|
Research Issues
in TS Message from the initiator of
this section Discussion is
an essential part of research, and input from researchers, young and old, is
always welcome as a contribution to the community. Short pieces in this
section reflect their authors' views at the time they are posted, and are
essentially published for the purpose of providing such input and stimulating
discussion. They are not to be seen as final statements, and may be changed
or withdrawn at any time at the request of their author(s). All members
are invited to contribute short texts (preferably less than 500 words as a
rule) in any language (subject to limitations in the character sets that can
be supported technically) as input to the discussion. Please make sure that
your contribution does not infringe any copyright and confirm this in writing
when sending it in. Thank you in advance for your contribution and
cooperation. D. Gile Content
Research Issues in Translation Studies Combination and Triangulation of Methods and Data Gyde Hansen, December 29, 2005 In empirical TS, combining methods
and data has become an important research technique. This procedure is often
called “triangulation”. For example, data from first-person
observations (TAPs) are combined with data from
third-person observations (the observer) in order to reach
inter-subjectivity. Qualitative approaches are corroborated or complemented
by quantitative approaches. This latter combination is often looked upon as
especially useful, because quantitative data, which are a result of measuring
and counting, are regarded as more objective and reliable than qualitative
data, which are a result of persons’ perceptions and more subjective interpretations
of a phenomenon (see Hansen, this website: February 17, 2005). Triangulation is frequently applied in social sciences and in many other disciplines,
and the terms combination and triangulation are often used as
synonyms for a mix of procedures to grasp complex phenomena and to confirm or
complete a study. Triangulation is regarded as a multimix
of material, strategies, methods, purposes, perspectives or investigators in
an attempt to add rigor to a study. The use of the triangulation
metaphor has been heavily discussed and challenged, and much has been written
about triangulation as a useful approach, especially in qualitative research.
In its original meaning the term ‘triangulation’ refers to a
geometrical procedure where a point is found by calculating the length of one side of a triangle,
given measurements of angles and sides of the triangle formed by that point
and two other given reference points. This means that in triangulation
as opposed to any other combination of methods or data, reference points,
i.e. prior knowledge, are used in order to gain further results or further
insight. Having the meaning of the original
metaphor of a triangle in mind, combination and triangulation
could be kept apart. Combination is useful for all kinds of
information collection involving multiple methods, investigators, tools,
observations and data. Triangulation, in accordance with the original
meaning of the term, can be an additional procedure for obtaining new results
or new knowledge from existing results, and can thus provide clarity and coherence to
the investigation and description of complex phenomena. In complex research projects, where many
aspects have to be taken into consideration, the differentiation between
combination and triangulation is a means to keep the variety of different
observations under control and to make it easier to discuss, repeat and
reevaluate the study. For example, data from interviews or questionnaires
about the personal background of subjects can be combined with product data
(evaluation of target texts), or the same data can be combined with process
data from introspection. Triangulated, the results of both combinations can
complete each other or reveal gaps or discrepancies and thus provide new
knowledge about the relationship between personal profiles, processes and
products. A complex study gains flexibility and scope when new results can be
located via new constructions of triangles from known reference points (=
results). Daniel Gile November 27, 2005 Probabilistic
laws lie somewhere between determinism, where a phenomenon is certain, and
total uncertainty, where one has no idea as to whether the phenomenon will
materialize and how. Probabilistic laws attempt to quantify uncertainty. For
instance, if it is known that the mean height of males in a population is Uncertainty in empirical
observation of phenomena may be due to the probabilistic nature of a phenomenon (i.e. variation is an intrinsic
characteristic of the phenomenon). It may also be due to environmental reasons: the underlying entity itself may be
regular in its nature and form, but its manifestations are influenced by
external factors which are themselves probabilistic in nature or too
complicated in their interactions with the phenomenon at hand to be
predictable. Finally, uncertainty may be due to limitations or weaknesses in
the detection and measurement of the phenomenon by man. In many cases, researchers
investigate the existence of a trend, not its quantitative contours. For
instance, in TS, the explicitation hypothesis assumes
the existence of a tendency, not how strong it is or to what extent a TT will
be more explicit than the ST. In such a case, researchers are interested not
in quantitative variation, but in its occurrence as such. If such occurrence is irregular,
this does not necessarily mean that the law is not true, or that it is
probabilistic in nature. Other factors may have prevented it from being
manifest. Lunar eclipses do not become probabilistic just because cloudy
skies sometimes prevent people from seeing them. The trend to make TTs more explicit than STs may
be universal without necessarily being manifest everywhere, for instance if
cultural conventions or the client’s brief or time pressure etc.
