Chapter published in:
Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research
Edited by Isabel Lacruz and Riitta Jääskeläinen
[American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XVIII] 2018
► pp. 217240
References

References

Abdi, Hervé
2010 “Holm’s sequential Bonferroni procedure.” In Encyclopedia of research design 1, ed. by Neil J. Salkind, 573–577. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio
2015 “Translation Process Research at the interface: Paradigmatic, theoretical, and methodological issues in dialogue with cognitive science, expertise studies, and psycholinguistics.” In Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting, ed. by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter, 17–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty, uncertainty management, and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task.” In Translation and cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balling, Laura Winther, and Michael Carl
2014 “Production time across languages and tasks: A large-scale analysis using the CRITT Translation Process Database.” In The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science, ed. by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 239–265. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso, Stefano Anzellotti, Lukas Strand, and Angelika Lingnau
2014 “Embodied cognition and mirror neurons: A critical assessment.” The Annual Review of Neuroscience 37: 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael and Barbara Dragsted
2012 “Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2: 127–145. http://​www​.blogs​.uni​-mainz​.de​/fb06​-tc3​/files​/2015​/11​/18​-91​-4​-PB​.pdf
De Groot, Annette M. B.
The cognitive study of translation and interpretation.” In Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath 25 56 Thousand Oaks Sage
Denkowski, Michael and Alon Lavie
2012 “TransCenter: Web-based translation research suite.” In AMTA 2012 workshop on post-editing technology and practice demo session (WPTP 12), San Diego, CA, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. https://​amtaweb​.org/.
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen
2008 “Comprehension and production in translation: a pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of reading and writing processes.” Copenhagen Studies in Language 36: 9–29.Google Scholar
2009 “Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids. The case of sight translation.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 54 (3): 588–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey, Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett
1998Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2005Expertise and explicitation in the translation process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A.
1983The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Green, Spence, Jeffrey Heer, and Christopher D. Manning
2013 “The efficacy of human post-editing for language translation.” In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘13), Paris, France, 439–448. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C.
1995Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Koby, Geoffrey, and Gertrud Champe
2013 “Welcome to the real world: Professional-level translator certification.” Translation and Interpreting 5 (1): 156–173.Google Scholar
Koponen, Maarit, Wilker Aziz, Luciana Ramos, and Lucia Specia
2012 “Post-editing time as a measure of cognitive effort.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 12), San Diego, CA, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 11–20. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans
2001Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes, trans. by Geoffrey Koby. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel
2017 “Cognitive effort in translation, editing, and post-editing.” In The handbook of translation and cognition, ed. by John Schwieter and Aline Ferreira. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, Michael Denkowski, and Alon Lavie
2014 “Cognitive demand and cognitive effort in post-editing.” Proceedings of AMTA 2014. Third Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 14), Vancouver, BC, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 73–84. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. https://​amtaweb​.org/.
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone
2012 “Average pause ratio as an indicator of cognitive effort in post-editing: A case study.” Proceedings of AMTA 2012. Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 12), San Diego, CA, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 21–30. Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.Google Scholar
Lacruz, Isabel, and Gregory M. Shreve
2014 “Pauses and cognitive effort in post-editing.” In Post-editing of machine translation: Processes and applications, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, and Lucia Specia, 246–272. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Macizo, Pedro, María Teresa Bajo, and María Cruz Martín
2010 “Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish-English interlexical homographs.” Journal of Memory and Language 63: 232–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela
1988The Tree of knowledge. Boston: Shamballa.Google Scholar
PACTE
2015 “Results of PACTE’s experimental research on the acquisition of translation competence: the acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge in translation. The Dynamic translation index.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2013 “Cognitive approaches to translation.” The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, ed. by Carol A. Chapelle, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. and James McClelland
1986Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl, M.
2013 “Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Michael Carl, Isabel Lacruz, and Akiko Aizawa
2016 “Measuring cognitive translation effort with activity units.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing 4 (2): 331–345.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost
1996It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
2011 “Sight translation and speech disfluency: Performance analysis as a window to cognitive translation processes.” In Methods and strategies of process research, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elizabeth Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, Gretchen and Judith F. Kroll
2006 “First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28 (3): 387–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timarová, Sarka, Barbara Dragsted, and Inge Gorm Hansen
2011 “Time lag in translation and interpreting.” In Methods and strategies of process research, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, A., and Elisabet Tiselius, 121–146. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The Monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (2): 405–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar