View More View Less
  • 1 School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

In translation process and language production research, pauses are seen as indicators of cognitive processing. Investigating the correlations between source text machine translatability and post-editing effort involves an assessment of cognitive effort. Therefore, an analysis of pauses is essential. This paper presents data from a research project which includes an analysis of pauses in post-editing, triangulated with the Choice Network Analysis method and Translog. Results suggest that the pause-to-keyboarding ratio does not differ significantly for sentences deemed to be more suitable for machine translation than for those deemed to be less suitable. Also, results confirm the finding in research elsewhere that pause duration and frequency is subject to individual differences. Finally, we suggest that while pauses provide some indication of cognitive processing, supplementary methods are required to give a fuller picture.

  • Hansen, G. 1999. Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen Studies in Language. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

    Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Copenhagen Studies in Language , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Hansen, G. 2002. Zeit und Qualität im übersetzungsprozess. In: Hansen, G. Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Copenhagen Studies in Language 27. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 29-54.

    Zeit und Qualität im übersetzungsprozess , () 29 -54.

  • Hutchins, J. & Somers, H. 1992. An Introduction to Machine Translation. London: Academic Press.

    An Introduction to Machine Translation , ().

  • Jakobsen, A-L. 1998. Logging Time Delay in Translation, LSP Texts and the Translation Process. Copenhagen Working Papers 73-101.

    Logging Time Delay in Translation, LSP Texts and the Translation Process , () 73 -101.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Krings, H. P. & Koby, G. S. et al (eds.) 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing processes. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

    Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing processes , ().

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Jakobsen, A-L. 2002. Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students. In: Hansen, G. Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Copenhagen Studies in Language 27. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 191-204.

    Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students , () 191 -204.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Kaufer, D. S., Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. 1986. Composing Written Sentences. Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 20. 121-140.

    'Composing Written Sentences ' () 20 Research in the Teaching of English : 121 -140.

  • O'Brien, Sh. 2005. Methodologies for Measuring the Correlations between Post-editing Effort and Machine Translatability. Machine Translation Vol. 19. No. 1. 37-58.

    'Methodologies for Measuring the Correlations between Post-editing Effort and Machine Translatability ' () 19 Machine Translation : 37 -58.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Pöchhacker, H. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.

    Introducing Interpreting Studies , ().

  • Schilperoord, J. 1996. It's About Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    It's About Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production , ().

  • Séguinot, C. 1989a. The Translation Process. School of Translation, York University. Toronto: H.G. Publications.

    The Translation Process , ().

  • Séguinot, C. 1989b. The Translation Process: An Experimental Study. In: The Translation Process. School of Translation, York University. Toronto: H.G. Publications. 21-53.

    The Translation Process: An Experimental Study , () 21 -53.

  • Setton, R. 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis , ().

  • Somers, H. 2003. Computers and Translation: A Translator's Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Computers and Translation: A Translator's Guide , ().

  • Trujillo, A. 1999. Translation Engines: Techniques for Machine Translation. London: Springer- Verlag.

    Translation Engines: Techniques for Machine Translation , ().

  • Van Waes, L. & Schellens, P.J. 2003. Writing Profiles: the Effect of the Writing Mode on Pausing and Revision Patterns of Experienced Writers. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 35. 829-853.

    'Writing Profiles: the Effect of the Writing Mode on Pausing and Revision Patterns of Experienced Writers ' () 35 Journal of Pragmatics : 829 -853.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Bonin, P. & Fayol, M. 1996. L'Etude en temps réel de la production du langage écrit, pourquoi et comment. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée Vol. 101. Jan-Mar, 8-19.

    'L'Etude en temps réel de la production du langage écrit, pourquoi et comment ' () 101 Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée : 8 -19.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Campbell, S. 1999. A Cognitive Approach to Source Text Difficulty in Translation. Target Vol. 11. No. 1. 33-63.

    'A Cognitive Approach to Source Text Difficulty in Translation ' () 11 Target : 33 -63.

  • Campbell, S. 2000. Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research. In: Olohan, M. (ed.) Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies: Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome. 29-42.

    Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research , () 29 -42.

  • Campbell, S. & Hale, S. 1999. What Makes a Text Difficult to Translate? Proceedings of the 1998 ALAA Congress. Available at: http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/alaa/proceed/camphale.html, last checked on: February 14. 2006.

    What Makes a Text Difficult to Translate? , ().

  • Cenoz, J. 2000. Pauses and hesitation phenomena in second language production. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics Vol. 127-128. 53-69.

    'Pauses and hesitation phenomena in second language production ' () 127-128 ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics : 53 -69.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • EAMT/CLAW 2003. Proceedings of the Joint Conference Combining the 8th International Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation and the 4th Controlled Language Applications Workshop. Dublin: Dublin City University.

  • Foulin, J-N. 1995. Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite, L'Année Psychologique Vol. 95. 483-504.

    'Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite ' () 95 L'Année Psychologique : 483 -504.

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Allen, J. 2003. Post-editing. In: Somers, H. (ed.) Computers and Translation - A Translator's Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 297-318.

    Post-editing , () 297 -318.

  • Bernth, A. & Gdaniec, C. 2002. "MTranslatability". Machine Translation Vol. 16. No. 3. 175-218.

    'MTranslatability ' () 16 Machine Translation : 175 -218.

  • Alves, F. 2006. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Effort and Effect in Translation: Discussing the Cognitive Interface between Inferential Processing, Problem-solving and Decision-making. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Horizons in Theoretical Translation Studies, 19-20 January, Department of Translation. Hong Kong: The Chinese University. 1-12.

    A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Effort and Effect in Translation: Discussing the Cognitive Interface between Inferential Processing, Problem-solving and Decision-making , () 1 -12.

    • Search Google Scholar