Cover not available
Part of
Eye Tracking and Multidisciplinary Studies on Translation
Edited by Callum Walker and Federico M. Federici
[Benjamins Translation Library 143] 2018
► pp. 145–184

Chapter 8
Working styles of student translators in self-revision, other-revision and post-editing

ORCID logo
Drawing on theories from translation-related studies and cognitive psychology, this study triangulates eye tracking, keystroke logging and retrospection to probe into student translators’ cognitive processes in self-revision, other-revision and post-editing, and to categorize their working styles within and across tasks. Eighteen student translators from Durham University, with Chinese as L1 and English as L2, were invited to participate in the experiment. Three revision phases (planning, drafting and final check) were defined and four types of working style (Macro-Micro-Macro, Micro-Macro, Macro-Micro, and Micro) were recognised. By comparing the participants’ personal working styles in all three tasks, it was found that 38.9% of them were habit-oriented revisers, 22.2% were task-oriented, and 38.9% were habit/task-oriented revisers. This study proposes a tentative model of student translators’ cognitive processes in self-revision, other-revision and post-editing, and also compared their working styles with that of professional translators.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Research design and methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Source texts
    • 3.3Experiment design and procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Types of reading and typing activities and the underlying purposes
    • 4.2Sequential reading and typing activities and the underlying purposes in different phases
      • 4.2.1Sequential reading activities in the planning phase and the underlying purposes
      • 4.2.2Sequences of reading and typing activites in the drafting phase
      • 4.2.3The final-check phase
    • 4.3Types of working styles of student translators
    • 4.4A comparison of revision and post-editing styles between students and professionals
      • 4.4.1Self-revision styles
      • 4.4.2Other-revision styles
      • 4.4.3Post-editing styles
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.143.08hua
References (55)
References
Arenas, Ana Guerberof. 2013. “What Do Professional Translators Think About Post-editing?” The Journal of Specialised Translation 19: 75–95.Google Scholar
Bowker, Lynne, and Melissa Ehgoetz. 2007. “Exploring User Acceptance of Machine Translation Output: A Recipient Evaluation.” In Across Boundaries: International Perspectives on Translation, ed. by Dorothy Kenny, and Kyongjoo Ryou, 209–224. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brunette, Louise, Chantal Gagnon, and Jonathan Hine. 2005. “The GREVIS Project: Revise or Court Calamity.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (1): 29–45.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunette, Louise. 2007. Personal interview by The Journal of Specialised Translation. July, 2007. [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
Carl, Michael, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2009. “Towards Statistical Modeling of Translators’ Activity Data.” International Journal of Speech Technology 12 (4): 125–138.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Babara Dragsted, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2011. “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2). [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
Carl, Michael, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore. 2016. “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, ed. by Michael Carl, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore, 13–54. Switzerland: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2015. “Post-editing Machine Translation: Efficiency, Strategies, and Revision Processes in Professional Translation Settings.” In Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Ferreira Aline, and John W. Schwieter, 145–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “Translog-II: a Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Department of International Language Studies and Computational Linguistics, Istanbul, Turkey, May 21–27. [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
Daems, Joke, Sonia Vandepitte, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Lieve Macken. 2017. “Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing With Students and Professional Translators.” Meta 62 (2): 245–270.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Babara, and Michael Carl. 2013. “Towards a Classification of Translation Styles Based on Eye-tracking and Keylogging data.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1): 133–158.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Committee for Standardisation. 2006. BS EN 15038 Translation Services: Service Requirements. London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
Fiederer, Rebecca, and Sharon O’Brien. 2009. “Quality and Machine Translation: A Realistic Objective?” The Journal of Specialised Translation 11: 52–74.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, John D. 1989. “Checking, Revision and Editing.” In The Translator’s Handbook, ed. by Catriona Picken, 59–70. London: Aslib.Google Scholar
Hayes, John, Linda Flower, Karen Schriver, James Stratman, and Linda Carey. 1987. “Cognitive Processes in Revision.” In Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, Writing and Language Processing, ed. by Sheldon Rosenberg, 176–240. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hine, Jonathan. 2003. “Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment.” In Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, ed. by Brian James Baer, and Geoffrey S. Koby, 135–156. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horguelin, Paul-A., and Louise Brunette. 1998. Pratique de la révision. Brossard (Québec): Linguatech.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: an Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Study. PhD Thesis. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Four Fundamental Types of Reading During Translation.” In Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology, ed. by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ipsen, A. Helene, and Helle V. Dam. 2016. “Translation Revision: Correlating Revision Procedure and Error Detection.” Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 55: 143–156.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 2002. “Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students.” In Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T. 1996. “A Model of Working Memory in Writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications, ed. by C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell, 57–71. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1988. “The Use of Knowledge in Discourse Processing: A Construction-Integration Model.’ Psychological Review 95 (2): 163–182.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koglin, Arlene. 2015. “An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort Required to Post-edit Machine Translated Metaphors Compared to the Translation of Metaphors.” Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 126–141.Google Scholar
Koponen, Maarit, Wilker Aziz, Luciana Ramos, and Lucia Specia. 2012. “Post-Editing Time as a Measure of Cognitive Effort.” Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation of the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice, San Diego, California, 28 October – 1 November.
