The construct translation strategy

In an attempt to shed light on the apparent imbroglio of definitions and classifications, Jääskeläinen (2010) acknowledges that

’[t]ranslation strategy’ is admittedly one of the elusive concepts in translation studies; sometimes strategies refer to different phenomena, while at other times the same phenomenon is referred to by different names, such as procedures, methods, or tactics – even ‘norms’ are virtually identical to some uses of ‘strategy’. (2010, p. 376)

74 In general, Jääskeläinen distinguishes between definitions from the viewpoint of the translation product (i.e., the target text) and from the viewpoint of the translation process. The former includes constructs like foreignization and domestication (Venuti, 1998) and syntactic, semantic and pragmatic strategies (Chesterman, 1997). The latter, on the other hand, regards translation as a decision making process and comprises a differentiation between strategies as manifestations of problem-solving behavior (e.g., Krings, 1986; Lörscher, 1991) and strategies related to unproblematic translation processes (Jääskeläinen, 1999). Both, product- (foreignization, domestication) and process strategies (problem, non-problem) are further divided into global and local strategies, that is strategies on a macro- and a micro level. Jääskeläinen elaborates that “global strategies contain general guidelines, plans and principles which are used to govern local strategies relating to problem solving and decision making of individual ST items”(2010, p. 380).

Chesterman (1997) adopts a product-oriented approach and refers to strategies as memes which “are widely used by translators and recognized to be standard conceptual tools of the trade” (p. 87). Also Chesterman acknowledges the many diverse definitions and demarcations to similar concepts like “tactics, plans, methods, rules, processes, procedures and principles etc.”(p. 87). However, the fact that the term strategy presents an appropriate tool for discussing translation in general, and translational behavior in particular provides sufficient reason for Chesterman to employ the term (p. 93). He defines strategies as

types of linguistic behaviour: specifically, text-linguistic behaviour. That is, they refer to operations which a translator may carry out during the formulation of the target text (the ‘texting’ process), operations that may have to do with the desired relation between this text and the source text, or with the desired relation between this text and other target texts of the same type. (Chesterman, 1997, p. 89, emphasis in original).

Chesterman proposes a framework comprising three categories along the lines of language form, meaning, and context: syntactic strategies, semantic strategies and pragmatic strategies. All three categories consist of a number of different

75 strategies. The framework is based on the assumption “that strategies are ways in which translators seek to conform to norms. Note: not to achieve equivalence, but simply to arrive at the best version they can think of”(p. 88). Furthermore, Chesterman differentiates between comprehension and production strategies and bases his taxonomy on the latter. His behavioral classification of strategies and its norm-driven focus emphasize therefore sociocultural motivations (external) of translation behavior (norm conformance to, for example, the target language, communication norms etc.)(1997, p. 113), and neglect cognitive factors (internal) like cognitive capacity and cognitive effort. However, there is no clear demarcation between comprehension and production processes, or between internal and external motivations of translation behavior. Production is inherently dependent on comprehension (Shreve, Schäffner, Danks, & Griffin, 1993, p. 24), and sociocultural motivations influence the translation process alongside cognitive preconditions, for example the structure of knowledge or the availability, distribution and extraction of cognitive resources.

Lörscher (1991) discusses the issues of translation strategy at length positioning his definition around the matter of problem-solving. He concludes that “a translation strategy is a potentially conscious procedure for the solution of a problem which an individual is faced with when translating a text segment from one language into another” (p. 76). However, Lörscher’s problem-centered definition is based on his methodological approach to the investigation of translation processes, that is thinking-aloud. The think-aloud method and the resulting think-aloud protocols (TAPs) collect and present oral data by translators about translation processes, which are conscious (otherwise they would not appear in the TAPs) and processed (they might have undergone evaluation processes by the translators before they were uttered. Data elicited by the think-aloud method is assumed to be a direct indicator of translation problems and problem-solving strategies. Furthermore, it is assumed that subconscious processes elicit few or hardly any verbal data during the translation process, because they are inherently subconscious, hidden cognitive processes. Therefore, Lörscher acknowledges that “it seems sensible to limit the empirical investigation of the translation process to those aspects which are connected with the solution of translational problems and which can be documented in and interpreted from the data” (1991, p. 67). Hence, this

76 methodological limitation is reflected in his definition of the construct of translation strategy. This simultaneously implies that subconscious translation processes are non-strategic. Furthermore, since strategic translation behavior, according to Lörscher, is closely linked to problem-solving and conscious processing, it is the language user himself/herself, the translator, who identifies problems and defines strategies, not the researcher (p. 77). Jääskeläinen (1993) criticizes the limitation of strategies to problem-solving and conscious processing. She points to verbalizations of unproblematic translation processes on a global strategic level, which are consciously verbalized by the translator, but not considered problematic. Newer methodological tools, like keylogging and eye-tracking, provide further insights into subconscious and conscious cognitive processes which might be both, problem-related or non-problem-related.

Since the construct of strategy is no longer regarded as attached to problem-solving and conscious processing, the question arises whether another term should be chosen to denote the concept for the purpose of this study. Lörscher (1991) provides a detailed overview of alternative terms like method, plan, rule and tactics (p. 68-69) and their specific distinctions from the term strategy. None of those would fit the aim of the current thesis. Furthermore, this study is designed in comparison to and based on previous studies (e.g., Jensen 2005, Sjørup 2013), which all employ the term strategy, although undiscussed. Jensen employs a pre-defined classification of metaphor translation strategies without discussing the theoretical implications of the construct. The same applies to Sjørup’s study. However, introducing a new term at this stage would likely cause confusion for the reader, and therefore be detrimental to the purpose, aim and argumentation of this thesis. For the purpose of this study, Lörscher’s definition of translation strategy will be employed, but with three crucial alterations:

A translation strategy is a conscious or subconscious local procedure for the translation of linguistic items, which an individual is faced with when translating a text segment from one language into another.

77 Firstly, the centering of the construct strategy around a translation problem has been removed. All translation behavior is thus, in some way or another, assumed to be strategic (cf. the distinction between global and local translation strategies by Jääskeläinen, 2010). Secondly, a translation strategy is no longer assumed to be tied to conscious processing, but is also be applied subconsciously, that is without the translator noticing it or being aware of it.

Thus, the think-aloud method as employed by, for example, Lörscher (1991) does not present itself as an adequate data collection tool for this study, since it does not capture such subconscious translation processes. On the contrary, the changes to Lörscher’s definition of translation strategy incorporated here contribute to the inclusion and acknowledgment of newer methodological data collection tools like keylogging and eye-tracking. Finally, the word local was added to highlight that the analysis focuses on individual source- and target text items, in this case the 47 identified metaphorical expressions in the source text and their respective translations in the Norwegian and German target texts.