Translation as a writing process
Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production
Sini Immonen | University of Joensuu, Finland
This paper is an empirical study on pause patterns in fluent translation and monolingual text production. By comparing pauses recorded from both processes, two temporal features were discovered: Firstly, the mean length of pause at textual category boundaries grew the higher the category was in the linguistic hierarchy. Secondly, the length of pause at clause level and lower was on average longer in translation than in monolingual text production, whereas pauses above clause level tended to be shorter in translation. Besides the differences in pause duration, translation also affected the use of total production time. Translation requires on average a longer revision and monitoring phase while the drafting phase is completed more quickly. Both writing tasks used approximately the same proportion of time for the orientation phase.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The experiment design
- 2.1The subjects
- 2.2The experimental setting
- 2.3Choosing the source material for the assignments
- 2.4The retrospective interview
- 3.Analysing the data
- 3.1The data in general
- 3.2 Preparing the data for analysis
- 3.3Properties of pauses
- 3.3.1The effect of location
- 3.3.2The effect of translation
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1Planning and revision in translation
- 4.2Pause distribution
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 01 May 2007
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.06imm
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.06imm
References
Andriessen, Jerry, Koenraad de Smedt and Michael Zock
1996 “Discourse planning: Empirical research and computer models”. Ton Dijkstra and Koenraad de Smedt, eds. Computational psycholinguistics: AI and connectionist models of human language processing. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. 1996 247–278.
Danks, Joseph H. and Jennifer Griffin
1997 “Reading and translation: A psycholinguistic perspective”. Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Sage Publications Ltd 1997 161–175.
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. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [PhD thesis.]
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta
2006 “Segmentation of the writing process in translation: Experts versus novices”. K.P.H. Sullivan and E. Lindgren, eds. Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier 2006 189–201.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2003 “Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation”. Fabio Alves, ed. Triangulating translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2003 69–95. 
2002 “Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students”. Gyde Hansen, ed. Empirical translation studies: Process and product. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur 2002 191–204.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke and Lasse Schou
1999 “Translog documentation, version 1.0”. .Gyde Hansen, ed. Probing the process in translation: Methods and results. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur 1999 1–36. [Appendix 1.]
Jensen, Astrid
2000 The effects of time on cognitive processes and strategies in translation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. [PhD thesis.]
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2001 “Workshop summary of the EXPERTISE research group on translation processes in Savonlinna”. http://www.hf.uio.no/kri/exertise/workshops/savonlinna/summary
Mäkisalo, Jukka
2000 Grammar and experimental evidence in Finnish compounds. Joensuu: University of Joensuu. [PhD thesis.]
Schilperoord, Joost
1996 It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
de Smedt, Koenraad
1996 “Computational models of incremental grammatical encoding.” Ton Dijkstra and Koenraad de Smedt, eds. Computational psycholinguistics: AI and connectionist models of human language processing. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd 1996 279–307.
Translog
Cited by
Cited by 25 other publications
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff.
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore & Moritz Schaeffer
2016.
In Border Crossings [Benjamins Translation Library, 126],
► pp. 225 ff.
Carl, Michael & Moritz Schaeffer
2018. The development of the TPR-DB as Grounded Theory Method.
Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:1 ► pp. 168 ff.
Dragsted, Barbara
2012. Indicators of difficulty in translation — Correlating product and process data.
Across Languages and Cultures 13:1 ► pp. 81 ff.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen & Sharon O'Brien
2015. Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace.
Translation Spaces 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff.
Garcia, Ignacio
2008. Translating and Revising for Localisation: What do We Know? What do We Need to Know?.
Perspectives 16:1-2 ► pp. 49 ff.
Immonen, Sini
2011. Unravelling the processing units of translation.
Across Languages and Cultures 12:2 ► pp. 235 ff.
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2017.
In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition,
► pp. 19 ff.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2017.
In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition,
► pp. 213 ff.
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Bogusława Whyatt & Katarzyna Stachowiak
2016. Simplification in inter- and intralingual translation – combining corpus linguistics, key logging and eye-tracking.
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2
Kruger, Haidee & Gert De Sutter
2018. Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties.
Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:2 ► pp. 251 ff.
Leblay, Christophe
2018. Génétique textuelle et écritures mono- et plurilingues.
TTR 29:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Lehka-Paul, Olha & Bogusława Whyatt
2016. Does personality matter in translation? interdisciplinary research into the translation process and product.
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2
Liu, Yanmeng
2021.
In Testing and Assessment of Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],
► pp. 159 ff.
Mossop, Brian, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, Robin Setton, Ernst-August Gutt, Jean Peeters & Kinga Klaudy
2005. Back to Translation as Language.
Across Languages and Cultures 6:2 ► pp. 143 ff.
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo & José Mª. Cardona Guerra
2019. Translating in fits and starts: pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes.
Perspectives 27:4 ► pp. 525 ff.
Risku, Hanna, Jelena Milosevic & Christina Pein-Weber
2016.
In Reembedding Translation Process Research [Benjamins Translation Library, 128],
► pp. 47 ff.
Schaeffer, Moritz, David Huepe, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Sascha Hofmann, Edinson Muñoz, Boris Kogan, Eduar Herrera, Agustín Ibáñez & Adolfo M. García
2020. The Translation and Interpreting Competence Questionnaire: an online tool for research on translators and interpreters.
Perspectives 28:1 ► pp. 90 ff.
Swar, Ohood & Mohammed Mohsen
2022. Students’ cognitive processes in L1 and L2 translation: Evidence from a keystroke logging program.
Interactive Learning Environments ► pp. 1 ff.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo & Sini Immonen
2008. The translation process - interplay between literal rendering and a search for sense.
Across Languages and Cultures 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Wang, Yifang
2021.
In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],
► pp. 201 ff.
Whyatt, Boguslawa
2017.
In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition,
► pp. 176 ff.
Whyatt, Bogusława, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny & Katarzyna Stachowiak
2017.
In Translation in Transition [Benjamins Translation Library, 133],
► pp. 136 ff.
Whyatt, Bogusława, Katarzyna Stachowiak & Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny
2016. Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing.
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2
Zheng, Jianwei & Wenjun Fan
2021. Different processes for translating expressive versus informative texts? A computer-assisted study of professionals’ English–Chinese translation.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:3 ► pp. 782 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.