Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.1–20

Order effects in the translation process

 | University of North Carolina at Charlotte
 | Minnesota State University Moorhead
This study investigates how the order in which various translation memory match-types occur in a target language version of a text may influence translator behavior and cognition. Empirical research designs often attempt to mitigate for possible confounds from order effects, yet explicit recognition of the time-series nature of data collection can yield a better understanding of the influence that translation technologies have on the translation task. Data are drawn from a previous study that investigated technical, temporal, and cognitive effort in a translation memory environment, and here we analyze the time-series data for potential order effects. Findings show that order effects are present in some instances during the sequential progression through the target text, particularly with respect to technical and cognitive effort. Results are also suggestive of a potential first impression effect.
Keywords: order effects, time series, translation memory, editing behavior, perception of difficulty
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Time series in translation
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Procedures
    • 3.3Measures
    • 3.4Analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Perception of difficulty
    • 5.2First impression effect
    • 5.3Future research
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00001.mel
References (50)
References
Alves, Fabio. 2005. “Ritmo cognitivo, meta-função e experiencia: parámetros de análise processual no desempenho de tradutores novatos e experientes.” In Competência em tradução: cognição e discurso. Edited by F. Alves, C. Magalhães, and A. Pagano, 109–169. Belo Horizonte: Editorial UFMG.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel 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. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Anderson, Norman H., and Stephen Hubert. 1963. “Effects of Concomitant Verbal Recall on Order Effects in Personality Impression Formation.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2 (5–6): 379–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelone, Erik. 2012. “The Place of Screen Recording in Process-oriented Translator Training.” Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione (RITT) 141: 41–55.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Watching and Learning from ‘Virtual Professionals’: Utilizing Screen Recording in Process-oriented Translator Training.” In New Prospects and Perspectives for Educating Language Mediators. Edited by D. Kiraly, S. Hansen-Schirra, and K. Maksymski, 139–155. Tübingen: Günther Narr.Google Scholar
Bansback, Nick, Linda C. Li, Larry Lynd, and Stirling Bryan. 2014. “Exploiting Order Effects to Improve the Quality of Decisions.” Patient Education and Counseling 96 (2): 197–203. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bausenhart, Karin M., Oliver Dyjas, and Rolf Ulrich. 2015. “Effects of Stimulus Order on Discrimination Sensitivity for Short and Long Durations.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 77 (4): 1033–1043. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Brown, Stephen J. and Jerold B. Warner. 1985. “Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies.” Journal of Financial Economics 14 (1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Tina Paulsen, and Anne Schjoldager. 2015. “Computer-aided Translation Tools: The Uptake and Use by Danish Translation Service Providers.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 251: 89–105.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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. 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. Edited 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. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. Mees, 9–30. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J. 2012. “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences, and Challenges.” Translation Spaces 11: 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “Localization and the (R)Evolution of Translation.” In A Companion to Translation Studies. Edited by S. Bermann and C. Porter, 147–162. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckes, Thomas. 2008. “Rater Types in Writing Performance Assessments: A Classification Approach to Rater Variability.” Language Testing 25 (2): 155–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2017. “An Ergonomic Perspective of Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 332–349. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enríquez Raído, Vanessa. 2014. Translation and Web Searching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 2016. “Experimental Research.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting. Edited by C. V. Angelelli and B. J. Baer, 220–228. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guerberof Arenas, Ana. 2009. “Productivity and Quality in the Post-editing of Outputs from Translation Memories and Machine Translation.” Localisation Focus 7 (1): 11–21.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian. 2017. “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira, 248–264. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1999. “Logging Target Text Production with Translong.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results. Edited by G. e Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Translation Drafting by Professional Translators and by Translation Students.” In Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product. Edited by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Tracking Translators’ Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Translog.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches to Translation Studies. Edited by C. Alvstad, A. Hild, and E. Tiselius, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian T. H. Jensen. 2008. “Eye Movement Behavior Across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” Copenhagen Studies in Language 361: 103–124.Google Scholar
Jensen, Kristian T. H. 2011. “Distribution of Attention Between Source Text and Target Text during Translation.” In Cognitive Explorations of Translation. Edited by S. O’Brien, 215–237. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Killman, Jeffrey. 2015. “Context as Achilles’ Heel of Translation Technologies: Major Implications for End-users.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 10 (2): 203–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 2001. Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-editing Processes. Edited by G. S. Koby. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, Minna. 2015. “On the Operationalization of ‘Pauses’ in Translation Process Research.” Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 47–58.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.” Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, Matthieu. 2013. “Translators on Translation Memory (TM): Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (2): 1–13.Google Scholar
Lindgaard, Gitte, Gary Fernandes, Cathy Dudek, and Judith M. Brown. 2006. “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression!” Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2): 115–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2014. Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, OH. Available at [URL]
2015. “On the Applicability of Internet-Mediated Research Methods to Investigate Translators’ Cognitive Behavior.” Translation & Interpreting 7 (1): 59–71.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Gregory M. Shreve. 2016. “Match Evaluation and Over-editing in a Translation Memory Environment.” In Reembedding Translation Process Research. Edited by R. Muñoz, 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michels, Walter C., and Harry Helson. 1954. “A Quantitative Theory of Time-order Effects.” The American Journal of Psychology 67 (2): 327–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-editing Machine Translation Output.” Across Language and Cultures 7 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Eye-tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2011. “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL].
Ruokonen, Minna, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2017. “Dancing with Technology: Translators’ Narratives on the Dance of Human and Machinic Agency in Translation Work.” The Translator 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost. 1996. It’s about Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Utrecht: USI &C.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Christina Schäffner, Joseph H. Danks, and Jennifer Griffin. 1993. “Is There a Special Kind of ‘Reading’ for Translation? An Empirical Investigation of Reading in the Translation Process.” Target 5 (1): 21–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigle, Sara Cushing. 1994. “Effects of Training on Raters of ESL Compositions.” Language Testing 11 (2): 171–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whyatt, Bogusława, Katarzyna Stachowiak, and Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny. 2016. “Similar and Different: Cognitive Rhythm and Effort in Translation and Paraphasing.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 175–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Liu, Xiao & Ying Cui
2024. The impact of text type on Chinese-English translation effort: an investigation with reference to translation entropy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 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
Whyatt, Bogusława
2022. In search of directionality effectsin the translation processand in the end product. Translation, Cognition & Behavior ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Xiangyan, Xiangling Wang & Xiaodong Liu
2022. The impact of task complexity and translating self-efficacy belief on students’ translation performance: Evidence from process and product data. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Whyatt, Bogusława, Olga Witczak & Ewa Tomczak
2021. Information behaviour in bidirectional translators: focus on online resources. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 15:2 ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.