inhibit its expression in a particular set of translations. Assuming that a phenomenon is probabilistic
or “conditional” just because in empirical studies, it is found
not to occur regularly or is found to occur only under certain conditions is
the same as assuming that lunar eclipses are probabilistic or conditional
upon the absence of clouds in the sky. When irregularities occur, the natural
procedure in research is to try to find what causes this irregularity,
starting with the removal of environmental factors which may interfere, for
instance through experimental research. Only when it is thought that all
interfering environmental factors and observer-related factors have been
removed and there is still irregularity in the occurrence of the phenomenon
will one conclude that this irregularity suggests
that the law is probabilistic. Translation
research: commentary or critique? Dr Maria Filippakopoulou,
August 17, 2005 Some literary quarters harbour
the suspicion that “theory” in liberal arts is but an attempt to purvey
methods of analysis that enjoy grand scale consensus, consensus of the kind
that can bring out visible results. This concerns not this or that theory but
rather major cultural movements, such as postmodernism, or psychoanalysis,
which have more or less changed the way in which critics talk to one another
and conduct their business. This view about theory as the “new
science” in literary studies, albeit sizzling with unspoken resentment,
is intriguing and has some relevance for the objectivistic pretensions
– or efforts, depending on where one looks at it - of TS research. I
would like to make it clear that it is research in literary translation that
I am mostly interested in here, which is why I chose to start with this view.
It is puzzling to see that an objectivistic,
scientific discourse, in inverted commas or not, is pushed again to the
forefront of public discussion of TS (this website); many amongst us would
think that a fair amount of ground has been covered in this respect since
André Lefevere published his seminal in many ways Literary Knowledge in 1977. He sought
to free literary studies – referring to it as “a
pseudo-scientific discipline with a weak core” (Lefevere,
1977: 26) - from the numbing embrace of logical neo-positivism and hermeneutics,
restoring it instead as a source of literary knowledge (Lefevere
1977: 44-45). The fact that he became one of the leading scholars in TS by
spearheading with Susan Bassnett the
“cultural turn” testifies to the validity of his insights. Assuming that the “scientific”
discourse has been long and, in my mind at least, sufficiently debated, I
would like to raise two questions related to it: the first one concerns
research ethos and the second one research creativity. Undoubtedly the positivistic
pursuit forges a certain research ethos. By insisting on the importance of
“gathering data”, observing them with “objectivity”,
“minimising bias” and so on, we
advertise not only a specific methodology, but also a specific pedagogy: we
encourage certain inclinations, privilege certain outlooks and educate young
researchers to go for some rather than other. In effect, we tell students of
translation what is the ethos they are to embrace in their professional
enterprises. However, this blanket insistence on the scientific
ideal fails to mention the position of the observer in the institutional
hierarchy, the use of her/his output in the knowledge market, its social
implications. It does not train researchers to go beyond the immediate
context of “data” to the conditions under which such data emerged
and became worthy of observation in the first place, nor the specific ways in
which they outflanked other competing data. The very nakedness of the
neo-positivistic language readily distances researchers from the social make
of their object of study, pre-emptying any desire to link it back to the
society and culture from which it was “derived”. Shall we contemplate for a moment the effects
of such an outlook, when successful? The translation typologies which revved
up the institutionalisation of TS - grounded on a
basic distinction between literary and specialised
translation, or simply applied TS - is one instance
of this disconcerting success. This has worked to insert a wedge between the
teaching/research of literary translation and that of applied translation in
most British academic departments; this in turn, given the predominant
political economy of current academia, has led to the overgrowth of the
latter and the shrinking of the former. The discipline has indeed made huge
strides in training translators for an English-dominated globalised
