JAITSAtricleA study of the translation process
through translators’ interim products
Masaru YAMADA(Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural Communication)

The Monitor Model (Tirkkonen-Condit, 2005; Tirkkonen-Condit, Mäkisalo, & Immonen,2008) shows that, translations and translators are highly restricted by linguistic constraints ofthe source language in the course of the translation process. The translator’s first attempt is tocopy the syntactic pattern of the source text, i.e. to produce a literal translation, and then thetranslator immediately revises the emerging syntactic pattern so that the result is a participial
pre-modification (ibid.). This assertion can potentially be applied to broader processes oftranslation, including its drafting and revision stages (cf. Jakobsen, 2002). This study will
elucidate dynamic aspects of the translation process, by analyzing data obtained from anexperiment with 4 translators. The detailed account of the interim process was made possibleby the use of a computer screen recording technology. The result will demonstrate that theway target texts are formed is shaped by the order in the source language syntax and thattranslator's interim product that emerges in the drafting stage is also much more faithful tothe source language.
1. Introduction
Translation is a norm-governed activity (Toury, 1995: 56), which inevitably involves at least
two languages and two cultural traditions. A translator may yield either to the norms of theoriginal text [...] or to those active in the target culture (ibid.). Thus, it is a task of thetranslators to make decisions about the target product, taking into consideration translational
norms that may impose certain 'prescriptive' guidelines on themselves (Baker, 2001). However,the process of making these decisions is not monolithic; rather, the translator goes throughseveral steps of interim decisions and negotiates potential norms to create the target product ina more dynamic manner.
It is no longer held that a finished translation is formed as ‘sense’ in the translator’smind, as described in the Interpretive Model presented by Seleskovitch (1986) and Lederer
YAMADA Masaru, “A Study of the Translation Process through Translators’ Interim
Products,” Interpreting and Translation Studies, No.9, 2009. pages 159-176. © by the Japan
Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies

159

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)(1994/2003). In this model, the translators/interpreters detach themselves from the linguistic
elements of the source texts and express the sense in the target language by means of aso-called 'de-verbalization' and 're-verbalization' of the sense. Some may argue that conceptsof de-/re-verbalization were developed solely for theorizing the activity of (verbal)
interpreting, thus not applicable to (written) translation activities. However, Lederer states that
“Deverbalization may well be less obvious in translation than in consecutive interpreting but it
is just as present. For interpreters and translators both, ‘understanding’ is arriving at a mental
representation” (1994/2003: 13). Therefore, translation process is said to be accounted for by
the Interpretive Model.
Among the critics (e.g. Newmark, 1981; Jensen, 1985; Toury, 1995; Mizuno, 1997/2004,
and many others) of this radical model are Tirkkone-Condit, Makisalo, and Immonen (2008),
who provide empirical evidence that refutes its claims. Their research shows that, in practice,translations and translators are highly restricted by linguistic constraints of the source
language. In the translation process, the influence of the source text is monitored by thetranslator so that unnecessary literal or formal equivalents are omitted from its rendering in thetarget language (ibid.: 2). This hypothesis is referred to as the Monitor Model, as opposed to
the Interpretive Model. It clearly shows that the translation process consists of layers ofinterim decisions made by the translator before reaching a final decision.
The Monitor Model focuses particularly on the immediate self-editing/monitoring of a
relatively small unit of translation, such as a word or phrase. This assertion can potentially beapplied to broader processes of translation, including its drafting and revision stages (cf.
Jakobsen, 2002). If we look at changes in a product through the translator's interim decisions,
we find that the translation and the translator’s decision making-process contain a lot ofinterplay with interference from the source text.
This present study will elucidate various aspects of the translation process, focusing on
the translator’s production style and the changes made in interim decisions. The data from anexperiment that involved 4 translators will be analyzed. The detailed account of theinterpreting process was made possible by the use of a computer screen recording technology.
The obtained result in turn will demonstrate that the way target texts are formed is highly
shaped by the source language (word order) , and that translator's interim product that emerges
in the drafting stage is also much more faithful to the source language.
2. Defining translation process
The translation process, in a broader sense, is a series of translating activities involving threephases: pre-translation, translation, and post translation, according to Gouadec (2007: 12-3).
Pre-translation includes anything that takes place up to the moment the translator actually
receives the material for translation, and post-translation covers all activities that follow thedelivery of the translated material (ibid.). Translation with which my study is concerned is the160A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

