A cognitive investigation into translation thinking and translation instruction

redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 A COGNITIVE INVESTIGATION INTO TRANSLATION THINKING AND TRANSLATION INSTRUCTION1 ZHU LIN (COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HENGSHUI UNIVERSITY, HENGSHUI, HEBEI PROVINCE, CHINA) ABSTRACT A major objective of translation instruction is to improve the efficiency of translation thinking. To this end, the research on translation thinking becomes a prerequisite. In light of cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics and psychology of thinking, this paper first explicates the characteristics of translation thinking process, the types of transfer thinking as well as the qualities and the structure of translation thinking. Then it goes on to summarize the structural differences in translation thinking between novice and expert translators. On the basis of these research findings, this paper proposes that the the priority in translation instruction should be given to the optimization of thinking habits and the development of the ability of monitoring thinking. Suggestions on translation instruction are finally provided. KEY WORDS: cognitive perspective; translation thinking; translation instruction 0. Introduction: Translation Thinking and Translation Instruction Traditional “text-centered” translation instruction always focuses on various translation skills and imposes “right” answers on students. It cannot meet learners ‟ requirement of efficiently developing their translation competence. Directed at this problem, this paper, from a cognitive perspective, proposes that the priority in translation instruction should be given to optimizing habits of translation thinking and developing the ability of monitoring thinking about translation process. It is commonly believed that translation process is meanwhile a complex thinking process (Neubert, 1991: 25; Shreve & Koby, 2003: xi; Dimitrova, 2005: 2; Tu & Li, 2007: 16). In addition, an expert translator must experience a stage of thinking training, but the established thinking pattern always influences his/her translation process (Tu & Li, 2007:16). Therefore, if we want to teach learners how to translate, we should firstly guide them to learn how to think procedurally and efficiently when translating. A common phenomenon is that many novice translators often think at random and thus are eager to know about certain effective methods of thinking about solving different types 1 The original draft (Chinese) of this paper was presented at The Third Cross-Taiwan-Straits Symposium of Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication at FuJen University (Taiwan), on the 10th-12th January, 2009. Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 22 of translation problems. In this light, it is obvious that effective translation thinking becomes the basis of developing translation competence. According to developmental psychology of thinking, education is the dominant approach to thinking development (Zhu & Lin, 1986:102). Therefore translation thinking can be well developed and optimized by systemically-designed training. Developing thinking ability is a major objective of education, which is as important as knowledge acquisition. The previous researches into translation thinking in China mainly involve the following issues: (1) the importance of sciences of thinking in translation studies (Fang, 1992); (2) some thinking patterns and their characteristics (Feng, 1994); (3) certain differences of thinking underlying the differences between Chinese and English in translation studies (Zhang, 2001; Wang, 1992; Wang, 2001); (4) certain aspects of translation thinking ability in translation instruction (An, 2001; Wen, 2005; Zeng, 2006). In summary, the first three issues seldom refer to translation teaching although they can be beneficial to it. The last aspect for now is only confined to the discussion of translation skills, with little concern with certain guiding principles and methodologies of translation instruction. Therefore, the present situation of the research into translation thinking and translation instruction needs to be greatly improved, especially when we are facing increasing social requirements for qualified translators and interpreters. With this aim, we propose that instructors must design translation syllabi and curricula on the basis of a systematic methodological guidance in order to change the existing “text-centered” didactics and finally increase the efficiency of translation instruction. The research on translation thinking can exactly provide efficient methodological guidance for translation instruction. The main research purpose of this paper is to help both translation instructors and learners to acquire systematic knowledge of translation thinking and use it as effective guidance in the organization of their teaching and learning. It will facilitate the development of translation competence. To this end, in this paper we firstly research on translation thinking with an interdisciplinary approach involving the following fields: translation studies, cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics, and psychology of thinking. The main researched contents involves the basic characteristics of translation thinking process, the types of transfer thinking, the qualities and structure of translation thinking, and the structural differences in translation thinking between novice and expert translators. Further, applying those research findings to translation instruction, this paper puts forward certain guiding principles and methodological suggestions on the training of translation thinking. Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 23 1. Basic Characteristics of Translation Thinking Process 1.1 Cognitive Models of Translation Thinking Process According to Psychology of Thinking, as a senior cognitive activity, thinking involves not just such junior cognitive activities as sensation, perception, and memory but the senior capability of generalization and inference (Shao, 2007: 1). The main approaches of the modern psychology of thinking involve Gestalt psychology (thinking is constant adaptation of the Gestalt), behaviorist psychology (thinking is silent language and behavior as well), information processing model (thinking is serial information processing), as well as connectionism model (thinking is parallel information processing of the neural network). Among them, the information processing model and the connectionism model have established relatively greater influence in recent years. In the late 1970s, with the rapid development of cybernetics, information theory and computer technology, the paradigm of information processing became a popular approach to human cognition. Applying the information processing model to the translation thinking process thereby became an important research method. Fig. 1 (cf. Liu, 2007: 7) presents the information processing model of translation thinking. Fig. 1 displays the serial information processing from SL input to TL output.2 The thinking process of translation in this way forms a process of information transference and reconstruction from comprehension to production with the cognitive system as the supporting mechanism. In the mid 1980s, the connectionism model of cognitive psychology was in its bloom. Different from the serial feature of information processing, connectionism highlights the parallel feature of it. The neural network of connectionism model involves three levels of neural units: the input level, the latent level, and the output level. Its structure can be 2 Here SL is the abbreviation of source language. Besides, there are other abbreviations in this paper: TL—target language, ST—source text, TT—target text, TAPs—think aloud protocols. Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 24 defined as topological, which by nature presents the correlations of the whole neural network. The connectionism model of translation thinking process can be illustrated by Fig. 2 (ibid: 16). Fig. 2 indicates that the three levels of neural units constitute a complex process of information process, which displays the characteristics of both the work division and the correlation of the three neural levels. In Fig. 2, the three kinds of connection (broken lines, thin lines, and thick lines) reflect the power differences in connection between the three levels of neural units, and meanwhile indicate that there exist both positive and negative connections in the whole neural network. Besides, the whole structure of translation thinking process in Fig. 2 also displays three typical features of connectionism model: distributed representation, parallel processing, and mutual complementation of neural units (ibid: 17-19). 1.2 Analysis of Translation Thinking Process The two cognitive models mentioned above can be regarded as two prototypes of translation thinking. They present both similarities and differences and both reveal certain characteristics of translation thinking process. In fact, supplemented by further details of translation information processing, the two prototype models have been developed into complex models of translation process, such as Bell (1991: 81), Kiraly (1997: 156), Danks & Griffin (1997: 174), and Moser-Mercer (1997: 180-81). Although these models present certain differences in details, they all still display some basic characteristics of translation thinking process. Firstly, translation thinking process involves serial processing. From SL input/perception to complex transfer process (the one-way sequence from long-term memory to working memory and to semantic representation), and then to TL output, the whole process presents the feature of serial processing. Secondly, translation thinking process involves recursive thinking as well. From SL input/perception to transfer process (the two-way sequences of long-term memory, Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 25 working memory, and semantic representation), and then to TL output, the whole process is also a reversible process, which shows the interaction of bottom-up and top-down thinking processes, although the interactive process may present different cognitive costs at different stages. The recursiveness of translation thinking process has been verified by the empirical research (Buchweitze & Alves, 2006). Thirdly, translation thinking displays both positive and negative connections in the interaction of different levels of neural units. It should be noted that the two above-mentioned prototypes of translation thinking process in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, growing from modeling general cognitive psychological models, inevitably present a certain deficiency. Although the two models both present a certain transfer process, they cannot highlight the speciality of bilingual transfer different from single language processing. The model in Fig. 1 does not indicate which kind of transfer it is while the model in Fig. 2 only marks a transfer between the sign and the concept. In addition, the meaning of “concept” is too general and vague to be much helpful to our understanding of the nature of translation thinking. In the matter of the transfer thinking of translation, Gommlich (1997) once argued that there exist two different representational perspectives corresponding to SL and TL in the process of translation thinking. He thought