

4.1.2 Comparison of total and average number of TUs across text (108)

4.1.3 The most or least frequent TU scope (110)

4.1.4 Syntactic and non-syntactic TUs (112)

4.1.5 Results of repeated measures ANOV A testing of TU scopes (115)

4.1.6 Text complexity and TU scopes (117)

4.1.6.1 Group of words and miscellaneous unit (118)

4.1.6.2 Phrases (124)

4.1.7 Translation experience and ‘group of words’ TUs (126)

4.1.8 Text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction at the

level of clause (130)

4.2 Effect on the TU sizes (138)

4.2.1 The average and the most frequent TU size (139)

4.2.2 Repeated measures ANOV A testing of TU sizes (141)

4.2.3 Text complexity, two/three-word TUs and exceptionally long TUs·143

4.2.3.1 Analysis of the average TU size (143)

4.2.3.2 Analysis at the level of two/three-word TUs (144)

4.2.3.3 Analysis at the level of exceptionally long TUs (145)

4.2.4 Text complexity/translation experience/WM capacity interaction and

three/seven-word TUs (151)

4.2.4.1 Analyses at the level of three-word TUs (151)

4.2.4.2 Analyses at the level of ‘seven-word TU’ (156)

4.2.5 Text complexity/translation experience interaction at the level of

eight-word TUs (160)

4.2.6 A summary (163)

Chapter 5 Conclusion (165)

5.1 Revisiting the questions (165)

5.1.1 Revisiting Question 1 (166)

5.1.2 Revisiting Question 2 (166)

5.1.3 Revisiting Question 3 (168)

5.2 Implications of the research (171)

5.2.1 Theoretical implications (171)

5.2.2 Methodological implications (172)

5.2.3 Pedagogical implications (173)

5.3 Limitations of the research (175)

5.4 Suggestions for future research (176)

Bibliography (178)

Appendices (197)

Appendix A (197)

Appendix B (198)

Appendix C (199)

Appendix D (200)

Appendix E (201)

Appendix F (202)

Appendix G (203)

Appendix H (204)

Appendix I (205)

Appendix J (206)

Appendix K (207)

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Overall description and statement of the problem

The present research is an empirical investigation of translation units (henceforth TU) based upon three streams of data collected via the methods such as key-logging, screen-recording and the retrospective think-aloud protocols (henceforth TAPs). And it mainly aims at investigating how working memory (henceforth WM), text complexity and translation experience influence translators’use of TU scopes and sizes.

1.1.1 An overview of product-oriented TU research

The question of TU has been one of the hot topics among translation scholars since it was first put forward by Vinay & Darbelnet (1958). TU research, as the translation studies does, falls into two paradigms: product-oriented and process-oriented.

Product-oriented translation research is focused on texts, languages and cultures and has not been much interested in how the translation happens (cf. J??skel?inen, 2000). Within this paradigm, TUs are regarded as “the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually”(Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958/1995:21). TUs were established and identified on the basis of some proposed equivalence between the source text (henceforth ST) and the target text (henceforth TT). Researchers following this line of research hold that TUs are some or all the linguistic units ranging from morpheme, word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph to text (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1958；Barkhudarov, 1993), or refer to the abstract ‘imagery’/‘cultural imagery’, theme/rheme structures, the relations between signs, or even the culture. But these views have been found to lack psychological reality since no translator ever tries to finish a translation task by taking a whole text, an abstract imagery, or even a culture as a TU. Since product-oriented TU researchers rely on idealizations instead of actually occurring data of the translation process in which the translation product, i.e. TT is created, therefore most of their findings have been prescriptive or speculative rather than descriptive or empirical and of limited use to the translation practitioners.