one in the middle of the two phases, and which in turn is divided into three stages: 1.
Pre-transfer, 2. Transfer, and 3. Post-transfer. Each stage corresponds to what Jakobsen (2002)
calls: 1. Pre-drafting (start-up), 2. Drafting (writing phase), and 3. Post-drafting (revisionphase), respectively. The first stage refers to all operations prior to the actual 'translating',
including preparation of the material, pre-reading of the text, terminology searches to obtainkey words in the source text, etc. The second, 'transfer' or ‘drafting’, is the core activity oftranslation, shifting to another language-culture combination. The third, revision phase, isrelated to editing and corrections that are to be made to meet the client's quality requirements.
In a traditional view of translation process, for example, in Vinay and Darbelnet's ‘Amethodology for translation’ (1995), a number of strategies for text transfer are introduced toaccount for translation procedures. However, their view is problematic and not in line with mystance for two reasons. First of all, in Vinay and Darbelnet’s view, only a 'drafting' phase isassumed to represent a whole translation process, and neither a start-up nor a revision stage isconsidered. The second reason is that their categories are only concerned with transferring
procedures from the source language to the target language; no influence from the target text istaken into account. The translation methods in their list are, in fact, ordered hierarchically,
starting at the top with 'borrowing', which may be described as the most literal translation (or‘direct’ in their definition), and ending at the bottom with 'adaptation', free or ‘oblique’translation (ibid.: 41). However, this ordering does not explain that the translators’ strategy
switches according to the change of transfer phase from drafting to the revision stage. In thisregard, the scope covered in this present study is a wider range of the transfer process.
Although my study covers a broader span, it is not so much concerned with the'translatorial' dimensions of the translation process, advocated by German Functionalists suchas Verrmeer (1989/2000). In her view, ‘process’ should include all actions relevant to thediscourse of translation. For instance, Skopos theorists may claim that the purpose oftranslation affects the translator’s behavior as well as the translation product. Likewise, from
Functionalist theorists' point of view, the translator's understanding of the job’s instructions(from a translation company) is as critical as comprehending the source material. Those
activities are called ‘translatorial’ actions, differentiated from translational. One could interpretthese actions as the social aspects or macro-context of translation. There is certainly a close
correlation between 'translatorial' actions and translation process/product, but not a lot of
empirical research has yet been conducted to prove this point thus far. In my researchexperiment (to be discussed later), translatorial factors are treated as fixed variables, since the
set-up simulates an instance of average localization business tasks, using authentic text, brief,and so forth.
3. Relevant literature
Some of the previous empirical studies involving interim decisions in the translation process161

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

are reviewed in this section. First of all, Tirkkonen-Condit, Mäkisalo, and Immonen’s researchon detailed process (2008) is one incentive for my present study. Their research uses a
keystroke logging technology called Translog, which was developed by Jakobsen and Schou(1999) for recording all keyboard activities and cursor or mouse movements in relation to timewith an accuracy of 10 milliseconds. The registered data is saved in log files, which can bedisplayed and analyzed in various ways for research purposes. With the use of the software,
Tirkkone-Condit’s group investigated the detailed process at the re-verbalization stage of thetranslation process by looking at sequences of keystrokes input by translators. Theirassumption was that, if the Interpretive Model was assumed, the Translog data would not
manifest any “instances of revisions which turn a word or an expression from a literal orword-for-word version into a version which detaches itself from it” (ibid.: 3). The results showthat literal-translation revisions occupy about 20% of all revision keystrokes (ibid.: 4), and thedata exhibit that “the translator’s first attempt is to copy the syntactic pattern of the source text,
i.e. to produce a literal translation,” and that “the translator immediately revises the emerging
syntactic pattern so that the result is a participial pre-modification” (ibid.: 8)Their study is closely related to researches on translation unit or segment, for which atranslation equivalent in general is searched as well as which can be a cognitive unit processedin the translator’s mind. Again using the Translog tool, Dragsted (2004, 2005) studied theaverage length of translation units, which are often strings of words marked by a pause of acertain length (i.e. 5 seconds or more (Jakobsen, 2003) or less (Dragsted, 2005)). She foundthat the translation unit consists most frequently of two or three words regardless of thetranslators’ experience; however the professional translators process the same unit more
quickly. Her finding was confirmed by Dimitrova (2006), who added that segments tend to get
longer towards the end of the translation regardless of translation experience.
Immonen’s study (2006) was also in the same vein. She compared the pause length intranslation and monolingual text production. The results illustrate that pauses in translation are
longer at locations such as word and clause boundaries, whereas pauses at the end of sentences
and in-between paragraphs are longer in monolingual text production. The result is apparently
in accord with the previous studies above. Translation, unlike monolingual writing, requires
more cognitive attention to smaller linguistic units or segments.
This is also evident from a study of second language learning by Uzawa (1996), whoanalyzed the distribution of second language learners’ attention during L1 (Japanese) and L2(English) writing, comparing it with translation. Her results show that language learners pay
more attention to language use (i.e. vocabularies, grammar) during translation than the L1 andL2 writing. A language learner’s attention level to linguistic elements below a sentence istwice as high in the translation as in the L1 and L2 writing. This conclusion confirms
Immomen’s observation.
From these studies, we can draw a tentative generalization that a translator processes a
162

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

unit of normally 2 or 3 source words, renders a more literal or word-for-word translation, andthen monitors and revises it immediately afterwards. The reason for such behavior has yet to
be determined. One suggestion made by Englund Dimitrova (2005) (quoted in
Tirkkonen-Condit, Mäkisalo, and Immonen, 2008) states “the literal translation is used as a
strategy to expand the translator’s working memory (WM), while s/he is generating the target
text.” This in turn leads us into an analogy from simultaneous interpretation tactics: FIFO, firstin first out, which is also used to increase interpreters’ WM capacity under time pressure.
Compared with interpreting, translation breaks loose from time restrictions; however, alltranslators’ time and capacity are inevitably limited in one way or another.
In addition to the translation unit and immediate revision procedures, one other interestof my study is time allocation during the process of translation. Again, according to Jakobsen(2002: 192-193), it is possible to divide the translation process into three specific phases: (1)the initial orientation phase, which is the time delay between the moment the source text is
received and the moment when the subject produces the first character of the text; (2) the
drafting phase, which is the duration of time from the first keystroke to the moment the final
punctuation mark is typed for the first time; and (3) the final phase of revision and monitoring,which lasts from the end of the drafting until the subject considers the text to be ready.
Jakobsen’s division corresponds to Mossop’ classification of translators’ strategies(2001) that is based on Chandler’s writing style chart (1993), as illustrated below (Fig. 1).
Figure 1 Translation style (Mossop, 2001)
Writing Strategy

