Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation

Schaeffer, Moritz; Dragsted, Barbara; Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard; Balling, Laura Winther; Carl, Michaël

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_9

Cited by 48 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Jakobsen and Jensen (2008) investigated how reading for translation differs from reading for comprehension using eye-tracking technology and found that the eye-tracking parameters, including fixation count (number of times when the eyes seem to stop) and fixation duration 4 indicate that cognitive effort in reading for translation is much higher than in reading for comprehension. Although a similar study by Alves et al (2011) did not replicate the results, possibly due to differences in eye-tracker settings, the effort indicated by eye movement behaviour reflects a deeper level processing of textual material in preparation for translation (see also Hvelplund 2016;Schaeffer et al 2016). The impact of the reading purpose on the processing effort finds support in the current eyetracking research of reading.…”

Section: Reading Processes In Translationmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…This might place different demands on the translator's working memory even at the stage of orientation (see Section 3.1). If activation of the bilingual lexicon parallel to ST reading was reported by Schaeffer et al (2016) and Dragsted (2012) in interlingual translation, extended time during orientation before paraphrasing could also involve the parallel activation of the mental lexicon in search for synonyms while at the same time inhibiting the ST wording.…”

Section: Stages Of the Translation Processmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The use of eye-tracking technology, which in line with the eye-mind hypothesis by Just and Carpenter (1980) assumes that eye behaviour reflects the processing effort expended in the mind engaged in solving a problem, has contributed to our understanding of reading for translation (e.g. Göpferich et al 2008;Carl et al 2016). …”

Section: Cognitive Effort In Translationmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing

Whyatt

Stachowiak

Kajzer-Wietrzny

2016

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractAlthough Jakobson’s (1959) seminal classification of translation into three kinds: interlingual, intralingual and intersemiotic has been widely accepted in Translation Studies, so far most research interest has focused on interlingual translation, defined as “translation proper”. Intralingual translation, more often understood as rewording, paraphrasing or reformulation within the same language, is a less prototypical kind of translation, yet we believe that the underlying mental operations needed to perform both tasks include similar processing stages. Bearing in mind the lack of research comparing inter-and intralingual translation we designed the ParaTrans project in which we investigate how translators make decisions in both tasks. In this article we present the results of a comparative analysis of processing effort and cognitive rhythm demonstrated by professional translators who were asked to translate and paraphrase similar texts. Having collected three streams of translation process data with such tools as key-logging, eye-tracking and screen-capture software, we are able to draw some tentative conclusions concerning the similarities and differences between language processing for interlingual translation and intralingual paraphrasing. The results confirm a higher processing effort in interlingual translation most likely due to the need to switch between languages.

show abstract

Section: Reading Processes In Translationmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Stages Of the Translation Processmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Cognitive Effort In Translationmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing

Whyatt

Stachowiak

Kajzer-Wietrzny

2016

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dragsted also found that the pauses prior to words with many alternatives were longer as compared to words with one or two alternatives. Schaeffer/Carl (2013) and Schaeffer et al (2016) explained these observations by means of a recursive model of the translation process. They distinguished between horizontal priming processes, which activate shared ST-TT representations -so-called combinatorial nodes (Pickering/ Branigan 1999, Hartsuiker et al 2004) -and vertical problem-solving processes, which act as a monitor during target text production.…”

Section: Priming Studies and Literal Translation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Translation Is Difficult: A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation

Carl

Schaeffer

2017

HJLCB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper develops a definition of translation literality that is based on the syntactic and semantic similarity of the source and the target texts. We provide theoretical and empirical evidence that absolute literal translations are easy to produce. Based on a multilingual corpus of alternative translations we investigate the effects of cross-lingual syntactic and semantic distance on translation production times and find that non-literality makes from-scratch translation and post-editing difficult. We show that statistical machine translation systems encounter even more difficulties with nonliterality.

show abstract

“…Some valuable work has already been done on that topic in Translation Studies (e.g. Tirkkonen-Condit 2005;Carl & Dragsted 2012;Halverson 2015;Schaeffer et al 2016), but the dynamics of fast/intuitive/effortless vs. slow/rational/effortful types of translatorial processing remain under-researched. The reasons are, in part, methodological.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translatorial and non-translatorial automaticity

Deckert

2019

Jezikoslovlje (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines empirically a subset of cognitive processes in trainee translators with the objective of gaining an insight into their decision-making. Specifically, we are interested in the nature and role of automated processing -above all, how pronounced it can be and how it influences the quality of decisions. The paper's objective is then to come up with an integrative view of the relationship between translatorial automaticity and cognitive automaticity in general, viz. that not associated with translation. This could help us better capture some of the characteristics of translator behaviour and supplement our understanding of translation competence. Results from experiments with trainees reported in the paper show no correlation between the two dimensions of automated processing, and indicate that translatorial automaticity could be harder to override than its more general counterpart.

show abstract

Word Translation Entropy: Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation

Cited by 48 publications

References 38 publications

Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing

Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing

Why Translation Is Difficult: A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation

Translatorial and non-translatorial automaticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About