View More View Less
  • 1 University of Eastern Finland School of Humanities P.O. Box 111 FIN-80101 Joensuu Finland
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

This is a quantitative study which compares pauses found during translating a text with those found in monolingual text production. The data was collected from 28 professional translators. Each subject wrote an informative presentation in Finnish and a translation from English into Finnish using the Translog keystroke logging software. The processing units of individual subjects were determined by statistically testing which linguistic units differed significantly from the surrounding units with regard to the preceding pause length. Results show that 1) the processing units of individual subjects vary a lot, 2) the processing of monolingual text production does not predict the processing of translation and 3) the most conspicuous differences between translation and monolingual text production seem to appear at the level of syntactic processing.

  • Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D. & Fayol, M. 2007. Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In: Rijlaarsdam, G. (series ed), Torrance, M., van Waes, L. & Galbraith, D. (volume eds) Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 13–29.

    Fayol M. , '', in Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications , (2007 ) -.

  • Englund Dimitrova, B. 2005. Expertise and Explication in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphian: John Benjamins.

    Englund Dimitrova B. , '', in Expertise and Explication in the Translation Process , (2005 ) -.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Englund Dimitrova, B. 2006. Segmentation of the Writing Process of Translation: Experts versus Novices. In: Sullivan, K. P. H. & Lindgren, E. (eds) Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 189–201.

    Englund Dimitrova B. , '', in Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications , (2006 ) -.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. Collage Composition and Communication Vol. 32. 365–387.

    Hayes J. R. , 'A cognitive process theory of writing ' (1981 ) 32 Collage Composition and Communication : 365 -387.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Foulin, J.-N. 1998. To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? Current Psychology of Cognition Vol. 17. No. 3. 601–620.

    Foulin J.-N. , 'To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? ' (1998 ) 17. Current Psychology of Cognition : 601 -620.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Goldman-Eisler, F. 1958. Speech analysis and mental processes. Language and Speech Vol. 1. 59–75.

    Goldman-Eisler F. , 'Speech analysis and mental processes ' (1958 ) 1 Language and Speech : 59 -75.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. Pauses, Clauses, Sentences. Language and Speech Vol. 15. 103–113.

    Goldman-Eisler F. , 'Pauses, Clauses, Sentences ' (1972 ) 15 Language and Speech : 103 -113.

  • Immonen, S. 2006. Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target Vol. 18. No. 2. 313–335.

    Immonen S. , 'Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production ' (2006 ) 18. Target : 313 -335.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Immonen, S. & Mäkisalo, J. 2010. Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. Hermes — Journal of Language and Communication Studies Vol. 44. 45–61.

    Mäkisalo J. , 'Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation ' (2010 ) 44 Hermes — Journal of Language and Communication Studies : 45 -61.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Jakobsen, A. L. & Schou, L. 1999. Translation documentation, version 1.0. In: Hansen, G. (ed) Probing the Process in Translation. Methods and Results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 1–36.

    Schou L. , '', in Probing the Process in Translation. Methods and Results , (1999 ) -.

  • Jakobsen, A. L. 2003. Effects of Think-aloud on Translation Speed, Revision and Segmentation. In: Alves, F. (ed) Triangulating Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 69–95.

    Jakobsen A. L. , '', in Triangulating Translation , (2003 ) -.

  • Jakobsen, A. L. 2005. Investigating expert translators’ processing knowledge. In: ai]Dam, H. V., Engberg, J. & Grezymisch-Arbogast, H. (eds) Knowledge Systems and Translation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 173–189.

    Jakobsen A. L. , '', in Knowledge Systems and Translation , (2005 ) -.

  • Kaufer, D. S., Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. 1986. Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 20. No. 2. 121–140.

    Flower L. , 'Composing written sentences ' (1986 ) 20. Research in the Teaching of English : 121 -140.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Matsuhashi, A. 1981. Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 15. No. 2. 113–134.

    Matsuhashi A. , 'Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production ' (1981 ) 15. Research in the Teaching of English : 113 -134.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Mäkisalo, J. 2000. Grammar and Experimental Evidence in Finnish Compounds. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.

    Mäkisalo J. , '', in Grammar and Experimental Evidence in Finnish Compounds , (2000 ) -.

  • McChutchen, D. 1996. A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review Vol. 8. No. 3. 299–325.

    McChutchen D. , 'A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition ' (1996 ) 8. Educational Psychology Review : 299 -325.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Olive, T. & Kellogg, R. T. 2002. Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory and Cognition Vol. 30. No. 4. 594–600.

    Kellogg R. T. , 'Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition ' (2002 ) 30. Memory and Cognition : 594 -600.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Séguinot, C. 1989. The translation process: An experimental study. In: Séguinot, C. (ed) The Translation Process. Toronto: York University. 21–54.

    Séguinot C. , '', in The Translation Process , (1989 ) -.

  • Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. 1983. The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In: Martlew, M. (ed) The Psychology of Written Language: A Developmental Approach. London: John Wiley. 67–95.

    Bereiter C. , '', in The Psychology of Written Language: A Developmental Approach , (1983 ) -.

  • Schilperoord, J. 1996. The distribution of pause time in written text production. In: Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H. & Couzjin, M. (eds) Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 21–35.

    Schilperoord J. , '', in Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research , (1996 ) -.

  • Schilperoord, J. 2002. On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In: Olive, T. & Levy, C. M. (eds) Contemporary Tools and Techniques for Studying Writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 61–87.

    Schilperoord J. , '', in Contemporary Tools and Techniques for Studying Writing , (2002 ) -.

  • Tommola, J. 1985. Approaches to research on translation. In: Tommola, J. & Virtanen, T. (eds) Working Papers in English Studies. Turku: University of Turku. 159–187.

    Tommola J. , '', in Working Papers in English Studies , (1985 ) -.

  • Torrance, M & Galbraith, D. 2006. The processing demands of writing. In: MacArthur, C. A., Graham S. & Fitzgerald, J. Handbook of Writing Research. New York: The Guilford Press. 67–80.

    Galbraith D. , '', in Handbook of Writing Research , (2006 ) -.