that representational perspective “is a kind of cultural position reflected in language” (62). He said: the fact that translators more or less automatically extrapolate representational perspective in their L1 proves that representative perspective belongs to the basic set of cultural-situational influence on language use and that it is fundamentally intertwined with basic cognitive process of text production. (65-66) So it is clear that the representational perspective in fact refers to the cultural-situational context and the thinking model closely relevant to it. Gommlich (1997: 67) also argued that for a translator the ability to switch from one representational perspective to the other is a basic process that may be supported or hampered by various factors. So, we can see that translation is not only the transfer between languages but the transfer between two different thinking models, which are closely related to the respective cultural-situational contexts. In addition, the complex relationship between language, culture and thinking shows that the difference in thinking modes closely related to certain cultural contexts has become the deepest and most dominating element of the linguistic disparity. Seemingly, translation transfer is a transfer between languages, and yet a deeper layer of transfer is in fact a transfer between different thinking modes underlying L1 and L2. In this light, we can conclude that unlike in the case of single language information processing, the most important characteristic of translation thinking process is bilingual interactive thinking. Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 26 Taken together, the major characteristics of translation thinking process should be (1) both serial processing and recursive processing, (2) the universal interaction of neural units, (3) bilingual interactive thinking. 2. Types and Qualities of Translation Thinking Having discussed the characteristics of translation thinking process, in this section of the paper we will make a detailed study of the types and qualities of translation thinking on the basis of the research findings of cognitive linguistics and psychology of thinking. The significance of this section lies in its detailed analysis of the speciality of translation thinking different from the general single-language-thinking. 2.1 Types of Transfer Thinking of Translation Such Chinese scholars as Huang (2004: 4), Wang (2002: 124-29), Liu (2005: 92), Zeng (2006: 184), Xu (2006: 6), and Wen (2006: 9-10), once discussed the types of translation thinking, including abstract thinking, visualized thinking, intuitional thinking, monitoring thinking, presupposing thinking, creative thinking, and so on. All these types of thinking should belong in general ones. Translation thinking in fact presents not just the general properties of thinking but its speciality different from the general ones. The speciality of translation thinking lies in its feature as the transfer between two languages and cultures. In this sense, translation thinking should be a transfer thinking. And the general properties of translation thinking mentioned above must center around this feature. Kussmaul (1995) once discussed the creativity in translation. He argued that “creativity is not a gift of the select few but a basic feature of the human mind and that we can all be creative when we translate” (ibid: 52). In addition, Kussmaul (2000) put forward five psychological types of creative translation in the process of transfer with such cognitive linguistic ideas as figure-ground, sense-frame,3 as well as prototype and category. The five psychological types include chaining categories, picking out scene elements within a frame (i.e., a scene of TT replaces a frame of ST), enlarging a scene, framing a scene (i.e., a frame of TT replaces a scene of ST), and creating a new frame. They constitute five types of transfer thinking of translation, which describe the 3 Frame was developed by the cognitive linguistics C. Fillmore in the 1970s. Later he changed its meaning from the linguistic definition [frame is “any system of linguistic choice that can be get associated with prototypical instances of scenes” (1974: 124).] to cognitive definition [frames are specific unified frameworks of knowledge, or coherent schematization of experience (cf. 1985: 223).]. Kussmaul adopted this concept of frame in the senses-and-frames semantics of Fillmore (1977) and supposed that “scenes are linguistically represented by frames” (Kussmaul, 2000: 120) and “a frame is more abstract and consists of fewer words than a description of a scene” (ibid). Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 27 translator ‟ s different strategies in matching ST with TT. Besides, this paper develops other three types of transfer thinking: creating a new scene, scene to scene and frame to frame. So the transfer thinking of translation can be eight types altogether. Table 1 explains and exemplifies the contents of the eight types of transfer thinking.4 The types of transfer thinking of translation The types of the match between ST and TT Simple examples Chaining categories ST and TT as different categories (with different perspectives and foci) of a same scenario 《红楼梦》——The Story of the Stone A Dream of Red Mansions ST Frame into TT scene r n abstract frame of ST was ansferred into a concrete scene in TT 得意忘形—have one ‟ s nose in the air come straight to the point—开门见山 ST Scene into TT frame A concrete scene of ST was transferred into an abstract frame in TT reaping what he has sown—咎由自取 快马加鞭——speed up Creating a new TT scene A scene of ST was transferred into a new scene in TT 雨后春笋——shoot up like mushroom burn one ‟ s bridge——破釜沉舟 Creating a new TT