Planning before drafting

Self-editing

Architect

Major

Minimal, after drafting

Bricklayer

Major

Major, during drafting

Watercolorist

MinimalMinimal, during drafting

Oil painterMinimalMajor, during & after drafting

Mossop states that successful writers (not translators) who forestall writing errors think
through their message carefully by planning ahead, as the ‘Architect’ and ‘Bricklayer’strategies indicate in the matrix (ibid.: 3). In contrast, the ‘watercolourists’ and ‘oil painters’
are quite different; they tend to think by writing, so there is little planning, they simply start
writing (ibid.).
Translators’ production style is in accord with the latter case, closer to the‘watercolourists’ and ‘oil painters’. They just start translating with spending little time onplanning in advance. Along with this, Jakobsen (2002) found that professional translators
spent more time on the post-drafting phase, while introducing fewer changes, and also
complete the drafting phase faster than novice translators. A similar finding was made by
Asadi and Séguinot (2005) that some translators left most documentation (i.e. terminology
163

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)search) and revision work until the post-drafting phase, while others just monitored thetranslation during the last phase, but did not introduce any major changes. Immonen (2006)
also pointed out that the revision and monitoring time was greater in translation than inmonolingual text production and that less time was spent for ‘planning’ in both cases.
From these assertions, the translator’s production strategy in relation to time allocation
corresponds to the ‘Water colorist’ and ‘Oil painter’ types in Mossop’s chart, where planningbefore drafting is minimized, and more focus is placed on revision and editing. Jensen (2000)
adds to this characterization by claiming that under time-pressured environments, translators
reduce their planning and problem-solving activities. To a certain degree, the professionaltranslator’s environment is always a time-restricted setting, and this may explain why an
expert translator is engaged in less planning with more focus on drafting and self-editing.
4. Research design
4. 1 Hypotheses
Certain patterns and behaviors of translators in the translation process have been reviewed
based on the findings of existing literature. In regard to the translation unit, a relatively small
linguistic chunk is taken at a time and rendered rather literally with interferences fromsyntactic structures of the source language. Immediately after that, the segment isself-monitored and revised online. Repeating this procedure eventually forms a sentence anddiscourse, and then editing work is performed during either the drafting or the revision stage,
depending on what types of production strategy the translator selects. Each stage leaves somekind of trance in the written text form as a translator’s interim decision. By screen-recording
the entire translation process, the detailed production patterns and procedures are madeavailable for analysis.
The main purpose of this study is to see whether these behaviors and strategic patterns
are replicated in the translation from English into Japanese. My hypotheses are as follows: 1)
literal translation or similar behavior is observed in the translators’ interim product, and 2)‘Water colorist’ and ‘Oil painter’ types of production style are dominant in English to Japanesetranslation.
4. 2 Experimental design
The research involved four Master’s student translators at the Monterey Institute ofInternational Studies. They were asked to translate an approximately 200-word-long English
text into Japanese. The provided text was authentic IT-related material, part of an Anti-virus
software online help document. All of the subjects’ operations taking place on their PC screens
were recorded using software called BB Flashback1. It records searches of electronic resources,
cursor movements and clicks, as well as the production of the translation. BB Flashback that is
installed on each subject’s computer works in the background so that it does not affect the164

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

subject’s natural work environment2. The recorded data were analyzed to trace the history ofeach translator’s interim decisions in the target text production.
The experimental set-up was designed to reflect the translators’ natural working
environment. Subjects were allowed to use their own computers and permitted access to theirusual reference materials, including the Internet, and translation-aided tools. Along with thesource text, a work instruction (brief) was also prepared. It was the same as the one used forthe actual practice. However, the subjects knew in advance that their translations would be
used for my research project, and that the subjects had to work on the assignment in aclassroom with other translators, so a certain degree of peer pressure or performance anxiety
was unavoidable.
In addition, some may question why ‘student’ translators were used for this research.
Although it might have been better if professional translators were used, it is debatable who todefine as ‘professional’. In Tirkkonen-Condit’s research (1991) aiming at comparing thetranslation behavior of professional and non-professional translators, second-year students
represented the ‘professional translators’. According to Lörscher (1996), who compared thetranslation processes and strategies used by non-professionals and professionals, both have
many features in common, and the mental processes of the two kinds of translators do notshow any significant difference as far as their strategies are concerned. In my experiment, two
subjects were second-year students, and one had more than 4 years of professional experience.
It is safe to assume their skill level is near professional.
One advantage to having used student translators is that their subject-specificknowledge is almost on the equal level. Because the material chosen for the experiment wasan IT-related topic, none of those translators is an expert in this field. Yet, they have been
exposed to some extent of variety of subject matters. In this sense, they are not inexperienced
in this topic either.
5. Results
5. 1 Time distribution and translation style
We will first look at the amount of time it took each subject to complete the translation and thebreakdown of the time spent for each stage in the process. On average, the four subjects spenta total time of 1:02.36 (1 hour 2 minutes and 36 seconds) for translating 211 words. Subject A
finished the earliest in 55.12 (55 minutes and 12 seconds). The slowest was the translator B
with 1:14.54. The average professional is said to translate about 2000 words per day; that is
250 words per hour. Compared to this figure, their overall speed attests to the subjects’satisfactory performance.
The total production time is divided into three phases – orientation, drafting, andrevision – as detailed in the figure below.

