Göpferich, Susanne, Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Mees, Inger M., eds. (2009): Behind the Mind. Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen Studies in Language 37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press, 257 p.

This volume is the second of a two-part series dedicated to describing the state-of-the-art in cognitive explorations of translation processes. The first volume (Looking at Eyes) was published in 2008. In this second volume, the focus shifts from eye-tracking as a promising methodology for studying translation behavior to methods, models, and results that can be or soon will be directly applied to optimizing translator training, translation research, and computer-assisted translation tools. Göpferich opens the volume (p. 11-37) by proposing two important models: 1) a model of translation competence based on the synthesis of several fundamental sub-competences, and 2) a model of competence acquisition. Both models are central to TransComp, a longitudinal empirical study intended to document the competence development of a cadre of students over a three-year period. The study uses a triangulated methodology of keystroke logging, screen recording, think-aloud and retrospective verbal protocols, and surveys to monitor students in the study. TransComp represents a major scientific contribution because it provides a clear template for how longitudinal skill development research should be conducted and it promises to make all of its research materials, from source texts to protocols, readily available online to the process research community. The TransComp project will track three central competences: 1) strategic competence, 2) tools and research competence, and 3) translation routine activation competence. Competency in these three areas, according to the author, distinguishes the trained translator from the untrained bilingual when it comes to language mediation. In Chapter 2 (p. 38-59), Bayer-Hohenwarter discusses creativity as an indicator of translation competence. Creativity in all skill domains, including translation, is relatively difficult to define. Creative translation behavior is notoriously hard to identify in both translation process and product and is therefore resistant to quantitative methods. The author proposes three primary indicators for establishing an empirical framework for exploring creativity: 1) novelty (uniqueness based on frequency of occurrence in the TransComp corpus), 2) fluency and spontaneity (indicated by the duration of intervals between reading an ST segment and producing a corresponding TT segment), and 3) flexibility. Flexibility is regarded as a hallmark indicator of creativity and is evidenced by the translator’s application of strategic actions: abstraction, modification (modulation), and concretization through explicitation. The use of these strategies in pursuit of novelty is presumed to correlate with increased cognitive effort. Reproduction, the term used for non-creative translation, is assumed to require less cognitive effort. Bayer-Hohenwarter found that professionals often deliberately start out with reproduction and then quickly transition to more creative strategies as they generate multiple intermediate target text options. First year students, on the other hand, often stop at reproduction. They fail to apply any creative strategies and therefore generate fewer intermediate solutions. The result is a lack of novelty and little evidence of flexibility. This article is particularly noteworthy because it is one of the first attempts to apply the creativity literature of cognitive science to translation studies. In Chapter 3 (p. 61-78), Jensen discusses the feasibility of using readability index scores, word frequency, and the density of non-literal language as predictors of not only complexity, but also of difficulty in translation. These three indicators have traditionally been incorporated in gauging the complexity of monolingual texts in terms of reading comprehension. The author emphasizes that complexity, an objective measure, is not to be equated with difficulty, a more subjective measure. Nonetheless, the two measures often overlap in that the level of the former has been shown to predict the level of the latter. The critical question is whether complexity indicators rooted solely in monolingual reading comprehension research can be applied to the study of tasks …