frame A frame of ST was transferred into a new frame in TT kiss——握手 Enlarging the ST scene A scene of ST was transferred into an enlarged scene with additive elements 引狼入室——set the wolf to keep the sheep ST scene to TT scene Equivalent match between scenes of ST and TT. fish in the troubled water—混水摸鱼 ST frame to TT frame Equivalent match between frames of ST and TT 熟能生巧——practice makes perfect Table 1: Types of transfer thinking of translation and their contents The multiplicity of transfer thinking indicates that in the process of translation the translator needs to employ different ways of thinking when he or she matches ST with TT because of certain social, cultural, linguistic and thinking differences involved. In terms of its function, the research on the types of transfer thinking, investigating in cognitive-linguistic perspective, integrates language with thinking organically and thereby effectively explains the psychological mechanism of the thinking types of language transfer involved in translation. More importantly, the research findings can well facilitate translation instruction, which will be discussed in the last part of didactics in this paper. 4 Table 1 only provides simple examples of the phrasal translation between English and Chinese because of limited space here. In real translations (esp. literary translations), it is possible for the eight types of transfer thinking to be applied to different layers of linguistic structures and with different languages. Kussmaul (2000) once cited some examples of translation between English and German. redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 28 Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… 2.2 Qualities of Translation Thinking While the types of thinking describe its general properties, the quality of thinking measures the degree of its development and individual differences. The study of thinking quality in fact is an important theoretical issue of psychology of thinking and thus becomes the key to improving thinking ability and intelligence. According to psychology of thinking, the qualities of thinking mainly involve profundity, flexibility, originality, criticalness, and agility (cf. Zhu & Lin, 2002: 584-94). In light of this research finding, the qualities of translation thinking can be further analyzed accordingly as follows in Table 2. Thinking Qualities The general contents The contents in the translation process Profundity Thinking in depth, grasping the regularity and nature, and foreseeing the process A good command of the bilingual structures and the different thinking models Flexibility Divergent thinking: various ways of employing knowledge and strategies Divergent thinking of developing various translation strategies and solving translation problems flexibly Originality Independent and creative thinking with production of social and individual values as well as original elements Integration of various translation strategies and knowledge into creative translation Criticalness Strictly estimating the thinking material and carefully examining the thinking process Carefully analyzing different layers of ST and strictly choosing translation strategies Agility Speedy response to problems and situations Fluency of thinking in the translation process, speedy decision-making of translation strategies Table 2: The qualities of translation thinking A clear awareness of the types and qualities of translation thinking presented in Table 2, as both theoretical and ideological preparations, is very beneficial to improving translators ‟ thinking qualities in translation instruction. The discussion about it will be treated in the last part of this paper. 3. Structural Differences of Translation Thinking between Novice and Expert Translators Empirical researches with modern computer technologies have revealed certain structural differences of translation thinking between novice and expert translators, which can be reflected not just in various ways of dealing with textual materials but in different stages of translation process. Before our discussion about these structural redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 29 Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… differences, this section firstly offers a detailed analysis of the structural elements of translation thinking in light of the psychological research into the structure of thinking. 3.1 Structural Elements of Translation Thinking According to psychology of thinking, the structural elements of thinking mainly involve its purpose, process, material, production, monitor, quality, as well as its cognitive and non-cognitive elements. Accordingly, the structural elements of translation thinking can be further explored in these aspects and on the basis of an analysis of translation process. Table 3, as the result of this exploration, presents the concrete contents of the structural elements of translation thinking.5 The structure elements of thinking Main contents The structural elements of translation thinking Purpose Comprehending and solving problems Comprehending the ST, transferring the thinking models and linguistic signs, and producing the TT Process Basic process: analysis and synthesis (abstraction and generalization, comparison and categorization; systematization and reification) Analysis and synthesis of the ST and TT (morpheme, grammatical, stylistic and semantic layers), (culturalsituational) context, and transfer strategies Material Perceptual material (sensation, perception, representation), and rational material (concept, judgment, inference) World of works (linguistic representations, expressive ways, logic and images), subjective world (semantic categories, the structure of personality, image