market on the one hand, and utterly re-gentrifying literary translation on
the other. If we wanted to forge an identity for practitioners, teachers and
researchers of translation, which is that of professionals, well-adapted to
the current cultural order, who seamlessly enter both the market and the
market discourse, if we aimed at producing a marginalised,
self-aggrandising - or disfranchised as the case
might be - class of its own in the case of literary translators, we
couldn’t have done better. My second concern is with research
creativity. I wonder how the born-again positivistic ideal caters for blue
sky thinking which is - let’s be frank about it – crucial for the
formation of hypotheses and selection of tools of analysis. Daniel Gile very
correctly pointed out that “[t]he one
essential advantage of science […] appears in the long run” (Gile
2005, this website). But the “long run” is made of our
individual, far from well-rounded, usually hit-and-miss, in the first
instance, attempts at making sense of translation phenomena. Quantitative
considerations are all very well, but insisting too much on them could end up
obscuring the lengthy, winding procedures by which we come by those hallowed
quantitative observables. It doesn’t begin to tell us anything about
how hypothesis are formulated in the first place, how they evolve, how they
are discarded; it fails to show how new questions ever come to light.
It’s far too tidy to provide any kind of enlightenment for people
struggling to face those gaps in understanding, those blind spots in
perception that only open-mindedness or, indeed, an “existential”
mindset seems to be most adequate to grasp. It’s not a question of
simply coming up with original research projects but also of ensuring the
evolution of a discipline capable of self-reflection and re-invention. Closing up, I would simply like to offer for
this discussion the distinction between commentary and critique (Benjaminean in its origins). It should help to develop a
research culture which exposes the available expertise in the field to the
socio-ideological reality from which is draws its relevance – or not.
But that’s a different argument. References Gile, D. 22 January 2005. The liberal arts
paradigm and the empirical science paradigm (website on Research Issues). Lefevere, A. 1977. Literary Knowledge. A Polemical and
Programmatic Essay on its Nature, Growth, Relevance and Transmission.
Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. Translation
research: LAP versus/with ESP? A response to Maria Filippakopoulou Daniel Gile October 22, 2005 In her essay, Maria Filippakopoulou (MF)
criticizes “scientific” discourse, “long and sufficiently
debated”. Firstly, regarding the reasons
why most of the texts in this web page refer to “scientific
discourse”: 1. Contributors simply happen
to be interested in scientific discourse. There is nothing to prevent
colleagues interested in other types of discourse from sending contributions
as well. 2. Many TS scholars (including
some who are interested in literary translation) happen to conduct studies
within the Empirical Science Paradigm (ESP). Since there are recurring
problems in these studies (see for example the last paper in Hansen et al. 2004), it is perhaps legitimate
to consider that the topic has not
been sufficiently debated and that further clarification might be helpful. MF raises an ethical
objection to science. This traditional criticism usually refers to the fact
that scientists are trained to be objective, not to play an ethical role in
society. MF also claims that the scientific approach “does not train
researchers to go beyond the immediate content of “data” to the
conditions under which such data emerged and became worthy of observation in
the first place”, and that it “distances researchers from the
social make of their object of study, pre-emptying any desire to link it back
to the society and culture from which it was “derived””. This
is a somewhat puzzling statement: why could scientific methods not be applied
precisely to study the social make up of their object of study, as in
sociology, ethnology, political science, etc.? According to MF, scientific
discourse generated a division between literary and non-literary translation.
I challenge this claim; when I was a technical translator in the early 1970s,
a strong distinction between the two was already traditional in circles of
professional translators who had no interest in research. Finally, according to FM,
scientific discourse “doesn’t begin to tell us anything about how
hypotheses are formulated in the first place”. It does not, unless
scientific methods are used to try to investigate precisely this question.
