Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]

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