КОГНІТИВНЕ НАВАНТАЖЕННЯ ТА ТРИВАЛІСТЬ ПРОЦЕСУ ПЕРЕКЛАДУ  СИНЕСТЕЗІЙНИХ МЕТАФОР ЗА ДАНИМИ ЕКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНОЇ  МЕТОДИКИ «РЕЄСТРАЦІЯ НАТИСКУ КЛАВІАТУРИ»

O. O. Zhulavska

doi:10.26661/2414-1135-2025-99-5

O. O. Zhulavska Sumy State University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3132-6877

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2025-99-5

Keywords: synesthetic metaphor, keystroke logging (KSL) cognitive model, translation strategies, cognitive complexity

Abstract

The article is devoted to an experimental study of translating synesthetic metaphors from English into Ukrainian using the “Keystroke Logging” (KSL) method. The study aims to identify the influence of the cognitive model underlying a synesthetic metaphor on the complexity of its translation, as well as to establish translation strategies and cognitive operations used in translating such metaphors. The study used a corpus of fragments of literary texts containing synesthetic metaphors, which are classified according to the type of cognitive model: culturally convergent, culturally divergent, and original. The participants in the experiment were translators with varying levels of experience, divided into three groups. Analysis of log files made it possible to track the time spent, the number and duration of pauses, the frequency of returns to previous versions of the translation, the number of edits, and the cognitive operations selected (preservation, replacement, compensation, elimination). The results showed that the translation of original metaphors requires the most significant cognitive effort, which is confirmed by both quantitative indicators of time and edits, as well as the results of a survey of participants. Culturally convergent models proved the least problematic, indicating conceptual compatibility’s importance in conveying metaphorical meaning. The most frequently used cognitive operation was preservation, indicating the translators’ desire to preserve the metaphorical nature of the image. The analysis also revealed differences in the number of translation options proposed depending on the group, indicating individual styles of processing metaphorical constructions. The article contributes to understanding the cognitive complexity of translating non-standard figurative structures. It can serve as a basis for further interdisciplinary research in translation studies, psycholinguistics, and cognitive linguistics.

References

1. Alves F., Pagano A., Da Silva I.A.L. A new window on translators’ cognitive activity: methodological issues in the combined use of eye tracking, key logging and retrospective protocols. Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research. 1st ed. Samfund-slitteratur, 2009.
2. Alves F., Pagano A., Neumann S., Steiner E., Hansen-Schirra S. Translation units and grammatical shifts. American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series. 2010. P. 109–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.07alv.
3. Angelone E. Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. Translation and Cognition. 2010. P. 17–40. John Benjamins Publishing.
4. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). (n.d.). COCA. URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (дата звернення: 06.02.2025).
5. Doerr A. All the Light We Cannot See: A Novel. Reprint. New York : Scribner, 2014.
6. Day S. (1996). Synesthesia and Synesthetic Metaphors. PSYCHE, 2(32), 1–19. URL: http://www.daysyn.com/Day1996.pdf.
7. Harris J. Chocolat. Anchor Canada, 2010.
8. Heilmann A., Neumann S. Dynamic pause assessment of keystroke logged data for the detection of complexity in translation and monolingual text production. International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2016. P. 98–103. URL: https://aclanthology.org/W16-4111/.
9. Jakobsen A.L. Logging target text production with Translog / G. Hansen (Ed.). Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Samfundslitteratur, 1999.
10. Kovalenko L., Martynyuk A. English container metaphors of emotions in Ukrainian translations. Advanced Education. 2018. № 5(10). P. 190–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.142723.
11. Kövecses Z. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2010. (Original work published 2002).
12. Kovecses Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, USA, n.d.
13. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. 1st ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1980.
14. Lakoff G., Turner M. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. 1st ed. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
15. Läubli S., Germann U. Statistical modelling and automatic tagging of human translation processes. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. 2015. P. 155–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_8.
16. Qassem M., Thowaini B.M.A. Cognitive processes and translation quality: Evidence from key-stroke-logging software. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2023. Vol. 52, № 5. P. 1589–1604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-09964-1.
17. Qian X. Novice, paraprofessional, and professional translators’ strategy use in Chinese-English translation processes: retrospective reflections, concurrent screen-capturing, and key-stroke logging. 2017. URL: http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/8525.
18. Schäffner C. Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics. 2004. Vol. 36, № 7. P. 1253–1269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012.
19. Serbina T., Neumann S., Niemietz P. Development of a keystroke logged translation corpus. New Directions in Corpus-Based Translation Studies / Eds. Federico Zanettin, C. Fantinuoli. Language Science Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b76.64.
20. Strik Lievers, F. Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. Functions of Language, 22(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.1.04str, 2015.
21. Strik-Lievers, F. Synaesthetic Metaphors in translation. In V. Piunno & R. Simone (Eds.), Studi e saggi linguistici (pp. 43–68). ETS. https://doi.org/10.4454/ssl.v54i1.149, 2017.
22. Swar O., Mohsen M. Students’ cognitive processes in L1 and L2 translation: Evidence from a keystroke logging program. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022. Vol. 31, № 10. P. 6696–6711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2043386.
23. Tartt D. The Secret History. New York : Alfred A Knopf, 1992.
24. Tartt D. The Goldfinch: A Novel. Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Boston : Back Bay Books, 2015.
25. Williams J.M. Synaesthetic Adjectives: A Possible Law of Semantic Change. Language, 1976. 52(2), 461. https://doi.org/10.2307/412571
26. Zhulavska O.O. Reconstruction of synesthetic metaphors in English-Ukrainian translations as the main translational decision within the foreignizing strategy. Nova Filolohiia. 2020. № 1(80). P. 185–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2020-80-1-29.
27. Zhulavska O., Martynyuk A. Linguacultural isomorphism / anisomorphism and synesthetic metaphor translation procedures. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research. 2023. Vol. 15, № 1. P. 275–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.115201.2023.a14.
28. Zhulavska O., Kulish V., Chernyk M. Adding synesthetic metaphors in English-Ukrainian translations of fiction. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics. 2024. Vol. 11, № 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2024.11.1.zhu.
29. Ребрій О.В. Сучасні концепції творчості у перекладі. Харків : ХНУ імені В.Н. Каразіна, 2012. URL: https://foreign-languages.karazin.ua/resources/a28dc3bfe2522ad80245ccdf2ad02789. pdf.

COGNITIVE DEMAND AND TIME SPENT ON TRANSLATING SYNESTHETIC METAPHORS BASED ON “KEYSTROKE LOGGING” EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY DATA

Abstract

References