One might ask whether non-scientific discourse does tell us something about
how hypotheses are formulated. The scientific paradigm is
not exclusively quantitative. It accommodates qualitative methods as well.
However, it is essentially critical, precisely because it recognizes the
possibility of personal and sociological biases in scholarly analysis of
reality. Perhaps M. Filippakopoulou will understand
why both logic and evidence would lead scientifically trained colleagues to
question her statement that someone’s popularity in a discipline proves
“the validity of his insights”. On this website page, so
far, most of the contributions have focused on one paradigm, but they have
not excluded the other(s). The Liberal Arts Paradigm has advantages which the
ESP does not have. I would argue for complementarity
and would welcome further contributions from both sides. Reference Hansen, Gyde, Kirsten Malkmjær
and Daniel Gile (eds). 2004. Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. *** Marcel Thelen
(Posted on July 30,
2005)
Department
of Translation and Interpreting Terminology: what makes up the
distinction between term and word In the
process of specialised translation, terms can in some cases clearly and
without any problem be distinguished from words, whereas in others this is
not so obvious, especially in cases where terms turn out to behave like words
as in such disciplines like psychology, sociology, art & art criticism,
leisure & tourism, etc. For the translation of terms, I discern a
number of steps of which - in the translation process- term recognition
is one of the most important ones. I have a number of research issues in this
respect: ▪
What is it that triggers the translator’s decision to translate
the item in question as a term or as a word: is it, for example, the
item’s morphology or etymology, the item’s meaning description
and/or context hints as given in (specialised) dictionaries, indicators in
the item’s context, the item’s behaviour in the source text
regarded in terms of intertextuality, the
explicitness and clarity of the subject area in question, the
translator’s experience, etc? ▪
Can these triggers be used as guiding or discovery procedures? ▪
What can the translator do and what aids does he have at his disposal
to make the appropriate decision: is this only term extraction tools or is
there more? ▪
What is the use of the pre-translation macro-textual and micro-textual
analysis? ▪
Are all these issues issues at all in the
presence of translation memories and term banks? ▪
How can corpus linguistics help? ▪
Do the above research issues regarding term recognition also play a
role in interpreting and if so, is this role the same as in translation; if
not, what makes up the difference? ▪
In what way do theory and practice co-operate to help the translator /
interpreter? ▪
Is it possible to generalise the findings of this type of research
into rules and where will these rules be accommodated best: in theory or in
practice? In
particular for students of specialised translation, it is important to know how
and if words can be distinguished from terms. If an item is a term, it should
be translated by a term (if there is one available - if not, the appropriate
translation procedures should be applied), if it is not, the freedom of
translation is greater and the student can decide what to do (under the
constraints of the translation brief and the constraints of the target
language & culture). Also for the teacher of specialised translation, in
particular the teacher of terminology, the term-word distinction is important
from a didactic point of view: how should he explain the difference between
words and terms and provide the student with appropriate aids to solve
problematic cases? Also for the professional translator the answers to the
above questions can be relevant. Finally, the outcome of this research may
also be of relevance to the discipline of terminology (and terminography): do terms and words behave similarly? If
so, why have now one discipline instead of two, viz. terminology and
lexicology? If there is a difference in behaviour, then what is it and how
should it be accounted for? Paul Kussmaul Contributed on June 8, 2005 Visualisations can occur at certain stages in the comprehension process,
and they may lead to creative translations. Creative translations can for our present
purposes be defined as translations that show changes when compared with the
source text, thereby bringing in something that is novel. In interpreting,
visualisation as a type of deverbalisation was
recognized as a method as early as 1968 by Danica Seleskovitch. (I am referring to the English translation
of her book L’interprète dans les
conferences internationales, 1978: 55), and it
was explicitly recommended as a
teaching method by Seleskovitch & Lederer (1989: 24-26). What,
actually, is visualisation in translation? For the translation of the
sentence “Children have forgotten how to eat, completely forgotten how
to eat”, taken from an article on famine in Africa, Seleskovitch
and Lederer suggest visualising a scene of a little
child with bony legs and arms and a blown-up belly, a picture often seen in
the media, in order to avoid a mistranslation such as “les enfants ont oublié
comment manger” (They have forgotten their good manners) (Seleskovitch & Lederer
1989: 25-26.) This
is an example taken from a teaching context. With the availability of
empirical tools for documenting the translation process such as
triangulations between Translog files and Think