165

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

Figure 2: Time distribution in three phases

Subject

Total

Orientation

Drafting

RevisionA

0:55:12-

0:22:23

0:32:49

B

1:14:54-

0:49:29

0:25:25

C

1:04:31

0:01:40

0:25:16

0:37:35D

0:55:45-

0:29:04

0:26:41

Average

1:02:36

0:01:40

0:31:33

0:30:37

As shown in this chart, the time spent on drafting and revision was almost equally distributed,
with an average of 31.33 minutes for drafting vs. 30.37 for revision. Nearly 50% of the total
production time was used for post-drafting revision. This ratio does not exactly match with
Immonen’s study (2006) result with drafting at 63% vs. revision at 24%. However, a generalstatement that translation requires more time for revision and less time for drafting (ibid.)seems applicable here, although our research did not compare the case with monolingual text
production.
One unpredicted result was that almost no time was recorded for the orientation phase.
Only subject C performed an approximately 2-minute scanning of the whole text before
starting drafting. The remainders of the subjects did not show any activity for pre-drafting.
This may be because, prior to the experiment, I allowed all of the subjects to briefly look at thematerial to ask questions about the task, although no questions were raised. Or anotherpossible reason may be that those subjects with no recorded orientation time did not start thescreen recording until they had completed their orientation. In either case, the duration of thetime between the inquiry session and the actual start was less than 5 minutes; thus, it was safe
to assume that the time used for the orientation phase was minimal.
When we look into each individual subject’s distribution pattern, there are variations intime. In the case of subjects A and C, the revision time lasted approximately 1.5 times longer
than the drafting time. An opposite outcome was found with subjects B and D. Translator D
spent almost an equal amount of time for both drafting and revision. Amongst all, subject B’s
pattern was distinguishable for the drafting time being double that of the revision. These
differences were interpreted to represent translators’ work style, as discussed in Mosopp’s
chart. Since subjects A and C spent the majority of the time on revision, they belong to the ‘Oil
painter’ category, in that the translator put equal emphasis on both drafting and editing. On theother hand, the pattern of subject B corresponds to the ‘Water colorist’ with minimal
self-editing; the subject focuses on ‘drafting’ rather than ‘post-editing’. Translator D can besaid to fall in-between the two scenarios. However, these observations are based solely on
respective time allocation. We need to look into more qualitative data of the product before
166

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

reaching conclusions.
5. 2 Interim decision; transitions from drafting to revision.
In the next two sections, we are going to examine the products, and more precisely how the
products change throughout the process. Translators make interim decisions and self-edit the
product in the course of translation process, and editing is performed either in the middle ofthe drafting phase or in the revision stage. Our interest here is to find out the correlation
between the time distribution and number of corrections introduced during each phase. I
hypothesize that the ‘Oil painter’ group (subjects A and C) would introduce the largest numberof modifications because their revision time was longest, whereas the ‘Water colorist’ (subjectB) with minimal editing time would make the least number of revisions.
For this analysis, I compared the interim version of the product and the final version,and counted the number of revisions (different portions of text) they made. The interim
version was obtained from the screen-recording movie. It was a tentative draft that emerged
right after the subject finished drafting the whole target text and right before moving onto therevision stage. Using a text comparison tool, the interim draft and the final product werecompared. The tool highlights different portions of text in red. The way to identify thedifferences is rather subjective and perceptional, without basing on any categorization rule fortypes of changes. Thus, any degree of grammatical or syntactic shift or significance is notconsidered. The counted number is valid only for the sake of making a qualitative comparison
for this particular study. A summary of the results is shown in the chart.

Count

Figure3: Count of revisions made in the revision phase
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A

B

C

D

Subject

The overall results conformed to our prediction. Translators A and C, the ‘Oil painters’,changed their completed drafts the most, making about 40 changes during the revision phase.
In a similar manner, subject B, the ‘Water colorist’ with minimal editing time in the revision
stage shows the least number of changes, 23, and again subject D’s count was in-between the
two. It is evident from these results that the number of revisions made is proportional to thetime spent in the revision phase.
This outcome may be just stating the obvious, but one study (Hansen, 2002) alleges that167

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

the more time spent on revision, the worse the quality of the translation becomes. Althoughquality3 is not the main focus in this study, the result of this experiment implies that longer
revision time produces more modifications. From a pedagogical standpoint, there is room left
for further investigation to find out what the best ratio of drafting and revision time is for
producing quality translation.
5. 3 Types of revisions
In terms of types of revisions the translators made, we find differences among thesame-grouped translators. As seen above, subjects A and C are categorized as ‘Oil painters’ inregard to both their distributions of time and their numbers of revisions; however, the types ofcorrections they made were dissimilar.
Sample sentences extracted from screen-recording data in the figure below showtransitions of the product from the interim to the final versions in the cases of subjects A and C.
Shaded areas indicate changes of word, terminology or noun phrase. Portions marked in thebox stand for changes such as function words and cohesive devices that have to do with theflow of text. Corresponding numbers indicate the areas modified in the revision phase. An
English back-translation is also provided for non-Japanese speakers.
Figure 4: Types of revisions in comparison

Source text
The Internet Security is an essentially new approach to data security.
The program's main feature is that it unites and noticeably improves the existing features of all the company's products in
one protection solution.
The program ensures not only anti-virus protection but protection from spam and hacker attacks.

