Cover not available
Part of
Reembedding Translation Process Research
Edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Benjamins Translation Library 128] 2016
► pp. 131–148

Match evaluation and over-editing in a translation memory environment

ORCID logo | Walsh University, USA
ORCID logo | Kent State University, USA
Computer-assisted translation (CAT) has been touted as a means of increasing translator productivity and improving translation quality while decreasing the amount of effort required to complete certain translation and localization tasks. Translation memory (TM) tools are among the most prevalent in non-literary translation projects and potentially make the translation process more complex, since their use alters the task environment. To the typical comprehension-transfer-production sub-tasks of translation without a TM are added cross-language evaluation, acceptability decision-making (matching), and possible post-editing. Drawing on Angelone’s (2010) notion of uncertainty management in translation, we explore how professional translators behave when presented with translations proposed by a translation memory system. We argue that the editing behavior observed during an experimental task highlights a mismatch between the proffered TM segment and the participant’s internal conception of what an optimal translation (a match) should be. This mismatch results in a tendency to over-edit.
Keywords: exact match, fuzzy match, over-editing, problem solving, translation memory
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.128.07mel
References (23)
References
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, 17–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austermühl, Frank. 2001. Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne. 2002. Computer-Aided Translation Technology. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
de Groot, Annette M.B. 1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael McBeath, 25–56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Denkowski, Michael, and Alan Lavie. 2012. “TransCenter: Web-Based Translation Research Suite.” AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice Demo Session.Google 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. dissertation, Copenhagen Business School. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation: Differences Across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Computer-aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.” In Cognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends our Minds, ed. by I.E. Dror and S. Harnad, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 9–30. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J. 2013. “Computer-Assisted Translation.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by C.A. Chapelle, 839–843. Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, John. 1998. “The Origin of the Translator’s Workstation.” Machine Translation 13 (4): 287–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2011. “Electronic Tools and Resources for Translators.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by K. Malmkjær and K. Windle, 455–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul, and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1995. “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies” TTR VIII: 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice . San Diego, CA.
Malkiel, Brenda. 2009. “When Idioti (Idiotic) Becomes “Fluffy”: Translation Students and the Avoidance of Target-language Cognates.” Meta 54 (2): 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2014. Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Processing Fuzzy Matches in Translation Memory Tools: An Eye Tracking Analysis.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 79–102. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam, and Brenda Malkiel. 2005. “Comparing Modalities: Cognates as a Case in Point.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2): 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Bruce J. Diamond. 1997. “Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting: Critical Issues.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by J.H. Danks, G.M. Shreve, S.B. Fountain, and M. McBeath, 233–252. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S.C. 2014. “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2014 Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice . Vancouver, BC.
Tercedor Sánchez, Maribel. 2010. “Cognates as Lexical Choices in Translation: Interference in Space-constrained Environments.” Target 22 (2): 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Angelone, Erik
2021. Broadening the scope of error categories in translation assessment through screen recording. Across Languages and Cultures 22:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Yanxia, Xiangling Wang & Qingqing Yuan
2021. Measuring the usability of machine translation in the classroom context. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Kappus, Martin & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2020. The ergonomics of translation tools: understanding when less is actually more. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 386 ff. DOI logo
Massey, Gary & Regine Wieder
2019. Quality Assurance in Translation and Corporate Communications. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Killman, Jeffrey
2018. Translating the same text twice. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 5:2 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2018. Re-thinking translation quality. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2019. Metacognition and self-assessment in specialized translation education: task awareness and metacognitive bundling. Perspectives 27:4 ► pp. 604 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Chapter 8. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D. & Thomas A. Hanson
2018. Order effects in the translation process. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2024. 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.