Article published in:
Border Crossings: Translation Studies and other disciplines
Edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer
[Benjamins Translation Library 126] 2016
► pp. 225–244

Computational linguistics and translation studies

Methods and models

| National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo
| Interactions Corp.
| University of Mainz

Translation process research is an active interdisciplinary research area within translation studies attracting translation scholars, computer scientists and the machine learning community alike. Novel data acquisition methods have been developed in recent years leading to large sets of translation process data that is analysed qualitatively as well as quantitatively. What has been anticipated already decades ago, today, computational linguistics methods are instrumental for translation process research and translation studies to enhance machine translation technologies by analysing real human behaviour. Empirical translation process research thus becomes more formalized and interconnected with computational linguistics methods and may potentially give answers to questions raised long time ago. In this chapter we trace the development of computational linguistics and translation process research from this angle and point to developments that we think will further drive this vibrant field of research.

Keywords: history of machine translation, predictive translation modelling, translation data analytics, translation process research
Published online: 14 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.126.11car
References
Alves, Fabio
(ed) 2003 Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio and Gonçalves, J.L.V.R
2003 “A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation”. In Alves, F 2003: 3–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio and Daniel C. Vale
2009 “Probing the unit of translation in time: aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data”. Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 251–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John
2007 How can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Series on Cognitive Models and Architectures. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aziz, Wilker, Maarit Koponen and Lucia Specia
2014 “Sub-sentence Level Analysis of Machine Translation Post-editing Effort”. In Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard and Lucia Specia (eds). Post-editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications, 170–200. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bangalore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer and Annegret Sturm
2016 “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation” In Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer (eds) New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Kaplan, Ron
1985 The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Buchweitz, Augusto and Fabio Alves
2006 “Cognitive adaptation in translation: an interface between language direction, time, and recursiveness in target text production”. Letras de Hoje 41 (4): 241–272.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Stefanie Dipper, Anette Frank, and Tracy Holloway King
2002 “Writing Large-scale Parallel Grammars for English, French, and German”. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford: CSLI publications. Available from: http://​www​.xrce​.xerox​.com​/Research​-Development​/Publications​/1999​-304Google Scholar
Carl, Michael
2010 “A computational framework for a cognitive model of human translation processes”. Translating and the Computer 32, 18–19 November, London; 19 pages. (http://​www​.mt​-archive​.info​/10​/Aslib​-2010​-Carl​.pdf).Google Scholar
2012 “Translog-II: a Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research”. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Istanbul, Turkey, http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2012​/summaries​/614​.html
Carl, Michael and Barbara Dragsted
2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production”. TC3: Translation, Computation, Corpora, Cognition, vol. 2 (1), 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael and Martin Kay
2011 “Gazing and Typing Activities during Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4): 952–975. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael and Moritz Schaeffer
forthcoming). “Models of the translation process”. In John W. Schwieter & Aline Ferreira (eds) The Handbook of Translation and Cognition Wiley-Blackwell
Carl, Michael, Dragsted, Barbara and Lykke Jakobsen, Arnt
2011 ”A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles”. 01 June 2011. http://​translationdirectory​.com​/articles​/article2321​.php.
Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2014 Post-editing machine translation: Efficiency, strategies, and revision processes in professional translation settings. In Ferreira, Aline and John W. Schwieter (eds). Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, 145–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl Michael, Martin Kay, Kristian Tangsgaard and Hvelplund Jensen
2010 “Long Distance Revisions in Drafting and Post-editing”. Paper presented at CICLing-2010 , Iaşi, Romania.
Catford, John C
1965 A linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2004 “Beyond the particular.” In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals: Do they Exist? 33–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Daems, Joke, Michael Carl, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert Hartsuiker, Lieve Macken
2016 “The effectiveness of consulting external resources during translation and post-editing of general text types”. In Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer (eds) New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, 111–135. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A.M.B
1992 “Determinants of Word Translation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18 (5), 1001–1018. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denver, Louise
2007 “Translating the implicit: on the inferencing and transfer of semantic relations”. In Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger and Radegundis Stolze (eds). Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress. Lisbon 2004, 223–236 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2004 Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems. An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. Ph.D. thesis, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen. Ph.D. series, no. 5, vol. 2004.Google Scholar