Subject A
Interim draft

Final product

プ ロ グ ラ ム の 主 な feature は (1) 当 社 の 既 存 のproducts(2)全てを unite(3)し、その feature(4)顕著に向上させ、(5)一つの protection(6)ソリューションすること(7)です。
Program’s main feature is(1) to unites(3) our company’s
existing products(2) to(5) noticeably improve thefeature(4), and to(7) make it one protection (6) solution.

プログラムの主な特徴は(1)、当社の既存の製品(2)全てを統合(3)し、その特徴(4)を顕著に向上させて(5)一つの保護(6)ソリューションにしていること(7)です。

このプログラムにより、ウイルスに対する(8)保護のみならず、spam(9)やハッカーから(10)保護が(11)得られます。
With this program, not only protection against (8) virus,
but also(11) protection from(10) spam(9) and hacker canbe obtained.
新しいモジュールはユーザーを未知の脅威、フィッ
シング、悪意(12)ある行為(activity masks)(13)から保護します。
New modules protect users from unknown threats,phishing, malicious(12) activity masks (activity masks to
be confirmed(13))..

Program’s main feature is(1) to unites(3) our company’s
existing products(2) and(5) noticeably improves thefeature(4), making(7) it one protection (6) solution.
このプログラムにより、対(8)ウイルス保護のみならず、
スパム(9)やハッカーからの(10)保護も(11)得られます。
With this program, not only anti (8)-virus protection, but
protection from(10) spam(9) and hacker also(11) can beobtained.
新しいモジュールはユーザーを未知の脅威、フィッシン
グ、悪意の(12)ある行為(13)から保護します。
New modules protect users from unknown threats, phising,malicious(12) activity masks (13)..

168

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

Subject C
Interim draft

Final product

このプログラムの(1)主な特徴は、会社のすべての既存製品の★★(2)を一つ(3)のデータ保護ソリューシ
ョンとして統合し、全体的に(4)飛躍的に改善させる
ところに(5)あります。
This program’s(1) main feature is that it(5) unites andtotally, noticeably(4) improves the existing ★★(2) of
all the company’s products in one protection solution.

その(1)主な特徴は、会社のすべての既存製品の機能(2)をひとつ(3)のデータ保護ソリューションとして統合し、飛躍的に(4)改善させることに(5)あります。
Its(1) main feature is that it(5) unites and noticeably(4)improves the existing features(2) of all the company’s
products in one protection solution.

当プログラムは、(6)ウイルスのみならず、(7)スパ
ムやハッキングによる攻撃などからもコンピュータを保護します。(8)This program(6) protects the computer from not only(7)virus but also spam and attacks by hacking.

(6)ウイルスのみならず(7)スパムやハッキングによる攻撃などからもコンピュータを保護し、(8)(9)新モジュール
が、未知の攻撃の可能性(10)やフィッシング、悪意のある隠れたアクティビティからユーザーを守ります。
---(6) protects the computer from not only(7) virus but also
spam and attacks by hacking, and(8)(9), new modules protect
users from unknown attack possibility(10), phishing, andmalicious-masked activity.

また(9)新モジュールが、未知の攻撃の恐れ(10)やフィッシング、悪意ある隠れたアクティビティからユーザーを守ります。
Also(9), new modules protect users from unknown
attack threats(10), phishing, and malicious-masked
activity.

During the drafting phase, subject A left a number of words untranslated, choosing tokeep certain English words in the target text as they were. It seemed that translator A
concentrated on forming target sentences with the aim of grasping overall meaning, rather thanspending a lot of time looking up terminology. Thus, once she entered the revision phase, herfocus was placed on word search. As a result, most of the corrections made in the revision
stage were word replacement, while the sentence structure remained unchanged.
In comparison, translator C introduced many changes to the target text flow and‘discourse’. Although some unknown word searches were performed like subject A, themajority of the corrections were associated with the flow of text. For instance, the first phrase“This program’s main feature” was replaced with “Its main feature”. In the second sentence,
the “This program" that appeared in the interim version was omitted in the final product. And
most noticeably, the second and third sentences were jointed together into one sentence.
Perhaps subject C was concerned about the difference in discourse structure between English
and Japanese; somehow, repeating the same subject, “program,” in consecutive sentences was
unnecessary, rendering weakened cohesiveness in Japanese text.
Supposedly, translator C intended to improve the readability and enhance cohesive ties
in the target text. In other words, subject C had already established her own ‘translational
norm’ to apply to target renditions so that the final product would become more ‘acceptable’for the target culture’s audience. However, as far as word-for-word equivalence between thesource and the target text is concerned, those omissions and sentence mergers reduce theaccuracy of the translation to the source language. This discussion between ‘literal’ vs. ‘free’,‘adequate’ vs. ‘acceptable’ etc. is an old debate in translation studies. Yet, a point to be noted
here is the fact that such manipulation (i.e. making the text more ‘acceptable’) was169