Aloud Protocols, Dialogue Protocols or Retrospective Interviews, it might be
possible to actually observe visualisations normally hidden in the minds of
the translators, and with the heuristic means of cognitive semantics at our
hands we may now be able to see more precisely what types of mental visual
images exist. More
specifically, I believe that notions like point of view, focus, prototypicality and Fillmore’s scenes-and-frames
may help us to describe visualisations in greater detail. In the example just
quoted we may say that the teachers suggested a prototypical (or
stereotypical) scene. One might hypothesise that visualising, i.e. focussing on, prototypical elements of a scene will lead to adequate
and creative translations. In
the kind of empirical research I propose to carry out one might begin by
gathering types of visualisations and try to classify them. It will be
important to see, if visualisations actually lead to adequate and creative
translations. It might well be that this is not always the case. Translators
might visualise things that are only in their minds but not in the text in
front of them or they might focus on elements that are not prototypical. As a
second step, we may try to find out if visual clues help to initiate creative
translations. We might show (prototypical) pictures or give verbal
descriptions of scenes to one group of subjects but not to another group and
compare their translations. The problem, of course, is to keep the groups as
a variable stable. The
kind of research I am proposing can be seen within the scope of investigating
successful translation processes. (For more details see Kussmaul
2005.) Kussmaul, Paul (2005). Translation through Visualisation” In: Seleskovitch, Danica (1978): Interpreting for International Conferences, Seleskovitch, Danica
& Marianne Lederer (1989): Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Collection Traductologie n° 4, Bruxelles : Didier
Érudition. Scientific
norms Our knowledge
about the world is partly experiential, i.e. obtained through direct sensory
experience (what we see, what we hear, what we smell, etc.) and ulterior
cognitive processing (the brain has to make sense of the sensory experience),
and partly inherited, i.e. received from other people's statements, written
or spoken (what we read and what we hear). Our perception of both 'reality'
around us and other people's statements is distorted and limited by our
sensory and cognitive limitations (we cannot see or hear everything, and
there are limitations to the amount of information we can process), and by
affective bias (essentially our likes and dislikes, personal ambitions,
self-image etc.). These
limitations have been recognized from early times on. The so-called scientific method presented in many textbooks on
research methods is a set of norms underlying research methods and rules for
research criticism designed to push back such limitations to the best
possible extent. These norms include
the following:
The quality
of scientific progress as a whole depends to a large extent on the individual
scientists' compliance with these norms. Note: This text introduces norms of science as it is defined by the
so-called scientific method generally invoked in empirical disciplines, both
natural and behavioural. I do not claim that these norms are universal, that
science cannot be defined otherwise, or that research not in line with them
is “unscientific” in any absolute sense of the word. Institutional measures for norm
enforcement How does the
scientific community make sure that individual members of the community
comply with its norms? Firstly, through training. When scientists are
trained, their instructors teach them not only theory and facts collected by
other scientists, but also research methods which have been designed to
implement scientific norms, in particular by raising their awareness with
concepts such as validity and reliability and with tools such as inferential
statistics. Students are thus socialized into these norms over several years
of training. In some disciplines, such socialization starts during their
undergraduate studies. In others, it only starts at graduate level. In all
cases, it extends up to doctoral, and post-doctoral/habilitation level (the habilitation
has been institutionalized in some countries as a post-doctoral qualification
which gives access to the function of doctoral studies supervisor and which
is a prerequisite to full professorship). An
interesting feature of the scientific community is that it institutionalizes
tests of a sort for its members every time they want to publish results of
their work in a reputable journal through peer-reviewing: a text submitted
for publication is read critically by other members of the community who
assess it and make comments and recommendations, in particular in favour or
against its publication with or without corrections. The
scientific community has also made publication a vital part of the
scientists' career, thus helping enforce the collective and communicative
norms of science. Both the reputation and the chances of scientists to be
promoted at university and research institutions are to a large extent
determined by the number and quality of papers they manage to publish, in
particular in reputable journals. All these
institutional measures combine to create considerable pressure on members of
the community to comply with the norms throughout their career. The liberal arts paradigm and the
