Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 33:2 (2020) ► pp.536–561

Translation unit and quality of translation

Cultural and innovation perspectives

 | Najran University
This research aims to study segmentation (i.e., translation unit (TU)) in students’ translations of cultural references and assess the translation quality, using Translog software and a translation task. This product and process-oriented research examines the same independent variable, that is, segmentation, from two angles, namely, student production and translation output. Ten female postgraduate students aged between 28 and 30 performed a computer-based translation task on cultural references. Their translations of English cultural references into Arabic revealed process and production problems (i.e., unsystematic management of translation stages, high mean TUs and time, low mean scores, and deviant translations). The study recommended student training in translation process and product management by employing innovation technological tools (e.g., Translog software and eye-tracking device). Moreover, presenting the cultural dimension should go beyond written translation materials and include audio and visual materials. Sound methodology of training should be adopted, one that draws upon the computational model of human translation, linguistic and cultural models, and models of translation quality assessment.
Keywords: translation unit, Translog, translation quality, cultural references, English-Arabic translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Translation unit
    • 1.2Definition of significant pauses in target text production
    • 1.3Models of translation quality assessment
    • 1.4Culture in translation
  • 2.Previous studies
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Analysis at the textual level
    • 4.2Analysis at the lexical level
      • 4.2.1Translation unit and time
    • 4.3Translation product quality
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Translation time and management of translation stages
    • 5.2Segmentation of translation units and time
    • 5.3Students’ translations and translation quality
  • 6.Pedagogical implications
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.18017.qas
References (62)
References
Aixelá, J. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Alvarez & M. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 52–78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Alves, F., & Goncalves, J. (2003). A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: perspectives in process-oriented research (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., & Vale, D. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, E. (2010). Uncertainty, uncertainty management, and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 17–39). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A course book on translation. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassenett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (1st ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Campbell, S., & Hale, S. (2003). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 205–224). UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, M., & Buch-Kromann, M. (2010). Correlating translation product and translation process data of professional and student translators. Proceeding of European Association for Machine Translation, 141, 1–8. Retrieved from [URL]
Carl, M., & Jakobsen, A. (2009). Towards statistical modelling of translators’ activity data. International Journal of Speech Technology, 12(4), 125–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Relating production units and alignment units in translation activity data. In B. Sharp & M. Zock (Eds.), Natural language processing and cognitive science (pp. 37–46). Portugal: Scitepress Digital Library.Google Scholar
Carl, M., & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 56(4), 952–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, M., Kay, M., & Jensen, K. (2010). Long distance revisions in drafting and post-editing. Proceeding of CIC Ling 2010, 1–12. Retrieved from [URL]
Carl, M., Dragsted, B., & Jakobsen, A. (2011). A Taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal, 16(2). Retrieved from [URL]
Catford, J. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 17,1, 49–70.Google Scholar
(2006). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 17(1), 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In G. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). Indicators of difficulty in translation – correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, B., & Carl, M. (2013). Towards a classification of translator profiles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, P. (1987). Putting translation theory to use. In H. Keith & I. Mason (Eds.), Translation in the modern language degree (pp. 31–18). London: CILT.Google Scholar
Gerloff, P. (1986). Second language learners’ reports on the interpretive processes: Talk-aloud protocols of translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulla (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 243–262). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hansen, G. (2008). The speck in your brother’s eye – the beam in your own. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp. 255–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Some Thoughts about the evaluation of translation products in empirical translation process research. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 381, 389–402.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. (2000). The effects of time on cognitive processes and strategies in translation, Copenhagen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.Google Scholar
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator (5th ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
(2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 46(2), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Translation quality assessment: Past and present. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivir, V. (1987). Procedures and strategies for the translation of culture. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. (1999). Logging time delay in translation. In G. Hansen (Ed.), LSP texts and the process of translation (pp. 71–101). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
