10
and the problem indicators proposed by Krings just the same as what Fransiska, the previous researcher, uses.
2. Tirkkonen-Condit’s “Uncertainty in Translation Processes”
Tirkkonen-Condit’s research paper purposes are to show how uncertainty manifests itself in translation processes and to argue that translators might in fact
have identifiable patterns of uncertainty management. In order to achieve the goals of the research, she undergoes a set of procedures, i.e. 1 to identify
particular processing phenomena in the six translators’ protocols as well as the uncertainty phenomena which seem to appear in connection with the processing
phenomena, 2 to describe how uncertainty is attached to the identified processing phenomena, and 3 to sketch translator profiles designed to reveal
individual and shared patterns of uncertainty management. Such research is conducted based on the previous research on translation
processes recommending that proficiency in translation encompasses tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Meanwhile, Tirkkonen-Condit argues that tolerance of
ambiguity and uncertainty is needed in translation for reconciling the optimal with what is feasible. It is due to the fact that, theoretically, the optimal translation is
“seldom feasible within the physical confines of everyday translation assignments” Tirkkonen-Condit, 2000: 123. Additionally, she claims that the
capability to cope with such ambiguity and uncertainty is needed to be a proficient translator.
Tirkkonen-Condit’s analysis of processing and uncertainty has the aim of revealing how goals and means are reconciled in the individual problem-solving
11
instances which account for the ultimate TT generation and how uncertainty phenomena are attached to these instances. In doing so, she employs six
translators’ protocols taken from twenty TAPs originating from four experiments conducted by Tirkkonen-Condit, Jääskeläinen, and P
ö
ntinen and Romanov at Savonlinna in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s in which she confines her analysis
to protocols that represent the high-quality professional performance. Two of these translators render a text from Finnish into English, whereas four other
translators render from English into Finnish. After achieving the aims of the study, Tirkkonen-Condit concludes that
translators tend to produce tentative solutions throughout translation processes. The patterns of their uncertainty management, from all of the six protocols, are
similar, which are “to ponder on each tentative solution in turn; to produce justifications or endorsements; to subject them to audition; or to postpone them”
Tirkkonen-Condit, 2000: 141. The things that make their patterns dissimilar are their final decisions to select one or other solutions. Moreover, Tirkkonen-Condit
explains that the mere fact that a translator is prepared to postpone a solution or to
produce several tentative solutions without endorsing any one of them as a final solution shows that he or she can tolerate a situation in which a
decision is pending for the time being. Similarly, when a translator verbalises ignorance or uncertainty in response to a problem situation,
this verbalisation serves as a marker of a processing phenomenon i.e. problem and as a marker of uncertainty 2000: 141.
Tirkkonen-Condit’s study contributes to the current study by supplying essential evidence that translators indicate their uncertainties in performing
translation tasks and solving problems during translation processes. It is shown by
12
her analysis of specific processing occurrences in the six translators’ protocols as well as the uncertainty occurrences and her analysis of descriptions of how
uncertainty is attached to the identified processing occurrences. The first difference lies on the subjects of the study. The subjects of Tirkkonen-Condit’s
study are professional translators. However, the subjects of the current study are university students. The second difference lies on the methods used to gather the
data. The researcher of the present study applies not only the TAP but also SRM. Tirkkonen-Condit, on the other hand, only employs the TAP.
3. Jääskeläinen’s “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies on
