A Study of the Effects of Time Pressure on Translation Quantity and Quality

Mehdi Ghobadi, Golnaz Madadi, Bahareh Najafian

Abstract


The condition under which translation is undertaken has been the subject of little empirical research. The present study aimed to determine whether time pressure would have influential effects on the quality and quantity of a translation task performed by Iranian students of Translation Studies. For this purpose, the students in two intact MA translation classrooms were selected as the participants of the study; i.e., one control group and one experimental group. The participants in the control group were allowed as much as time they needed to perform the translation task whereas the participants in the experimental group were allowed only 30 minutes to perform the task. The results of the study indicated that time pressure had significant influences on both the quality and quantity of the translation task performed by the participants. A trade-off was observed as the participants in the experimental group produced more translated materials than the participants in the control group when compared on a time-constant scale. The quality of their performance, however, lagged behind the quality of performance by the participants in the control group. These results can be explained by the competition model of cognition which hypothesizes that different dimensions of a cognitive task are in constant competition to win over attentional resources and that the competition is highly influenced by the condition in which the task is performed. The implications of the study for both translation theory and practice are also discussed.

 


Keywords


Time Pressure, Cognitive Sciences, Translation Quantity, Translation Quality, Attentional Resources

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046669.

Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1-29, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422.

Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation studies. London: Routledge.

Boxer, D., & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.). (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Brown, C. (2006). Cognitive psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Choi, J., & Lim, H. O. (2000). An overview of the Korean translation market. Meta, 45(2), 383-392, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/002235ar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Cowan, N. (2000). Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting. Interpreting, 5(2), 117-146, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.05cow.

Danks, J. H. (1997). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6(6), 409-434, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696.

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Guida, F.V., Ludlow, L., & Wilson, M. (1985). The Meditative effect of time-on task on the academic anxiety/achievement interaction: A structure model. Journal of Research and Development in Education 19. (1), 21-26.

Gutt, E. A. (2014). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. London: Routledge.

Halverson, S. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197-241, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of management journal, 45(5), 1029-1045, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069328.

Hermans, J., & Lambert, J. (1998). From translation markets to language management: The implications of translation services. Target, 10(1), 113-132, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.10.1.06her.

Hubscher-Davidson, S. E. (2009). Personal diversity and diverse personalities in translation: A study of individual differences. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 17(3), 175-192, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760903249380.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256287.

Kuhiwczak, P., & Littau, K. (2007). A companion to translation studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Labelle, M. A., Graf, P., Grondin, S., & Gagne-Roy, L. (2009). Time-related processes in time-based prospective memory and in time-interval production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 501-521, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440802031000.

Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19-42, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83-108, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041.

Millan-Varela, C., & Bartrina, F. (2012). The Routledge handbook of translation studies. London: Routledge.

Mizuno, A. (2005). Process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Meta, 50(2), 739-752, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/011015ar.

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.

Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London: Routledge.

O'Brien, S. (2013). The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target, 25(1), 5-17, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr.

Ørsted, J. (2001). Quality and efficiency: Incompatible elements in Translation Practice? Meta, 46(2), 438-447, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/003766ar.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Nova Iorque: McGraw Hill.

Potter, M. C., Staub, A., & O'connor, D. H. (2002). The time course of competition for attention: attention is initially labile. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1149-1162.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169.

Shao, Z., Roelofs, A., Martin, R. C., & Meyer, A. S. (2015). Selective inhibition and naming performance in semantic blocking, picture-word interference, and color–word Stroop tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1806-1820, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039363.

Shreve, G. M., & Angelone, E. (Eds.). (2010). Translation and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.

Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311-325, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/004583ar.

Xuanmin, L. (2003). A textual‐cognitive model for translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 11(1), 73-79, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2003.9961464.

Zheng, B., & Xiang, X. (2014). The impact of cultural background knowledge in the processing of metaphorical expressions: An empirical study of English-Chinese sight translation. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 9(1), 5-24, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.01zhe.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.5n.2p.7

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.