Article published in:
Translation Practice in the Field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes
Edited by Hanna Risku, Regina Rogl and Jelena Milosevic
[Benjamins Current Topics 105] 2019
► pp. 79–103

Investigating the cognitive ergonomic aspects of translation tools in a workplace setting

This paper reports on an empirical study that investigates the translation process in the workplace from a cognitive ergonomic perspective. In particular, the interaction between ten translators employed by a language service provider and the tools they deploy are examined. To that end, we recorded the translators’ workplace activities using keystroke logging, screen recording and eye tracking, combined with short retrospective interviews. We analysed their behaviour in terms of how they switched between the two screens on their desks, how they used different tools and where they invested their visual attention. Data related to productivity and quality are also presented. Among other findings, our data reveal that validation searches for terms and general expressions lead to considerable tool and task switching among professional translators.
Keywords: translation technology, CAT tools, memoQ, cognitive ergonomics, human-computer interaction, terminology search, workplace study, eye tracking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Cognitive ergonomics
    • 1.2Workplace studies
    • 1.3CAT tools
    • 1.4Expected contribution
  • 2.Study setup
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Translation tasks
    • 2.3The translation tool
  • 3.Data collection and processing
  • 4.Results and analyses
    • 4.1Basic hardware and software
    • 4.2Use of tools
    • 4.3Consultation of information resources
    • 4.4Use of screens
    • 4.5Gaze behaviour
    • 4.6Productivity and quality
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 07 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.105.05tei
References
Brunette, Louise, and Sharon O’Brien
2011 “Quelle ergonomie pour la pratique postéditrice des textes traduits? [Ergonomics and Postediting in Translation].” ILCEA 14. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://​ilcea​.revues​.org​/1081.
Cooper, Alan
2004 The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2006 “Computer-Aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” Pragmatics & Cognition 14 (2): 443–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” In Minding Translation, guest edited by R. Muñoz, 355–383. Special Issue 1 of MonTi. Crossref.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Andrea Hunziker Heeb
2016 “Investigating the Ergonomics of the Technologized Translation Workplace.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research, edited by R. Muñoz, 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien
2015 “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Marcello, Alessandro Cattelan, and Marco Trombetti
2012 “Measuring User Productivity in Machine Translation Enhanced Computer Assisted Translation.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA), San Diego, CA, October 28 – November 1, 2012. Accessed March 15, 2017. http://​www​.mt​-archive​.info​/AMTA​-2012​-Federico​.pdf.
Harnad, Stevan
2005 “Distributed Processes, Distributed Cognizers, and Collaborative Cognition.” Pragmatics & Cognition 13 (3): 501–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt L.
2002 “Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students.” Copenhagen Studies in Language 27: 191–204.Google Scholar
Lavault-Olléon, Élisabeth
2011 “L’ergonomie, nouveau paradigme pour la traductologie” [Ergonomics as a New Paradigm for Translation Studies]. ILCEA 14. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://​ilcea​.revues​.org​/1078.
Leijten, Marielle, and Luuk van Waes
2013 “Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes.” Written Communication 30 (3): 358–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2010 “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research: Methodological Challenges and Solutions.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, edited by I. Mees, F. Alves, and S. Göpferich, 251–266. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 101–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2014 “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From Mental to Socio-Cognitive Processes.” In Minding Translation, guest edited by R. Muñoz, 331–353. Special Issue 1 of MonTi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler
2013 “A Dynamic Network Model of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 2 (1): 151–182. Crossref.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S. C.
2014a “Data Collection Methods for Researching the Interaction between Translators and Translation Tools – An ‘Ecological’ Approach.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 269–286. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2014b The Impact of Metadata on Translator Performance: How Translators Work with Translation Memories and Machine Translation. Doctoral thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jiajie
1997 “The Nature of External Representations in Problem Solving.” Cognitive Science 21 (2): 179–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar