Text-production tasks at the keyboard

References

1. Anthony, Laurence
   2014 AntConc (version 3.4.3). Tokyo: Waseda University. Available fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
   [Google Scholar]
2. Baker, Mona
   1993 Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, edited byMona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
   https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
3. Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, and Maja Milicevic
   2016 From EPIC to EPTIC — Exploring simplification in interpreting and translation from an intermodal perspective. InTarget28 (1): 61–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/target.28.1.03ber
   https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
4. Chenoweth, N. Ann., and John R. Hayes
   2001 Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. InWritten Communication18 (1): 80–98. New York: Sage Publications. 10.1177/0741088301018001004
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004 [Google Scholar]
5. Chukharev-Hudilainen, Evgheny
   2014 Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. InJournal of Writing Research6 (1): 61–84. 10.17239/jowr‑2014.06.01.3
   https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.01.3 [Google Scholar]
6. da Silva, Igor Antônio Lourenço
   2015 On a more robust approach to triangulating retrospective protocols and key logging in translation process research. InPsycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting, edited byAline Ferreira, and John W. Schwieter, 175–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.115.08sil
   https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.08sil [Google Scholar]
7. Dam-Jensen, Helle, and Carmen Heine
   2013 Writing and translation process research: Bridging the gap. InJournal of Writing Research5 (1): 89–101. 10.17239/jowr‑2013.05.01.4
   https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.4 [Google Scholar]
8. Dam-Jensen, Helle, Carmen Heine and Iris Schrijver
   2019 The nature of text production – Similarities and differences between writing and translation. InAcross Languages and Cultures20 (2): 155–172. Budapest: AK Journals. 10.1556/084.2019.20.2.1
   https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2019.20.2.1 [Google Scholar]
9. Deane, Paul D., Amanda Roth, Anna Litz Vishal Goswami, Fred Steck, Mahlet Lewis, and Theresa Richter
   2018 Behavioral differences between retyping, drafting, and editing: A writing process analysis. Research Memorandum No. RM-18-06. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Degenhardt, Marion
    2006 CAMTASIA and CATMOVIE: Two digital tools for observing, documenting and analysing writing processes of university students. InWriting and digital media, edited byLuuk van Waes, Mariëlle Leijten, and Chris M. Neuwirth, 180–188. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
11. González Fernández, César A.
    2023 What do rendering options tell us about the translating mind? Testing the choice network analysis hypothesis. PhD dissertation, University of Bologna.
12. Grabowski, Joachim
    2008 The internal structure of university students’ keyboard skills. InJournal of Writing Research1 (1): 27–52. 10.17239/jowr‑2008.01.01.2
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.2 [Google Scholar]
13. Halverson, Sandra L. and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
    2019 Default translation in the wild. Paper presented at theEST 9th Congress 2019, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, 9–13 September 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Heilmann, Arndt, and Stella Neumann
    2016 Dynamic pause assessment of keystroke logged data for the detection of complexity in translation and monolingual text production. InProceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC), 98–103.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2005 Investigating expert translators – processing knowledge. InKnowledge Systems and Translation (Text, Translation, Computational Processing), edited byHelle V. Dam, Jan Engberg, and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 173–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110924305.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924305.173 [Google Scholar]
16. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    2011 Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. InMethods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Edited byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild and Elisabet Tiselius, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.06jak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.06jak [Google Scholar]
17. Jettmarová, Zuzana
    2011 Editor’s introduction to the English edition. InJiří Levý. The Art of Translation, XV–XXVI. Translated byPatrick Corness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. InLexicography1 (1): 7–36. Berlin: Spinger. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40607-014-0009-9
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kumpulainen, Minna
    2015 On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research. InTranslation & Intepreting7 (1): 47–58.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Immonen, Sini
    2006 Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. InTarget18 (2): 313–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/target.18.2.06imm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.06imm [Google Scholar]
21. Immonen, Sini, and Jukka Mäkisalo
    2010 Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. InHermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business23 (44): 45–61. 10.7146/hjlcb.v23i44.97266
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v23i44.97266 [Google Scholar]
22. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Laviosa, Sara
    1998a Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. InMeta43 (4): 557–570. 10.7202/003425ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003425ar [Google Scholar]
24. Laviosa, Sara
    1998b The English Comparable Corpus. A Resource and a Methodology. InUnity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, edited byLynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kenny, and Jennifer Pearson, 101–112. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Leijten, Mariëlle, Eric Van Horenbeeck, and Luuk Van Waes
    2019 Analysing keystroke logging data from a linguistic perspective. InObserving Writing. Insights from Keystroke Logging and Handwriting, 71–95. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes
    2013 Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze writing processes. InWritten Communication30 (3): 358–392. New York: Sage Publications. 10.1177/0741088313491692
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692 [Google Scholar]
27. Leijten, Mariëlle, Luuk Van Waes, Karen Schriver, and John R. Hayes
    2014 Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital resources. InJournal of Writing Research5 (3): 285–337. 10.17239/jowr‑2014.05.03.3
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3 [Google Scholar]
28. Levý, Jiří
    1967 Translation as a decision process. InTo Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday1171–1182. Den Haag-Paris: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lindgren, Eva, Yvonne Knospe, and Kirk P. H. Sullivan
    2019 Researching writing with observational logging tools from 2006 to the Present. InObserving Writing. Insights from Keystroke Logging and Handwriting, 1–19. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004392526_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392526_002 [Google Scholar]
30. Lindgren, Eva, Mariëlle Leijten, and Luuk Van Waes
    2011 Adapting to the reader during writing. Written Language & Literacy14: (2) 188–223. 10.1075/wll.14.2.02lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.2.02lin [Google Scholar]
31. Mead, Peter
    2005 Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. InThe Interpreters’ Newsletter131: 39–63. https://hdl.handle.net/10077/2469
    [Google Scholar]
32. Medimorec, Srdan, and Evan F. Risko
    2017 Pauses in written composition: On the importance of where writers pause. InReading and Writing30 (6): 1267–1285. 10.1007/s11145‑017‑9723‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7 [Google Scholar]
33. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Matthias Apfelthaler
    2022 The task segment framework. InTranslation & Interpreting. Special issue on Probing the process in Cognitive Translation Studies: Towards more integrative research practices, guest-edited byAna María Rojo López and Marina Ramos Caro, 14 (2): 8–31. 10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a02
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.114202.2022.a02 [Google Scholar]
34. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and José M. Cardona Guerra
    2019 Translating in fits and starts: Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes. InPerspectives27 (4): 525–551. New York: Sage Publications. 10.1080/090776X.2018.1531897
    https://doi.org/10.1080/090776X.2018.1531897 [Google Scholar]
35. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and César A. González Fernández
    2021 Cognitive translatology: A primer, revisited. In语言、翻译与认知 [Studies in Language, Translation & Cognition] 11: 131–165, ISBN9787521326949.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de León
    2018 Fascinatin’ rhythm—and pauses in translators’ cognitive processes. InHermes571: 29–47. 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192 [Google Scholar]
37. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Christian Olalla-Soler
    2022 Translating is not (only) problem solving. InThe Journal of Specialised Translation381: 3–31.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Puerini, Sara
    2021 Typing your mind away. Comparing keylogged tasks with the Task Segment Framework. M.A. thesis, Università di Bologna. https://amslaurea.unibo.it/22899/
    [Google Scholar]
39. Pym, Anthony
    2010 Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Risku, Hanna, Jelena Milošević, and Christina Pein-Weber
    2016 Writing vs. translating: Dimensions of text production in comparison. InReembedding translation process research, edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín, 47–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.128.03ris
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.03ris [Google Scholar]
41. Ronowicz, Eddie
    2005 A report from a pilot study of lexical competence of novice and professional translators. CTIR Working Papers: www.ling.mq.edu.au/translation/CTIR_working_papers.htm
    [Google Scholar]
42. Rosemeyer, Malte, and Scott Schwenter
    2017 Entrenchment and persistence in language change: The Spanish past subjunctive. InCorpus Linguistics and Lingustic Theory15 (1): 167–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0047
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0047 [Google Scholar]
43. Rosenqvist, Simon
    2015 Developing pause thresholds for keystroke logging analysis. B.A. thesis, University of Umea. www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:834468/FULLTEXT01.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
44. Schilperoord, Joost
    1996 It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004458598
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004458598 [Google Scholar]
45. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2007 Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited byDirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Schrijver, Iris, Leona Van Vaerenbergh, Mariëlle Leijten and Luuk Van Waes
    2014 The translator as a writer. Measuring the effect of writing skills on the translation product. InMethods in Writing Process Research5 (3): 285–337. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Editions. 10.17239/jowr‑2014.05.03.3
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3 [Google Scholar]
47. Skehan, Peter
    1998 A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Spelman Miller, Kristyan
    2006 Pausing, productivity and the processing of topic in on-line writing. InComputer keystroke logging and writing, edited byKirk P. H. Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 131–155. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080460932_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080460932_009 [Google Scholar]
49. Toury, Gideon
    1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
50. Youmans, Gilbert
    1990 Measuring lexical style and competence: The type-token vocabulary curve. InStyle24 (4): 584–599. Penn State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Wallot, Sebastian, and Joachim Grabowski
    2013 Typewriting dynamics: What distinguishes simple from complex writing tasks. Researching writing with observational logging tools from 2006 to the present. InEcological Psychology, 25 (3): 267–280. Taylor and Francis Online. 10.1080/10407.413.2013.81051.2
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10407.413.2013.81051.2 [Google Scholar]
52. Van Waes, Luuk, Mariëlle Leijten, and Thomas Quinlan
    2010 Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. InReading and Writing23 (7): 803–834. 10.1007/s11145‑009‑9190‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9190-x [Google Scholar]
53. Wheeldon, Linda R., Mark C. Smith, and Ian A. Apperly
    2011 Repeating words in sentences: effects of sentence structure. InJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition37(5) 1051–1064.
    [Google Scholar]