empirical science paradigm If my memory
serves me right, the concept of “science” was never raised as an issue during
my undergraduate and graduate studies in mathematics. Neither was the concept
of “research methods”, which I encountered when I became a student of
sociology. Many years later, when I migrated into TS, I found that both were
central issues in the discipline. Some TS
scholars who come from established empirical disciplines such as psychology
or neurophysiology tend to do research in compliance with the norms of the “scientific
method”. I will refer to this type of research, sometimes mistakenly assumed
to be characteristic of the natural sciences only, as the “Empirical Science
Paradigm” (ESP). Other TS scholars come from a humanities background and tend
to do research somewhat differently, in what I will refer to here as the
"Liberal Arts Paradigm" (LAP). The Empirical Science Paradigm is
demanding in terms of caution, of systematicity and
of explicitness. By requiring individual authors to observe rigorously the 8 norms
of the “scientific method”, it attempts to prevent authors from publishing
claims without a relatively solid basis. The Liberal Arts Paradigm shares
some of the norms, but allows authors to make claims that are not the only
logical consequence of facts used to make the inference, to make them without
informing the readers of the exact facts and methods used to make the
inferences, and to make them without making sure that all relevant data have
been used and point in the same direction. I have found
it sociologically counterproductive to try to determine which of the two is
more “scientific” or which is more efficient to explore the world. Clearly,
each has its advantages and its limitations: for instance, while ESP draws
inferences more rigorously at the individual level, LAP can correct
misperceptions through collective discussion, and gives scholars more freedom
to express useful insights which cannot be tested through empirical methods. The important
fact to remember is that the two paradigms are distinct and may lead people
with the same understanding of a situation to express their views
differently. ESP scholars tend to only make claims which they can
substantiate, while LAP scholars tend to also make claims based on what they
feel intuitively. Misunderstandings in the literature can be explained by authors’
failure to take into account this inter-paradigmatic gap (see for instance Pöchhacker’s chapter 11 and Gile’s
response in chapter 13 of Schäffner, Christina
(ed). 2004. Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Clevedon, "Scientific facts" Is there
anything special about “facts” as they are produced by science (in the sense
of the ESP as explained in previous contributions on this page), as opposed
to facts collected, presented or asserted outside of science? Are they more
accurate, more reliable, more comprehensive in covering a given portion of
reality, say translation process, translation quality, the translators'
personality, etc.? Sometimes they are, if the same phenomenon has been the
object of scientific enquiry by many scientists for a long time. However,
this is not necessarily the case. Three reasons are given here by way of
illustration: When
scientists start investigating a phenomenon, they often have a theory which
they seek to prove. This may (inter alia)
make them sensitive to some parts of reality and less so to others. Thus, they
may misinterpret reality and “see” facts where other scientists with different
theories would “see” other facts. Another
reason why scientific “facts” are not always reliable is the limited quality
of tools used to collect them, be they physical tools (optical, electronic or
otherwise) or intellectual tools such as observation grids, mathematical
calculation methods, etc. Thirdly,
science is systematic, and may therefore look at specific parts of the
phenomenon under study gradually rather than study it holistically. It may
therefore take a lot of time before it covers all its important facets. In
contrast, non-scientists who are in daily contact with the phenomenon may
have deep intuitive knowledge of the same facets. If so, why
should one look to science to provide facts to explore the world or provide
applications? The one essential advantage of science in this respect appears
in the long term. Scientific facts are produced in compliance (to the best
possible extent) with scientific norms that seek to reduce misperceptions and
to correct errors and distortions through collective efforts, including
criticism. Through this self-correction process, the factual basis collected
and published in the literature eventually becomes increasingly accurate and
reliable, whereas non-scientific facts may remain at the same level of
reliability for a very long time. However, in order for the process to take
its appropriate course, it is important that scientific norms be complied
with. Qualitative and Quantitative
Research and Empirical Translation Studies Empirical
research is based on data systematically derived from perception and
observation of aspects of reality. In a research project, data collection,
analysis and interpretation of the data entail choices as to the different
methods, techniques and procedures which might be the most promising. In TS,
many different quantitative and qualitative methods are used. Quantitative
methods are based on and proceed from the researcher's ideas and hypotheses
about observed dimensions as well as calculable and measurable categories.