schema), objective world (sign system, cultural conception, reality) Production Concept, judgment, inference Logic and images, expressive ways, and linguistic representations of the TT Monitoring or self-adjustment Meta-cognitive function: focusing, controlling, and adjusting Monitoring translation process, finding problems in time and adjusting and optimizing translation strategies Non-cognitive elements Motive, interest, emotion, attitude, volition, personality The motive, interest, emotion, attitude, volition, and personality of the translator in translation process Table 3: The structural elements of translation thinking 5 In Table 3, the items of “quality” and “cognitive elements” are not discussed because the “quality of thinking” has been discussed in the above section, and the “cognitive elements” is in fact much overlapped with the item of “process”. redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 36 Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… Fang, M. Z. 1992. “The Science of Thinking and Translation Studies”. In Fujian Foreign Languages, 1&2 (combined issue), 5-7. Feng, B.C.. 1994. “Translation and Thinking”. In Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 4, 8-11. Fillmore, C. 1975. “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning”. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler (eds.). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131. Fillmore, C. 1977. “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics”. In Zampolli, Antonio (ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 55-58. Fillmore, C. 1985. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding”. In Quaderni di Semantica, VI, 222-254. Gommlich, K. 1997. “Can Translators Learn Two Representational Perspectives?”. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain and M. K. Mcbeath (eds.). Cognitive Process in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 57-76. Huang, Z. L. 2000. The Nature of Translation. Beijing: China Translation & Publication Corporation. Jakobsen, A. 2005. “Investigating Expert Translators ‟ Processing Knowledge”. In H.V. Dam, J. Engberg and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.). Knowledge Systems and Translation. Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 173-189. Kiraly, A. C. 1997. “Think-Aloud Protocols and the Construction of a Professional Translator Self-Concept”. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain and M. K. Mcbeath (eds.). Cognitive Process in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 137-160. Kussmaul, P. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kussmaul, P. 2000. “Types of Creative Translating”. In A. Chesterman, N. G. S. Salvador, Y. Gambier (eds.). Translation in Context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 117-126. Liu, M. Q. 2005. A New Version of Contemporary Translation Theory. Beijing: China Translation & Publication Corporation. Liu, S. L. 2007. Psychology of Translation. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press. redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 37 Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… Moser-Merser, B. 1997. “Beyond Curiosity: Can Interpreting Research Meet the Challenge?”. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain and M. K. Mcbeath (eds.). Cognitive Process in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 176-195. Nord, C. 2001. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functional Approaches Explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Neubert, A. 1991. “Models of Translation”. In S. Tirkonnen-Condit (eds.). Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. TÜbingen: Narr, 17-26. Seguinot, C. 1991. “A Study of Student Translation Strategies”. In S. Tinkkonen-Condit (ed.). Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tubingen: Narr, 79-88. Shao, Z. F. 2007. Psychology of Thinking. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Shreve, G. 2006. “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise”. In Journal of Translation Studies, 9:1, 27-42. Shreve, G. & G. S. Koby. 1997. “What ‟ s in the „ Black Box ‟ ? Cognitive Science and Translation Studies”. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain and M. K. Mcbeath (eds.). Cognitive Process in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, xi-xviii. Tu, G.Y. & Z. Q. Li. 2007. “On the Structure of Translators‟ Thinking”. In Chinese Translators Journal, 5, 16-21. Wang, B. Q. 1992. “Three Views on Culture and Translation: the Thinking Differences between the West and China and the Translation”. In Foreign Language Education, 4, 67-73. Wang, H. Y. 2002. A Textbook of English-Chinese Translation. Dalian: Liaoning Normal University Press. Wang, Y. Z. 2001. “On Thinking Models and Translation”. In Foreign Languages and FL Education, 3, 45-48. Wen, J. P. 2006. “On the Cultivation of Translation Thinking Ability”. In Foreign Language World, 3, 7-13. Xu, L. N. 2004. “An Exploration of Visualized Thinking of Translation”. In Shanghai Translation of Science and Technology, 1, 6-10. redit, número 6, 2011, 21-38 38 Zhu Lin A Cognitve Investigation into Translation… Zeng, L. S. 2006. “On Training of Presupposing Thinking in Translation Instruction”. In Foreign Languages and Literature, 3,180-84. Zhang, G. M. 2001. An Introduction of E-C Translation Thinking. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching &Research Press. Zheng, Y. & L. Mu 2007. “Chinese Translation Instruction in the Last Fifty Years and its present situation”. In Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 5, 60-66. Zhu, Z. X. & C.D. Lin.1986. Developmental Psychology of Thinking. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.