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

implemented only during the revision phase, and not in the drafting stage. That is to say, thefirst interim product looked much closer to ‘literal translation’ at the beginning, and thenturned into a more acceptable translation in a later stage. This evidence suggests thattranslation is not produced with re-verbalization of the de-verbalized ‘sense’, but throughchanges of tentative decisions on linguistic elements. In fact, the translation producttransmutes itself from ‘literal’ into ‘free’ as proceeding from the drafting to the revision phase.
There is a possibility that translator’s cognitive process also moves in accord with thisprocessing flow.
5. 4 Sentence forming procedures
Thus far we have compared the interim version of the product that emerged at the end of thedrafting phase and the final version after the revision phase. In this last section, we are goingto look closely at how each sentence is constructed on the level of a translation unit orsegment during the draft phase. The description of those steps will in turn prove my first
assertion that literal translation or similar behavior is observed in the translators’ interim
product.
Each step is divided by a) a relatively a long pause (5 seconds or longer), or b) a cursor
movement or c) a deletion key input (excluding typing error deletion). Underlined segments
indicate newly added segment(s) from the previous step. English back translation is provided
for the purpose of understanding the stages in which the sentences were formed. The examples
that follow are only from subjects A and C, but similar steps were observed with all of thetranslators.
Figure 5: Sample steps of target sentence forming
Source text: Sentence 1
The Internet Security Setup Wizard starts at the end of program installation.
Subject A: Sentence 1
Step 1
Internet Security セットアップウィザード(Internet Security Setup Wizard)
Step 2
Internet Security セットアップウィザードはプログラムインストールの終わりに(Internet Security Setup Wizard is, at the end of program installation,)
Step 3
Internet Security セットアップウィザードはプログラムインストールの終わりに開始されます。
(Internet Security Setup Wizard is, at the end of program installation, started.)
Subject C: Sentence 1
Step 1
インターネットセキュリティの(Internet Security’s)
Step 2
インターネットセキュリティのセットアップウィザードは(Internet Security’s Setup Wizard is)
Step 3
プログラムのインターネットセキュリティのセットアップウィザード(program’s Internet Security’s Setup Wizard)
Step 4
プログラムのインストール後に、インターネットセキュリティのセットアップウィザード(At the end of program’s installation, Internet Security’s Setup Wizard)
Step 5
プログラムのインストール後に、インターネットセキュリティのセットアップウィザード
が起動します。
(At the end of program’s installation, Internet Security’s Setup Wizard starts)
Step 6
プログラムのインストール後、インターネットセキュリティのセットアップウィザードが起動します。
(At the end of program’s installation, Internet Security’s Setup Wizard starts)

170

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

Subject A: Sentence 2
Step 1
このタスクは、最初のコンフィギュレーション(This task is the initial configuration)
Step 2
このタスクは、最初のアプリケーションパラメータのコンフィギュレーション(This task is the initial application parameter's configuration)
Step 3
このタスクは、自身の最初のアプリケーションパラメータのコンフィギュレーション(This task is your the initial application parameter's configuration)
Step 4
このタスクは、コンピュータの最初のアプリケーションパラメータのコンフィギュレーション(This task is the computer’s the initial application parameter's configuration)
Step 5
このタスクは、コンピュータのタスクと feature に基づいて最初のアプリケーションパラメータのコンフィギュ
レーション(This task is, based on computer’s task and feature, the initial application parameter's configuration)
Step 6
このタスクは、コンピュータのタスクと feature に基づいて最初のアプリケーションパラメータのコンフィギュ
レーションを行うことです。
(This task is, on a basis of computer’s task and feature, to perform the initial application parameter's configuration)
Subject C: Sentence 2
Step 1
初期設定(initial configuration)
Step 2
アプリケーション初期設定(application initial configuration)
Step 3アプリケーションのパラメータの初期設定(application’s parameter initial configuration)
Step 4
ユーザーアプリケーションのパラメータの初期設(user application’s parameter initial configuration)
Step 5コンピュータの特定のアプリケーションのパラメータの初期設(computer’s specific application’s parameter initial configuration)
Step 6コンピュータの特定のプログラム（特徴？不フィーチャ）やタスクに基づき、パラメータの初期設(based on computer’s specific application’s (feature?) and task, parameter initial configuration)
Step 7コンピュータの特定のプログラム（特徴？不フィーチャ）やタスクに基づき、パラメータの初期設を行う(based on computer’s specific application’s (feature?) and task, parameter initial configuration is performed)
Step 8コンピュータの特定のプログラム（特徴？不フィーチャ）やタスクに基づき、パラメータの初期設を行う際のサポートがその趣旨(based on computer’s specific application’s (feature?) and task, parameter initial configuration is performed with support
as intended.)
Step 9コンピュータの特定のプログラム（特徴？フィーチャ）やタスクに基づき、パラメータの初期設を行う際のサポートがその目的です。
(based on computer’s specific application’s (feature?) and task, parameter initial configuration is performed with support
as its task.)

When looking at these steps of the translation product formation, we find a general
pattern of the sentence forming order; a target product (sentence) is not constructed linearly
but rather follows the order of the source text syntax – that is, the order in which a translator
comprehends the source sentence. It is traditionally said that translators translate sentence bysentence (Séguinot, 1990), but it is not true. Translators actually take a certain chunk of words
as a working segment and translate segment by segment as they comprehend the source text inits syntactic order.
For instance, let us take a look at the first sentence from subject A. In Step 1, a chunk of“Internet Security Setup Wizard” was translated as typed on screen. At this point, subject A
already mentally processed up to “Internet Security Setup Wizard starts”. This may be thetranslator’s presumed working segment. Then subject A was faced with the following segment,“at the end of program installation”, paused for a moment, and retained the word “starts” inmind (or in WV) until he or she produced the translation of the new segment (Step 2). Finally,in Step 3, the translation of the retained word, “starts”, was produced. It is noted here that the171