Qualitative methods are based on interpretations of reports from the
experiences and/or actions of individuals. Where focus in quantitative
research is on relations between a few isolated variables in larger samples,
focus in qualitative research is on relations between many variables that are
investigated in smaller samples. Both quantitative and qualitative methods
have advantages and limitations, but each mode of research gives its
contribution in the attempt to increase knowledge. If we, for example,
examine a human body, we can measure height, weight, foot size, blood
pressure etc. But as soon as we have to describe a person's complexion, hair
colour, feelings or perception of pain, we have to rely on interpretations
and reports that are based on experience. The choice of
qualitative and/or quantitative methods has to be taken in relation to the
particular research issue(s) under study. Sometimes quantitative methods can
be used, like for example in TS, investigating the length of pauses taken or
the number of key strokes made during translation processes; in other cases,
purely qualitative methods are useful, for example in reports on translation
problems or the personal involvement of the translator during the translation
process. However, as qualitative data can in many cases be coded and counted, and as quantitative data and results always need
to be interpreted and explained, both aspects will always be present. In TS,
quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in a variety of combinations
and triangulations. There is no universally "best way" of combining
methods. Qualitative research, methods and
data Qualitative
research is "any type of research that produces findings not arrived at
by statistical procedures or other means of quantification"
(Strauss/Corbin: 10). It is indepth investigation
of phenomena, taking as many variables into consideration as possible. It is
interpretive, employing often naturalistic approaches to people's lives,
experiences, emotions, behaviour, as well as cultural phenomena, social or
political interaction, etc. It is "multimethod
in focus" and an attempt "to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena
in terms of the meanings people bring to them" (Denzin/Lincoln
1994: 2). The
assumption in qualitative research is that a person who experiences or
perceives a phenomenon can also give the most precise description of it. Data in
qualitative research are derived from a variety of empirical material, such
as observations and explanations from personal perception, case studies,
field notes, life stories, diaries, interviews, questionnaires, all kinds of
texts and documents, as well as films or videotapes. Accordingly, a wide
range of interconnected methods is used in an attempt to explore the
complexity of a phenomenon holistically, because it is assumed that the whole
is more than the sum of its parts. In TS, the
most popular qualitative methods are introspective methods, such as
think-aloud (TA), retrospection, interviews, questions and questionnaires.
Using these methods, researchers hope to increase knowledge about, for
example, translators' intentions, problems, strategies, decisions, attitudes
and preferences. By investigating translation processes, for example,
observers can register pauses; although why the translator stops writing and
what he/she thinks during the pause, observers do not know. They have to rely
on individual reports and interpret what the translators tell them. References Qualitative research in TS - interdisciplinarity + intermethodology Qualitative
research is based on subjective reports, explanations and interpretations. In
TS, we need qualitative methods, but we cannot make do with only specific,
private findings that cannot be generalized. According to Gile (this
website), "our perception of both 'reality' around us and other people's
statements is distorted and limited by our sensory and cognitive
limitations". Thus, the question is: how can we push back these
limitations and follow the norms of the so-called scientific method,
especially no. 4., according to the aspiration of
objectivity? In other words, how can we, using qualitative methods, move from
the individual, subjective level, represented in individual reports and
interpretations, to a level of, if not objectivity, then at least
subject-independency or inter-subjectivity? Especially regarding the
fundamental scientific problem that data have to be gathered and interpreted
by an observer, we also have to ask the question: how can bias from
observers' effects, i.e. his/her interests, prejudices and attitudes, be
minimized or avoided? Additional
questions arise due to the complexity of the field "translation".
