How are translations created? Using multimodal conversation analysis to study a team translation process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v17i0.465Keywords:
Audio description, Translation process, Multimodality, Interaction, Conversation analysis, Collaborative translation, Blindness, Visual impairmentAbstract
This article demonstrates a methodology for studying the translation process from the perspective of multimodal social interaction and applies this methodology to a case analysis of collaborative audio description. The methodology is multimodal conversation analysis, which aims to uncover the way in which multimodal communication resources (e.g., talk, gaze, gestures) are used holistically and situatedly in building human action. Being empirical and data-driven, multimodal conversation analysis observes human conduct in its natural setting. This article analyses video data from an authentic audio-description process and presents the multimodal constitution of problem-solving sequences during translating. In addition, the article discusses issues regarding the methodological choices facing researchers who are interested in human interaction in translation. The article shows that applying multimodal conversation analysis opens new avenues for research into the translation process and collaborative translation.References
Chesterman, A. (2015). Models of what processes? In M. Ehrensberger-Dow, B. Englund Dimitrova, S. Hubacher-Davidson, & U. Norberg (Eds.), Describing cognitive processes in translation: Acts and events (pp. 7–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/bct.77.02che
Chmiel, A. (2008). Boothmates forever?: On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures, 9(2), 261–276. doi:10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.6
Cordingley, A., & Frigau Manning, C. (Eds.). (2017). Collaborative translation: From the Renaissance to the digital age. London: Bloomsbury.
Davitti, E., & Pasquandrea, S. (2017). Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 105–128. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008
Deppermann, A. (2013). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2010). Translation process research. In Handbook of translation studies, Volume 1 (pp. 406–411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra6
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511519888
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1996). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174077.004
Göpferich, S. (2008). Translationsprozessforschung: Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.
Göpferich, S., Jacobsen, A. L., & Mees, I. M. (2008). Looking at eyes: Eye-tracking studies of reading and translation processing. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Hansen, G. (2006). Erfolgreich Übersetzen: Entdecken und Beheben von Störquellen. Tübingen: Narr.
Have, P. ten (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9780857020192
Have, P. ten (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849208895
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781526435385
Hirvonen, M., & Tiittula, L. (2012). Verfahren der Hörbarmachung von Raum: Analyse einer Hörfilmsequenz. In H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada, & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Raum als interaktive Ressource (pp. 381–427). Tübingen: Narr.
Jääskeläinen, R. (1999). Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. (2017). Crowdsourcing and online collaborative translations: Expanding the limits of translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.131
Kaindl, K. (2013). Multimodality and translation. In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies (pp. 257–269). London: Routledge.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.10
Lederer, M. (2010). Interpretive approach. In Handbook of translation studies Volume 1 (pp. 173–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/hts.1.int3
Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2015). Transcribing embodied action. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511628122
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6(1), 1–53. doi:10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon
Muñoz-Martín, R. (2017). Processes of what models?: On the cognitive indivisibility of translation acts and events. Translation Spaces, 5(1), 145–161. doi:10.1075/ts.5.1.08mun
O’Brien, S. (2011a). Introduction. In S. O’Brien (Ed.), Cognitive explorations of translation (pp. 1–14). IATIS Yearbook 2010. London: Continuum.
O’Brien, S. (2011b). Collaborative translation. In Handbook of translation studies, Volume 2 (pp. 17–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.col1
Pavlović, T. (2013). The role of collaborative translation protocols (CTPs) in translation studies. Jezikoslovlje, 14, 549–563. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/165567
Risku, H., & Windhager, F. (2015). Extended translation: A sociocognitive research agenda. In M. Ehrensberger-Dow, S. Göpferich, & S. O’Brien (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity in translation and interpreting process research (pp. 35–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65, 535–586.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Seiffert, A. (2005). Räumliches hören: Eine schemaorientierte Analyse der audiodeskriptiven Darstellung der Handlungsräume. In U. Fix (Ed.), Hörfilm: Bildkompensation durch Sprache (pp. 67–86). Berlin: Schmidt.
Shih, C. Y. (2015). Problem-solving and decision-making in translation revision: Two case studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 16(1), 69–92. doi:10.1556/084.2015.16.1.4
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Walker, L. (2017). Communinality and conflict: An examination of ‘voice’ in the Knopf translation of Mishima Yukio’s Spring Snow. In K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, L. Tiittula, & M. Koponen (Eds.), Communities in translation and interpreting (pp.159–182). Montréal: Éditions québécoises de l’oeuvre.
Warglien, M., & Gärdenfors, P. (2015). Meaning negotiation. In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces (pp. 79–94). Cham: Springer.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
