1887
image of Shorter than a text, longer than a sentence
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN 1569-9986
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates what effect the length of the source text has both on the translation process and on the translation product. In an eye-tracking and keystroke logging experiment, we compared three conditions, namely full texts, three-sentence sequences and single sentences as source items. The results suggest that translations of single sentences differ significantly from full texts, whereas three-sentence sequences are representative of the full text condition. Therefore, research in process-based translation studies might benefit from using shorter source texts without endangering the ecological validity of experiments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.17122.hei
2018-11-12
2018-12-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, Fabio
    2003Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Couto Vale
    2009 “Probing the Unit of Translation in Time: Aspects of the Design and Development of a Web Application for Storing, Annotating, and Querying Translation Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures10 (2): 251–273. 10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2011 “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: A Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition1: 105–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva
    2014 “Effortful Text Production in Translation: A Study of Grammatical (De)metaphorization Drawing on Product and Process Data.” Translation and Interpreting Studies9 (1): 25–51. 10.1075/tis.9.1.02alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.02alv [Google Scholar]
  5. Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited byGregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.07alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.07alv [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67 (1): 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  7. Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg
    1995 “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society57 (1): 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bursac, Zoran, C. Heath Gauss, David Keith Williams, and David W. Hosmer
    2008 “Purposeful Selection of Variables in Logistic Regression.” Source Code for Biology and Medicine3 (17). www.scfbm.org/content/3/1/17. 10.1186/1751‑0473‑3‑17
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [Google Scholar]
  9. Camblin, C. C., Peter C. Gordon, and Tamara Y. Swaab
    2007 “The Interplay of Discourse Congruence and Lexical Association during Sentence Processing: Evidence from ERPs and Eye Tracking.” Journal of Memory and Language56: 103–128. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carl, Michael
    2012 “Translog – II: A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” InProceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 4108–4112.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer
    eds. 2016New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt L. Jakobsen
    2011 “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal16 (2). translationjournal.net/journal/56taxonomy.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chesterman, Andrew
    2011 “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, edited byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild and Elisabet Tiselius, 23–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.05che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.05che [Google Scholar]
  14. Couto Vale, Daniel
    2017 “What Does a Translator Do When Not Writing?” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited bySilvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hoffmann, 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. da Silva, Igor
    2012(Des)compactação de significados e esforço cognitivo no processo tradutório: Um estudo da metáfora grammatical na construção do texto traduzido. PhD thesisFederal University of Minas Gerais.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, Mark
    2004- BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dragsted, Barbara
    2005 “Segmentation in Translation: Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target17 (1): 49–70. 10.1075/target.17.1.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.1.04dra [Google Scholar]
  18. Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge G. Hansen
    2008 “Comprehension and Production in Translation: A Pilot Study on Segmentation and the Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes.” InLooking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited bySusanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 9–29. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Efron, Bradley
    2010 “Correlated z-Values and the Accuracy of Large-Scale Statistical Estimates.” Journal of the American Statistical Association105 (491): 1042–1055. 10.1198/jasa.2010.tm09129
    https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2010.tm09129 [Google Scholar]
  20. Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
    2005Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    2001 “Literacy and Linguistics: Relationships between Spoken and Written Language.” InAnalysing English in a Global Context, edited byAnne Burns and Caroline Coffin, 181–193. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halverson, Sandra
    2015 “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The Case of ‘Literal Translation’.” Translation Spaces4 (2): 310–340. 10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Jean Nitzke, and Katharina Oster
    2017 “Predicting Cognate Translation.” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited bySilvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hoffmann, 3–22. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmqvist, Kenneth, Marcus Nyström, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, and Joost Van de Weijer
    2011Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jakobsen, Arnt L.
    1999 “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” InProbing the Process in Translation Methods and Results, edited byGyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002 “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” InEmpirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, edited byGyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy
    2016 “Syntactic and Pragmatic Transfer Effects in Reported-Speech Constructions in Three Contact Varieties of English Influenced by Afrikaans.” Language Sciences56: 118–131. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen
    2016lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models: R package. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lmerTest
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mauranen, Anna
    2004 “Corpora, Universals and Interference.” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?edited byAnna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 65–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.07mau [Google Scholar]
  31. McNamee, Roseanne
    2005 ”Regression Modelling and Other Methods to Control Confounding.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine62 (7): 500–506. 10.1136/oem.2002.001115
    https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.001115 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mougeon, Raymond, Terry Nadasdi, and Katherine Rehner
    2005 “Contact-Induced Linguistic Innovations on the Continuum of Language Use: The Case of French in Ontario.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition8 (2): 99–115. 10.1017/S1366728905002142
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002142 [Google Scholar]
  33. Neumann, Stella, Adriana Pagano, Fabio Alves, Pirita Pyykkönen, and Igor da Silva
    2010 “Targeting (De-)metaphorization: Process-Based Insights.” The 22nd ESFCW, Koper, Slovenija, July 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Brien, Sharon
    2009 “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research: Methodological Challenges and Solutions.” InMethodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, edited byInger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 251–266. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Donnell, Michael
    2003RSTTool: An RST Markup Tool. www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pyykkönen, Pirita, and Juhani Järvikivi
    2010 “Activation and Persistence of Implicit Causality Information in Spoken Language Comprehension.” Experimental Psychology57 (1): 5–16. 10.1027/1618‑3169/a000002
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000002 [Google Scholar]
  37. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Radach, Ralph, Lynn Huestegge, and Ronan Reilly
    2008 “The Role of Global Top-Down Factors in Local Eye-Movement Control in Reading.” Psychological Research72 (6): 675–688. 10.1007/s00426‑008‑0173‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0173-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rautenberg, Rosa
    2011(De-)Metaphorization in English-German Translation: A Quantitative Analysis of a Keystroke-Logging Experiment. State examination thesis RWTH Aachen University.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
    2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” InWorkshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation, 29–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Stamenov, Maxim I., Alexander Gerganov, and Ivo D. Popivanov
    2010 “Prompting Cognates in the Bilingual Lexicon: Optimizing Access during Translation.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited byGregory Shreve and Erik Angelone, 323–347. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.17sta
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.17sta [Google Scholar]
  42. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta50 (2): 405–414. 10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  44. Tobii Technology
  45. Toury, Gideon
    2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.17122.hei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.17122.hei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error