Krings, Hans P. 2001. Repairing Texts. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Künzli, Alexander. 2006. “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Technical Text.” In Insights into Specialised Translation, ed. by Maurizio Gotti, and Susan Sarcevic, 195–214. Bern and Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text.” In Translation Studies: Doubts and Directions, ed. by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 115–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle 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, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 246–272. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google 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.” Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation of the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice, San Diego, California, 28 October – 1 November.
Malkiel, Brenda. 2009. “From Ántonia to My Ántonia: Tracking Self-Corrections With Translog.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 191–218. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Martín, Ricardo Muñoz. 2009. “Typos & Co.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 167–190. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Mesa-Lao, Bartolomé. 2014. “Gaze Behaviour on Source Texts: An Exploratory Study Comparing Translation and Post-editing.” In Post-editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 219–245. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Mizón, María Isabel, and María Isabel Diéguez. 1996. “Self-correction in Translation Courses: A Methodological Tool.” Meta 41 (1): 75–83.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 1982. “A Procedure for Self-revision.” Terminology Update 15 (3): 6–9.Google Scholar
. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. 1st edn. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2007. Revising and Editing for Translators. 2nd edn. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2014. Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd edn. Manchester: St. Jerome.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006a. “Eye Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–203.Google Scholar
. 2006b. “Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-editing Machine Translation Output.” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (1): 1–21.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrin, Daniel. 2003. “Progression Analysis (PA): Investigating Writing Strategies at the Workplace.” Pragmatics 35 (6): 907–921.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch, and Anne Schjoldager. 2011. “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 15: 87–120.Google Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S. 2008. “Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study.” In Translation and Its Others: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007, ed. by Pieter Boulogne. [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
2013. “Translation Revision: Does the Revision Procedure Matter?” In Treks and Tracks in Translation Studies, ed. by Magdalena Bartlomiejczyk, Reine Meylaerts, Sonia Vandepitte, and Catherine Way, 87–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., Aline Remael, and Jim J. J. Ureel. 2017. “Towards a Model of Translation Revision Competence.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11 (1): 1–9.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., and Luuk Van Waes. 2014. “Selecting a Translation Revision Procedure: Do Common Sense and Statistics Agree?” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 22 (3): 304–320.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuelsson-Brown, Geoffrey. 1993. A Practical Guide for Translators. Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Scocchera, Giovanna. 2017. “Translation Revision as Rereading: Different Aspects of the Translator’s and Reviser’s Approach to the Revision Process.” Mémoires du livre 9 (1): 1–17.DOI logo.Google Scholar
Shih, Claire Yi-yi. 2003. “A Cognitive Approach to Three Trainee Translators’ Overnight Revision Processes.” Translation Quarterly 28: 1–17.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Revision from Translators’ Point of View: An Interview Study.” Target 18 (2): 295–312.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Translators’ End-revision Processing Patterns and Maxims: A Think-aloud Protocol Study.” Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 4 (3): 31–44.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Problem-solving and Decision-making in Translation Revision: Two Case Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 16 (1): 69–92.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Translation Automation User Society (TAUS). 2016. TAUS Post-Editing Guidelines. [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
Veale, Tony, and Andy Way. 1997. “Gaijin: A Template-driven Bootstrapping Approach to Example-based Machine Translation.” [URL] (accessed 19 April, 2018)
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Cao, Lu, Stephen Doherty & James F. Lee
2023. The process and product of translation revision: empirical data from student translators using eye tracking and screen recording. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:4 ► pp. 548 ff. DOI logo
Cui, Ying, Xiao Liu & Yuqin Cheng
2023. A Comparative Study on the Effort of Human Translation and Post-Editing in Relation to Text Types: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Experiment. SAGE Open 13:1 ► pp. 215824402311558 ff. DOI logo
Walker, Callum
2021. Investigating how we read translations. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Su, Wenchao & Defeng Li
2020. Exploring processing patterns of Chinese-English sight translation. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66:6 ► pp. 999 ff. DOI logo
Schaeffer, Moritz, Jean Nitzke, Anke Tardel, Katharina Oster, Silke Gutermuth & Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2019. Eye-tracking revision processes of translation students and professional translators. Perspectives 27:4 ► pp. 589 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Sanjun & Kairong Xiao
2019. Chinese scholarship in Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:1 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 september 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.