2005 “Segmentation in translation: differences across levels of expertise and difficulty”. Target 17 (1): 49–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Uncharted Territory”. In M. Schreve and E. Angelone (eds) Translation and Cognition, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series; Nr. XV). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flickinger, Dan, Ann Copestake and Ivan A. Sag
2000 “HPSG Analysis of English”. In W. Wahlster and R. Karger (eds.). Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation, 254–263. Berlin Heidelberg/New York: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey and Sag, Ivan
1985 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel
1995/2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2009 “Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp”. In Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger M. Mees (eds). Behind the Mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2003 “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target 2 (15): 197–241.Google Scholar
2010 “Towards a cognitive theory of translation.” In L. Zybatow (Ed.), Translation studies: state of the art and perspectives. VI Ringvorlesung zur translationswissenschaft, 15–34. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde
2006 “Retrospection methods in translator training and translation research”. JoSTrans. 2–41.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp
2004 “Is Syntax Separate or Shared between Languages? Cross-linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals.” Psychological Science 15 (6): 409–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, John
2005 “Example-based machine translation: a review and commentary”. Machine Translation 19 (3–4): 197–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
2011 Allocation of cognitive resources in translation. An eye-tracking and key-logging study. PhD thesis. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Immonen, Sini
2006 “Translation as a writing process: pauses in translation versus monolingual text production”. Target 18 (2): 313–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir
1981 “Formal Correspondence Vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” Poetics Today 2 (4): 51–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
1999 “Logging target text production with Translog”. In Gyde Hansen (ed). Probing the process in translation: Methods and results, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2003 Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation. In Fabio Alves (ed), Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process oriented research, 69–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Instances of peak performance in translation”. Lebende Sprachen 50 (3): 111–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Research Methods in Translation: Translog. Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications”. In Eva Lindgren; Kirk P.H. Sullivan (eds) Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, 95–105. Oxford: Pergamon Press (Studies in Writing, Vol. 18).Google Scholar
2011 “Tracking Translators’ Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Translog.” In Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, Elisabeth Tiselius (eds): Methods and Strategies of Process Research, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, Kristian Tangsgaard H. Jensen and Inger M. Mees
2007 ”Comparing modalities: idioms as a case in point”. In Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger M. Mees (eds). Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, 217–249. Copenhagen: SamfundslitteraturGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou
1999 ”Translog documentation”. In Gyde Hansen (ed.) Probing the process in translation: Methods and results, Appendix 1, 1–36. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Jarvella, Robert, Astrid Jensen, Elisabeth Halskov Jensen and Mette Skovgaard Andersen
2002 “Towards characterizing translator expertise, knowledge and know-how: some findings using TAP and experimental methods”. In A. Riccardi (ed). Translation Studies. Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, 172–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, Kristian Tangsgaard H
2009 “Shifts in source text and target text attention during translation”. Paper given at the IATIS conference , Monash University 8–10 July 2009, Melbourne, Australia.
Jensen, Kristian Tangsgaard H., Annette C. Sjørup, and Laura W. Balling
2009 “Effects of L1 Syntax on L2 Translation.” In Fabio Alves, Susanne Göpferich, and Inger M. Mees (eds), Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 319–336. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind
1985 “Tree Adjoining Grammars: How much context sensitivity is required to provide a reasonable structural description”. In D. Dowty and I. Karttunen and A. Zwicky (eds), Natural Language Parsing, 206–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koehn, Philipp, Hieu Hoang, Alexandra Birch, Chris Callison-Burch, Marcello Federico, Nicola Bertoldi, Brooke Cowan, Wade Shen, Christine Moran, Richard Zens, Chris Dyer, Ondrej Bojar, Alexandra Constantin, Evan Herbst
2007 “Moses: Open Source Toolkit for statistical Machine Translation”. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), demonstration session , Prague, Czech Republic, June 2007. Crossref
Krings, Hans Peter
1986 ”Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Psycholinguistische Grundlagen der Übersetzungsdidaktik“. In: Kühlwein, W. (Hrsg.). Neue Entwicklungen der Angewandten Linguistik, 52–56. Kongreßbeiträge zur 15. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik GAL. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Langacker, R
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, María Pilar
1999 ”Apuntes para una discusión sobre métodos de estudio del proceso de traducción”. In Gyde Hansen (ed). Probing the process in translation: methods and results. 21–42. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Läubli, Samuel
2014 Statistical Modelling of Human Translation Processes. Unpublished Master Thesis in Science Artificial Intelligence, School of Informatics University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991 Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Magalhães, Celia and Fabio Alves