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

FIFO strategy was used in this case so that the target sentence forming order became almost
linear. In other words, the forming order was shaped strictly by the source text syntax.
In the case of subject C, the relationship between the target sentence forming order andthe source language syntax was more vivid. When subject C tackled the segment, “at the endof program installation” (Step 2), the translator moved the cursor to the beginning of the target
sentence, the location at which the translation of the segment was to be inserted. Because
Japanese syntax is different from that of English (i.e. SOV vs. SVO), it is sometimes
successful if one translates backward from the end of an English sentence, although theeffectiveness of this method is still under debate4. Subject C then typed the translation of thegiven segment at the selected location (Step 4), and afterwards, returned the cursor to the endof sentence. There, the subject typed the retained word, “starts” (Step5). In this example, it isobvious that the target sentence was not formed in a linear way from the sentence’s beginning.
One additional remark to be addressed is the difference in the number of steps eachsubject required. Subject A took 3 steps and 6 steps for the first and the second sentence,
respectively, whereas subject B went through 5 steps and 9 steps. This difference can be
attributed to the length of the working segment or translation unit chosen by each translator.
Translator C paused more often and performed more terminology searches, probably because
the subject was unfamiliar with the specialized terminology of the subject matter. According toDragsted (2004), the length of the translation unit decreases as the level of difficulty of text
increases. This assertion is applicable in this case.
In sum, the fact that the target sentence is actually formed in the source text syntactic
order has been clarified from those examples. In some cases, once translators type a segment,
they self-monitor the chunk on screen, and then revise it immediately (see steps 3 and 4 of thesecond sentence in subject A, in that a word “your” as in “your computer” was first rendered,but immediately deleted in the following step, because it sounded unnatural to use “your” inJapanese language in this context). In these examples, we can conclude that the interim
product and translators’ behavior are highly restricted by linguistic elements of the source
language during the drafting both on the segment and sentence level. Then, when translators
move on to the revision phase, they will be somewhat released from the source text constraints,
and focus either on terminology searches or on the flow of translated text. Those operations
occurred during the revision stage are associated more with the target discourse; the aim is tomake it more ‘acceptable’ to the target culture and norms.
6. Concluding remarks and further study.
This paper has revealed the fact that the process of translation is not monolithic nor inharmony with the Interpretive model where the translator de-verbalizes the text andre-expresses it all at once by means of re-verbalization. Rather, in conformity with the Monitor
model, the production process proceeds segment by segment, guided by the source language
172

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

syntactic order. For this reason, renditions that are produced during the drafting phase seem,
overall, closer to literal translation. And then, the production stage is shifted to the revisionphase, the translator’s focus is placed more on beyond-sentence level or discourse. As a resultof textual manipulation in this phase, the product becomes ‘free’ translation (free from thesource text constraints).

Although the behavioral patters may vary depending on the text

type or genre of the source text (i.e. literary text might require for translators more time toscan the text during pre-drafting phase), a certain extent of generalization can be made out of
this study result. Also thanks to screen recording technology, recording this entire dynamics inchange of process is made possible. With that, we are able to capture all of the detailedtranslating activities.
One question that remains untouched, however, is the reasons for these behaviors. Withreference to translators' pattern, as described in the Monitor Model, for which they type asmall chunk of translation on screen before self-monitoring it, Asadi and Séguinot (2005)
attributes this to translators’ production style and strategy. They refer to this type of style as‘Translating On-screen’, as opposed to ‘Prospective Thinking’. The ‘Translating On-screen”
type of translator works on translation as they type interim decisions on screen. In contrast,‘Prospective Thinking” type of translator thinks before typing. Interestingly, Asadi and
Séguinot point out that “prospective thinking’ styles were formed during a pre-computer era.
Historically, translators using a typewriter were forced to translate first mentally, taking inlarge chunks of text and reading ahead for comprehension before beginning to type (ibid.). In
the computer era, translators think after typing, making use of online revision as a shortcut,
which gives them the ability to produce text segments quickly and make changes as they go(ibid.: 531). Once the operation becomes an automated skill as a shortcut, it may bypass theshort-term memory (cf. Ericsson & Simon, 1980), which in turn reduces cognitive load. Thisis only one piece of evidence that accounts for those activities. Further investigation needs be
conducted for full explanation on the cause of behaviors.
It is also interesting to see how development of technology shapes translators’ behavior.
Because in recent years, it is becoming very common to make use of computer-aidedtranslation and translation memory system in the actual practice, the effect of those tools on
the translation process is also another area of study that needs to be addressed.
In conclusion, a finding from this present study may help us get back on the right trackor redefine the answer to basic questions: what is translation, what makes (inter-lingual)translation different from monolingual communication, and ultimately, what kind of‘translation’ should Translation Studies (TS) deal with? Since the ‘Cultural Turn’5, the scopeof research focus has been taken somewhat too broadly, including ‘cultural translation’, thatuses the term ‘translation’ only metaphorically without any reference to finite text (e.g.
Bhabha, 1994/2004). Although I am not in a position to claim what is right or wrong nor do I
insist that TS restore another ‘Linguistic Re-turn’, yet the result of this study indicates that the173

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

relatively high level of linguistic restrictions are incurred in the process of translating, and thatis undoubtedly a particular feature that ‘translation does not share with non-translational case(i.e. normal communication)” (cf. Malmkjær, 2000). That is why study of translation process
is interesting and also in need of further investigation.
………………………………………….
About the author
YAMADA Masaru（山田優） He is a Ph.D candidate at Rikkyo Graduate School of Intercultural
Communication. His research interests include translation studies in general, localization, andcomputer-aided translation. E-mail : yamada@apple-eye.com
Notes
1. BB Flashback is a product of Blueberry Software. The Advantage of the screen recorder overexisting methods such as Translog is its capability of capturing all actions and operations on
computer screen, including not only key logging but also the Web search and folder navigations,etc. Translog can only record keyboard inputs. In order to type Japanese characters, a dedicatedinput method softwar (i.e. IME) is required. With it, we first need to type alphabetical charactersto get Japanese syllabic scripts, and then convert it into Chinese characters if needed.
Considering these consecutive typing steps, it is doubtful about how accurately Translog’s data
can serve the purpose. In addition, my research focus is beyond key logging. In this regard thescreen recording technology is advantageous.
2. Asadi and Séguinot’s research (2005) used both the screen recording and Think-aloud (TA)protocol. However, TA is said to delay the translation process by about 25%, and havesignificant effect on segmentation (Jakobsen, 2002). Because my study aimed at creating anatural work environment for subjects, TA was not considered as an option.
3. Quality of translation is not easy to define and a debatable topic, too. At the point of thisresearch, I did not take this aspect into consideration. This should be incorporated into myforthcoming research because quality is a potential variable that affects on the translation
process. Speaking for the sake of this paper on the basis of my own judgment, the productquality of the translations submitted by four translators was evenly near the professional level.
None of their products was significantly better than another. Hence, it is fair to say that the‘quality’ factor was a minimal variable in this particular experiment.
4. For discussion in detail, see Tamaki (2004), Tanabe (2007), and Mizuno (2008).
5. Cf. Mary Snell-Hornby (2006)
References
Asadi, P., & Séguinot, C. (2005). Shortcuts, strategies and general patterns in a process study in174

A Study of the Translation Process through the Translators’ Interim Products

nine professionals. Meta, L(2), 522-547.
Baker, M. (2001). Norms. In M. Baker (Ed), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New
York: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1994/2004). The location of culture. London/New York: Routledge.
Chandler, D. (1993). Writing strategies and writers’ tools. English Today, 9(2), 32-38.
Dimitrova, B. (2006). Segmentation of the writing process in translation: Experts versus novices.
In K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods
and Applications (pp. 189-201). St. Louis: Elsevier.
Dragsted, B. (2004). Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems: An empiricalinvestigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into thetranslation process. Doctoral dissertation, Copenhagen Business School. Samfundslitteratur.
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise anddifficulty. Target, 17(1), 49-70.
Englund Dimitrova, B. (2005). Expertise and explicitation in the translation process.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological review, 87,
215-251.
Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a profession. Grand Rapids: John Benjamins Co.
Hansen, G. (2002). Zeit und Qualität im Übersetzungsprozess. In G. Hansen (Ed.), EmpiricalTranslation Studies. Process and Product, Copenhagen Studies in Language 27 (pp. 29-54).
Samfukndslitteratur: Copenhagen.
Jakobsen, A., & Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation. In Probing the Process in Translation:
Methods and Results. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24.Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Jakobsen, A. (2002). Logging target text production with Translog. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing theProcess in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24. (pp. 9-20)
Samfundslitteratur: Copenhagen.
Jakobsen, A. (2003). E ects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation. In F.
Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation (pp. 69-95). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jensen, A. (1985). SI: A Note on Error Typologies and the Possibility of Gaining Insight in Mental
Processes. Meta, (30)1, 107-113.
Jensen, A. (2000). The effects of time on cognitive processes and strategies in translation. Doctoral
dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.
Immonen, S. (2006). Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual
text production. Target, 18(2), 313-335.
Lederer, M. (2003). Translation : the interpretive model. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Lörscher, W. (1996). A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Translation Processes. Meta, 41(1), 26-32.
Malmkjær, K. (2000). Multidisciplinary in process research. In S. Tirkkoonen-Condit & R.
Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the process of translation and interpreting:outlooks on empirical research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 143-148.
Mossop, B. (2001). Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

175

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

Séguinot, C. (1989). Translation theory, translating theory and the sentence. In C. Séguinot (Ed.),
Word, text, and translation, liber Amicorum for Peter Newmark. New York: York University.
Seleskovitch, D. (1986). Translation: corresponding words or equivalent texts. TEXTconTEXTT,
Heidelberg: Groos. 128-140.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., Gibbons, J., & Nicholas, H. (1990). Professional vs. Non Professional
Translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study. In M.A.K. Halliday (Ed.), Learning, Keeping andUsing Language Vol. II, (pp. 381-394). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta,
L(2), 405-414.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., Mäkisalo, J., & Immonen, S. (2008). The translation process: Interplay
between literal rendering and a search for sense. Across, 9(1), 1-16.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners' processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and Translationfrom L1 into L2. Journal of second language writing, 5(3), 271-294
Vermeer, H. J. (2000). Skopos and commission in translational action. In L. Venuti (Ed.),
Translation studies reader (pp. 227-38). London: Routledge.
Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology fortranslation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
玉置裕子 (2004) 「体系的翻訳論への一試論：情報構造および関連性理論を中心に」『通訳研究』
第 4 号: 157-169 日本通訳翻訳学会
田辺希久子 (2007) 「大学での『順送り訳』を応用した構文解析指導」『翻訳研究への招待』第１号: 125-136 日本通訳翻訳学会 翻訳理論研究分科会
水野的 (1997/2004)「『意味の理論』批判と通訳モデル」,『通訳理論研究』第 13 号；『通訳理論研究論集』（日本通訳学会：2004 に再収録）: 107-122
水野的 (2008) 「翻訳における認知的負荷と経験的等価：読者の文理解と作動記憶を巡って」『翻訳研究への招待』第 2 号: 101-120 日本通訳翻訳学会 翻訳理論研究分科会

176