In many projects, the connected whole has to be taken into consideration,
because the experimental conditions are complex situations with subjects and
their multifarious individual backgrounds. How can we take such complex
situations with many variables into consideration without renouncing the
possibility of obtaining results that can be comprehended and perhaps
replicated by other scholars? Answers can be found in interdisciplinarity,
and especially in intermethodology. Translation
in itself is an interdiscipline (Snell-Hornby 1986: 18), in the sense that the complex
phenomenon consists of inseparably connected aspects from different
disciplines like linguistics, culture, communication and terminology. In TS,
these disciplines are always relevant and thus an inherent part of the
research issue translation. But interdisciplinarity can also be understood differently,
i.e. as an attempt to adopt methods and ideas from other disciplines bearing
some resemblance to the multifaceted TS. Disciplines like psychology,
sociology, cognitive sciences and health care share our questions as to
research methods, because they also deal with complex issues involving
individuals' attitudes, behaviour and reports. This kind of interdisciplinarity means that research issues, apart
from and in addition to the usually "inseparable disciplines", can
be investigated from different angles, using knowledge, methods, tools and
techniques from different paradigms and disciplines, which at first glance
might seem to have little in common with translation. Qualitative methods
are used in many disciplines in social sciences, psychology, human sciences
and also in natural sciences. Especially in approaches close to empirical
research, such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, psychology of
perception and consciousness studies, great efforts have been made to
accommodate qualitative research to some "scientific" norms; a
balancing act between the special purpose and conditions of qualitative
research on the one hand, and the requirements of natural sciences as to
exactness, reliability, validity and credibility on the other hand. These
empirical approaches from other disciplines provide us with useful
discussions, attitudes, techniques and procedures. Most important for TS are:
precise and transparent description, reflective attitude, communication
techniques, coding procedures and combinations and triangulations of methods
and data. References Contracts with publishers -
Fundamentals As authors of
papers and monographs and editors of collective volumes, we are required to
sign contracts with publishers. Such contracts are necessary not only to set
out the precise duties and rights of all parties to the agreement, but also
to protect them. Actually, since academic books in TS have a limited market
and royalties never amount to huge sums, such protection is not essential for
authors/editors. It can be much more important for the publishers, who could
be taken to court by other publishers for violating copyrights and have to
pay large sums. Out of honesty and out of respect for publishers who often
take financial risks when publishing our work, copyright clauses should be
taken seriously and observed. On the other
hand, there is no reason why scholars should grant exclusive copyrights
forever to the publisher. Depending on the book or the paper, the publisher
may make virtually all of the sales within 5 years from the date of
publication and lose very little if the product is distributed for free
afterwards. For the scholar’s career, it may be important to be able to
distribute his/her article for a far longer time. Why not change the terms of
the contract proposed by the publisher, for instance by introducing the
possibility for the author to put her/his paper online on her/his personal
website, either from the time of publication or a few years after the date of
publication of the hard copy? A contract is
not the law. It is a commitment by two or more parties, and can be and should
be negotiated until its terms meet the interests of all parties. Publishers
find it convenient to propose a standard contract, with standard clauses,
drafted by lawyers who have in mind the interests of their client (the
publisher), not the interests of individual scholars. Some provisions in
standard contracts (provided by one party) are unjustified and entail
unacceptable risks to the other party. Examples will be given in another
contribution on this site. Many people disregard them, saying that it is
unlikely that they will be implemented. Just as unlikely as an accident in
which you might injure someone and have to pay huge amounts in damages. Do
you conclude from that that you can drive your car without taking out an
insurance policy? Insurance costs money – negotiating changes in a
contract before it is signed does not. There is no reason why scholars should
accept standard contracts as they are. They can and should read them
carefully, and negotiate changes in provisions which they do not like. In my
experience, publishers have often been reasonable about it.
|