Résumés
Résumé
Dans quels cas et pour quelles raisons l’expert-traducteur ressent-il un blocage dans la phase de reformulation ? Comment s’y prend-il pour débloquer la situation ? Une analyse des données in vivo de trois professionnelles norvégiennes de la traduction aux prises avec trois énoncés extraits d’un texte original français permet de montrer que la visualisation du sens joue un rôle essentiel dans la démarche cognitive de déblocage.
Mots-clés/Keywords:
- Analyse in vivo de données processuelles,
- visualisation du sens,
- concepts métaphoriques et métonymiques,
- processus complexe de résolution de problèmes de reformulation
Abstract
When and why does the professional translator experience problems when rendering the sense of utterances in his translation? How does he go about solving a reformulation problem? An analysis of on-line process data from three experienced Norwegian professional translators grappling with three utterances in a French original text shows that visualisation plays a key role in problem-solving on the level of reformulation.
Parties annexes
Références
- Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000) : Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads – A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
- Barcelona, A. (2003) : “The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing : Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes”, in Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- Croft, W. (2003) : “The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies”, in Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 161-205.
- Delisle, J. (1984) : L’analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction, Ottawa, Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.
- Ericsson, K. and H. Simon (1993) :Protocol Analysis : Verbal Reports as Data, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
- Gerloff, P. (1986) : “Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive process : Talk aloud protocols of translation”, in House, J. and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Tübingen, Gunter Narr, pp. 243-262.
- Gibbs, R.W. (1994) : The Poetics of Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Goossens, L. (2003) : “Metaphtonymy : the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action”, in Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 349-377.
- Jakobsen, L. A. (1999) : “Logging time delay in translation”, in Hansen, G. (ed.), Probing the Process in Translation : Methods and Results, Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School, pp. 73-101.
- Jakobsen, L. A. (2000) : “Understanding the Process of Translation : The Contribution of Time-Delay Studies”, in Englund Dimitrova, B. (ed.), Översättning och tolkning, ASLA :s skriftserie 12, pp. 155-172.
- Jensen, A. (2000) : The Effects of Time on Cognitive Processes and Strategies in Translation, Ph.D. thesis, Copenhagen Business School.
- Jääskelaïnen, R. (1987) : What happens in a Translation Process : Think-aloud Protocols of Translation, Joensuu, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, pp. 87-98.
- Jääskeläinen, R. (2000) : Tapping the Process – An Explorative Study of the Cognitive and Affective Factors Involved in Translating, Joensuu, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.
- Krings, H. P. (1986) : “Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2)”, in House, J. and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlingual and intercultural communication, Tübingen, Gunter Narr, pp. 263-275.
- Lakoff, G. and M. Turner (1989) : More than Cool Reason. A Field to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980) : Metaphors We Live By, Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G. (1996) : « Les universaux de la pensée métaphorique : la question de la variation dans l’expression linguistique », actes du colloque Diversité des langues et représentations cognitives, Paris, <http://www.ltm.ens.fr/chercheurs/lassegue/traductions1.%20trad.ling.html>.
- Langacker, R. (1991) : Concept, Image, and Symbol – The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
- Lederer, M. (1981) : La traduction simultanée – fondements théoriques, Paris, Lettres Modernes Minard.
- Lederer, M. (1994) : La traduction aujourd’hui – Le modèle interprétatif, Paris, Hachette.
- Lörscher, W. (1986) : “Linguistic aspects of translation processes : Towards an analysis of translation performance”, in House, J. and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlingual and intercultural communication, Tübingen, Gunter Narr, pp. 277-292.
- Panther, K.-U. and G. Radden (eds.) (1999) : Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg (eds.) (2003) : Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg (2004) : The Role of conceptual Metonymy in Meaning Construction, <http://www.metaphorik.de/06/pantherthornburg.htm>.
- Radden, G. (2003) : “How metonymic are metaphors ?”, in Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75-111.
- Rydning, A. F. (2002) : « Concept métaphorique et expression métaphorique dans une perspective cognitiviste », in Dørum, H. (ed.), Romansk Forum 16-2, pp. 723-733.
- Rydning, A. F. (2004) : « Le défi du procédé synecdoquien en traduction », Meta 49-4, pp. 856-875.
- Rydning, A. F. (2005) : « Étude de l’effort cognitif du traducteur lié à la reformulation de métaphores », in Israël, F. et M. Lederer (eds), La théorie interprétative de la traduction. Convergences, mises en perspective, Paris, Lettres modernes Minard, pp. 265-295.
- Schilperoord, J. (1996) : It’s about Time : Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
- Séguinot, C. (1989) : “The translation process : An experimental study”, in Séguinot, C. (ed.), The Translation Process, Toronto, H.G. Publications, pp. 21-53.
- Taylor, J. (2003) : “Category extension by metonymy and metaphor”, in Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 323-347.
- Thornburg, L. and K.-U. Panther (1997) : “Speech act metonymies”, in Liebert, W-A., Redeker, G. and L. Waugh (eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 205-219.
- Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989) : “Professional vs Non-professional translation : A think-aloud protocol study”, in Séguinot, C. (ed.) The Translation Process, Toronto, H.G. Publications, pp. 73-85.
- Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2002) : “Process Research : State of the Art and Where to Go Next ?”, Across Languages and Cultures 3-1, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 5-19.
10.7202/009786ar