2006 “Investigando o papel do monitoramento cognitivo-discursivo e da meta-reflexão na formação de tradutores”. Cadernos de Tradução 17 (2): 71–128.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Brenda
2006 “The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty”. Target 18 (2): 337–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell, Beatrice Santorini and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz
1993 “Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Tree-bank”, Computational Linguistics 19 (2): 313–330.Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2006 “Expertise and environment in translation”. Paper presented at the Second IATIS Conference, Intervention in Translation, Interpreting and Intercultural Encounters , hosted by the University of the Western Cape in South Africa (11–14 July 2006).
Martínez-Gómez, Pascual, Akshay Minocha, Jin Huang, Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Akiko Aizawa
2014 “Recognition of Translator Expertise using Sequences of Fixations and Keystrokes”. In Qvarfordt, P. and Hansen, D.W. (eds). Proceedings of Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, 299–302. New York, USA: ACM. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nagao, Makoto
1984 “A framework of a mechanical translation between Japanese and English by analogy principle”. In A. Elithorn and R. Banerji (eds). Artificial and Human Intelligence, 173–180. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2006 “Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing Machine Translation output”. Across Languages and Cultures 7 (1): 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Och, Franz Josef and Herman Ney
2002 Dsicriminative training and maximum entropy models for statistical machine translation. In ACL’02 Proceedings of the 40 th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics , 295–302.
Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan
1994 Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994.Google Scholar
Rydning Fougner, Antin
2002 ”Pénétrer la boîte noire du traducteur”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 1: 273–285.Google Scholar
Rydning Fougner, A. and Janyan, A
2008 ”Eye movement recordings as a tool for studying mental simulation of speed in text processing by professional translators”. Forum 6 (1): 59–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saikh, Tanik, Srinivas Bangalore, Michael Carl and Sivaji Bandyopadhyay
2015 “Predicting Source Gaze Fixation Duration: A Machine Learning Approach” Proceedings of the Conference on Cognitive Computing and Information Processing (CCIP) 2015, 3–4 March 2015. Noida: IEEE.
Satoshi, Shao and Nagao Makoto
1990 Toward Memory-based Translation. In COLING90, volume 3, 247–252. Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz and Michael Carl
2013 “Shared representations and the translation process A recursive model”. In Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, Séverine Hubscher-Davidson and Ulf Norberg (eds). Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and events. Special issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 169–190Google Scholar
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes”. In Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn, Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Casacuberta, Robin Hill and Sharon O’Brien (eds.). Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, Gothenburg, Sweden, Association for Computational Linguistics, 29–37, http://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W14​-0306. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl
2016 “Word translation entropy: evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation”. In Carl, Michael; Bangalore, Srinivas and Schaeffer, Moritz (Eds.). New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Singla, Karan, Ashleigh Gonzales, David Orrego Carmona, Srinivas Bangalore, Michael Carl
2014 “Predicting Post-Editor Profiles from the Translation Process”. In Francisco Casacuberta, Marcello Federico and Philipp Koehn (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive and Adaptive Machine Translation, AMTA Workshop, Vancouver, Canada: AMTA.Google Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C
2008 “Metaphor comprehension in translation: methodological issues in a pilot study”. In Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Inger M Mees (eds). Looking at Eyes. Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, 53–77. Copenhagen: SamfundslitteraturGoogle Scholar
Sjørup, Annette C., Kristian Tangsgaard H. Jensen and Laura W. Balling
2009 Syntactic processing in translation from L1 to L2. Eye-to-IT conference on translation processes, 28–29 April 2009. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Somers, Harold
1999 “Review article: example-based machine translation”. Machine Translation 14 (2), 113–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark
1987 “Combinatory Grammars and Parasitic Gaps”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(3): 403–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The monitor model revisited: evidence from process research”. Meta 50 (2): 405–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo and Sini Immonen
2008 “The translation process: interplay between literal rendering and a search for sense”. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1): 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995/2012 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wahlster, Wolfgang
(ed.) 2000 Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, Warren
1949 Translation. In Locke, W.N., Booth, D.A. (eds) 1955 Translation (PDF). Machine Translation of Languages. Cambridge: Massachusetts: MIT Press, 15–23. Available from: http://​www​.mt​-archive​.info​/Weaver​-1949​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Mellinger, Christopher D.
2022. Quantitative questions on big data in translation studies. Meta 67:1 ► pp. 217 ff. Crossref logo
Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina
2019. Ethical issues regarding machine(-assisted) translation of literary texts. Perspectives 27:5 ► pp. 689 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 november 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.