1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We assume that visual feedback from the written trace during translation plays an important role in monitoring the emerging translation. In this study, 44 participants translated with and without visual feedback from the target text (TT). Numerous measures were used to explore the differences between the texts that were created in the two conditions and the characteristics of the task performance in the two conditions. The impact of ST-TT semantic and syntactic relationships showed that there were differences on two of three behavioural measures across conditions. In the comparison of features of the translation process, findings show that ST reading times were longer without visual feedback, while increased translational choice (implying more monitoring) affected eye movements on the source text (ST) in the same way in both conditions. We found that, without visual feedback, when faced with more translational options, translators read the ST less linearly. Participants were more likely to look at the TT screen or read the TT the longer they read the ST and the more the more translational options the ST offered, even if the TT window was blank.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00017.sch
2019-03-07
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Couto Vale
    2011 “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: a Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition. 1 (1): 105–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelone, Erik
    2010 “Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management and Metacognitive Problem solving in the Translation Task.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited byG. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.03ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.03ang [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. Harald
    2013 “languageR: Data sets and Functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics”.” Available athttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/languageR/languageR.pdf
  4. Baddeley, Alan
    1986Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2000 “The Episodic Buffer: A New Component of Working Memory?” Trends in Cognitive Science4 (11): 417–423. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2003 “Working Memory and Language: An Overview.” Journal of Communication Disorders36: 189–208. 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2007Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baddeley, A. and Graham Hitch
    1974 “Working memory.” InThe Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Edited byG. H. Bower, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bates, Douglas M., Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using {lme4}.” Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carl, Michael
    2012 “Translog-II : A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” Paper presented at theEighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Istanbul, 21–27May 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted
    2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Corpora, computation, cognition2 (1): 127–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carl, Michael, Martin Kay, and Kristian T. H. Jensen
    2010 “Long-distance Revisions in Drafting and Post-editing.” Paper presented at the11th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, CICLing-2010, Iaşi, Romania, 21–27 March, 2010.
  13. Carl, Michael, and Moritz J. Schaeffer
    2017 “Why Translation Is Difficult: A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation.” Hermes56: 43–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carl, Michael, Moritz J. Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore
    2016 “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database”. InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited byM. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. J. Schaeffer, 13–54. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, Peiyao, Susan C. Bobb, Noriko Hoshino, and Viorica Marian
    2017 “Neural Signatures of Language Co-activation and Control in Bilingual Spoken Word Comprehension.” Brain Research1665: 50–64. doi:  10.1016/j.brainres.2017.03.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2017.03.023 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chenoweth, N. Ann, and John R. Hayes
    2003 “The Inner Voice in Writing.” Written Communication20 (1): 99–118. doi:  10.1177/0741088303253572
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303253572 [Google Scholar]
  17. Degani, Tamar, Anat Prior, Chelsea M. Eddington, Ana B. Arêas da Luz Fontes, and Natasha Tokowicz
    2016 “Determinants of Translation Ambiguity: a Within and Cross-language Comparison.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism6 (3): 290–307. doi:  10.1075/lab.14013.deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14013.deg [Google Scholar]
  18. Dragsted, Barbara
    2010 “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited byG. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 41–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xv.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra [Google Scholar]
  19. Dragsted, Barbara, and Michael Carl
    2013 “Towards a Classification of Translation Styles Based on Eye-tracking and Keylogging Data.” Journal of Writing Research5 (1): 133–158. doi:  10.17239/jowr‑2013.05.01.6
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fox, John, and Jangman Hong
    2009 “Effect Displays in {R} for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the {effects} Package.” Journal of Statistical Software32: 1–24. 10.18637/jss.v032.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v032.i01 [Google Scholar]
  21. Giezen, Marcel R., Henrike K. Blumenfeld, Anthony Shook, Viorica Marian, Karen Emmorey
    2015 “Parallel Language Activation and Inhibitory Control in Bimodal Bilinguals.” Cognition141: 9–25. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grosjean, François
    1997 “The Bilingual Individual.” Interpreting2: 163–187. 10.1075/intp.2.1‑2.07gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.2.1-2.07gro [Google Scholar]
  23. Halverson, Sandra
    2018 “Metalinguistic Knowledge/Awareness/Ability and Translation: Some Questions.” Hermes57: 11–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hayes, John R.
    2012 “Modeling and Remodeling Writing.” Written Communication29 (3): 369–388. 10.1177/0741088312451260
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayes, John R., and N. Ann Chenoweth
    2007 “Working Memory in an Editing Task.” Written Communication24 (4): 283–294. 10.1177/0741088307304826
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307304826 [Google Scholar]
  26. Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter
    1980 “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review87: 329–354. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kellogg, Ronald T.
    1996 “A Model of Working Memory in Writing.” InThe Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications. Edited byC. M. Levy, and S. E. Ransdell, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kitchener, Karen Strohm
    1983 “Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistemic Cognition, a Three-Level Model of Cognitive Processing.” Human Development26: 222–232. 10.1159/000272885
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000272885 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen
    2017 “{lmerTest} Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software82: 1–26. doi:  10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lenth, R.
    2018emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. Available athttps://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Macizo Soria, Pedro, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina
    2006 “Reading for Repetition and Reading for Translation: Do they Involve the Same Processes?” Cognition99: 1–34. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  32. Malakoff, Marguerite, and Kenji Hakuta
    1991 “Translation Skill and Metalinguistic Awareness in Bilinguals.” InLanguage Processing in Bilingual Children. Edited byE. Bialystok, 141–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620652.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620652.009 [Google Scholar]
  33. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2016 “Of Minds and Men—Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2): 351–381. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Olive, Thierry
    2012 “Working Memory in Writing.” InPast, Present and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology. Edited byV. Wise Berninger, 485–503. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Olive, Thierry, Ronald T. Kellogg, and Annie Piolat
    2008 “Verbal, Visual, and Spatial Working Memory Demands during Text Composition.” Applied Psycholinguistics29: 669–687. doi:  10.1017/S0142716408080284
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080284 [Google Scholar]
  36. Olive, Thierry, and Jean-Michel Passerault
    2012 “The Visuospatial Dimension of Writing”. Written Communication29 (3): 326–344. doi:  10.1177/0741088312451111
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451111 [Google Scholar]
  37. Olive, Thierry and Annie Piolat
    2002 “Suppressing Visual Feedback in Written Composition: Effects on Processing Demands and Coordination of the Writing Processes.” International Journal of Psychology37 (4): 209–218. doi:  10.1080/00207590244000089
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590244000089 [Google Scholar]
  38. Oster, Katharina
    2017 “The Influence of Self-monitoring on the Translation of Cognates.” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Edited byS. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, and S. Hofmann, 23–39. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1090948/
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1090948/ [Google Scholar]
  39. Paradis, Michel
    1994 “Toward a Neurolinguistic Theory of Simultaneous Translation: The Framework.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics10: 319–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Prior, Anat, Dhuly Wintner, Brian MacWhinney, and Alon Lavie
    2011 “Translation Ambiguity In and Out of Context.” Applied Psycholinguistics32: 93–111. 10.1017/S0142716410000305
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000305 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rayner, Keith
    1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin124: 372–422. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  42. Reichle, Erik D., Tessa Warren, and Kerry McConnell
    2009 “Using E-Z Reader to Model the Effects of Higher Level Language Processing on Eye Movements During Reading.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review16: 1–21. doi:  10.3758/PBR.16.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Robert, Isabelle S., Jim J. J. Ureel, Aline Remael, and Ayla Rigouts Terryn
    2017 “Conceptualizing Translation Revision Competence: a Pilot Study on the « Fairness and Tolerance » Attitudinal Component.” Perspectives26 (1): 2–23. doi:  10.1080/0907676X.2017.1330894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1330894 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ruiz Navarro, Carmen, Natalia Paredes Jiménez, Pedro Macizo Soria, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina
    2008 “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica128: 490–500. doi:  10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl
    2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process. A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies8 (2): 169–190. doi:  10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” InWorkshop on Human and Computer-assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schaeffer, Moritz J., Michael Carl, and Isabel Lacruz
    2016 “Measuring Cognitive Translation Effort with Activity Units.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing4 (2), 331–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schaeffer, Moritz J., Anke Tardel, Sascha Hofmann, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2019 “Cognitive Effort and Efficiency in Translation Revision”. InQuality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting. Edited byE. Huertas, S. Vandepitte, and E. Iglesias. Hershey: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑5225‑5225‑3.ch010
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schaeffer, Moritz J., Kevin B. Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kirsten Malmkjær
    2017 “Reading for Translation.” InTranslation in Transition. Edited byA. L. Jakobsen, and Bartolomé Mesa Lao, 17–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.133.01sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.133.01sch [Google Scholar]
  50. Shreve, Gregory M., and Isabel Lacruz
    2017 “Aspects of a Cognitive Model of Translation.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited byJ. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 127–143. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sirén, Selja, and Kai Hakkarainen
    2002 “Expertise in Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures3 (1): 71–82. 10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tirkonnen-Condit, Sonja
    2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta50 (2): 405–414. doi:  10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  53. Torrance, Mark, Vibeke Rønneberg, Christer Johansson, and Per H. Uppstad
    2016 “Adolescent Weak Decoders Writing in a Shallow Orthography: Process and Product.” Scientific Studies of Reading20 (5): 375–388. doi:  10.1080/10888438.2016.1205071
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1205071 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00017.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00017.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): co-activation , eye-tracking , keylogging , monitoring and visual feedback
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