(2011). Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. In C. Alvstad, A. Held & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 37–55). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Are gaze shifts a key to a translator’s text segmentation? Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karoubi, B. (2016). Translation quality assessment demystified. Babel. Revue Internationale de la Traduction / International Journal of Translation, 62(2), 253–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katan, D. (1999). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263–75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Kupulainen, M. (2015). On the operationalisation of pauses in translation process research. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting, 7 (1), 47–58.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. (2006a). Analysing online revision. In K. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (pp. 157–188). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies. A psycholinguistic investigation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mailhac, J. (1996). The formulation of translation strategies for cultural references. In C. Hoffmann (Ed.), Language, culture and communication in contemporary Europe (pp. 132–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mossop, B. (2007a). Editing and revising for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision making. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1974c). The theory and practise of translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, C. (1996). Text type and translation method. The Translator, 2(1), 81–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S. (2006). Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olk, H. (2013). Cultural references in translation: A framework for quantitative translation analysis. Perspectives, 21(3), 344–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE (2003). Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems in a research project. In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger & M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating Translation (pp. 99–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PICT (2012b). Promoting intercultural communication in translators. Situational Survey Report. Retrieved from [URL]
Saldanha, G., & O’ Brien, S. (2015). Research methodologies in translation studies. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Qassem, M. (2016). Culture-based text translation strategy analysis: English to Arabic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Mysore University, India.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., Carl, M., Lacruz, I., & Aizawa, A. (2016). Measuring cognitive translation effort with activity units. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(2), 331–345.Google Scholar
Sharmin, S., Spakov, O., Raiha, K., & Jakobsen, A. (2008). Where on the screen do translation students look while translating, and for how long? In S. Gopferich, A. Jakobsen, & I. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes: Eye-Tracking studies of reading and translation processing (pp. 30–51). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Studies in Language.Google Scholar
Tomozeiu, D., & Kumpulainen, M. (2016). Operationalising intercultural competence for translation pedagogy. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 268–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, M. (2005). Curricula and syllabi designers and translation practices. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yarosh, M. (2015). Translator intercultural competence: A model, learning objectives and level Indicators. In Y. Cui & W. Zhao (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (pp. 160–178). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M. (2015). Teaching translation with a model of multimodality. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 2(1), 30–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Al Thowaini, Buthainah M. & Mutahar Qassem
2024. The impact of an industry-driven translation training program on the performance of trainee translators. Cogent Arts & Humanities 11:1 DOI logo
Asiri, Eisa, Mutahar Qassem & Yousef Sahari
2024. Navigating Cultural Landscapes: Textual Insights into English–Arabic–English Translation. Open Cultural Studies 8:1 DOI logo
Hazaea, Abduljalil Nasr & Mutahar Qassem
2024. Translation Competence in Translator Training Programs at Saudi Universities: Empirical Study. Open Education Studies 6:1 DOI logo
Jamoussi, Rafik, Aladdin Al Zahran & Kais A. Kadhim
2023. Beliefs on translation speed among students. A case study. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Qassem, Mutahar & Buthainah M. Al Thowaini
2023. Cognitive Processes and Translation Quality: Evidence from Keystroke-Logging Software. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:5 ► pp. 1589 ff. DOI logo
Qassem, Mutahar & Buthainah M. Al Thowaini
2024. Translation processes and products in L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 translations: Insights from keylogging data. Education and Information Technologies 29:16 ► pp. 21789 ff. DOI logo
Qassem, Mutahar & Buthainah M. Al Thowaini
2024. Effectiveness of an online training course for trainee translators: Analysis of keylogging data. Education and Information Technologies DOI logo
Qassem, Mutahar, Buthainah M. Al Thowaini & Anastassia Zabrodskaja
2023. Bi-directionality in translating culture: Understanding translator trainees’ actual and perceived behaviors. PLOS ONE 18:11 ► pp. e0293541 ff. DOI logo
Qassem, Mutahar
2022. Adequacy, fluency and cognitive processes: evidence from translating English news articles into Arabic. Interactive Learning Environments ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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.