Article published in:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 2:1 (2019) ► pp. 1–34

‘Monitoring’ in translation

The role of visual feedback

| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
We assume that visual feedback from the written trace during translation plays an important role in monitoring the emerging translation. In this study, 44 participants translated with and without visual feedback from the target text (TT). Numerous measures were used to explore the differences between the texts that were created in the two conditions and the characteristics of the task performance in the two conditions. The impact of ST-TT semantic and syntactic relationships showed that there were differences on two of three behavioural measures across conditions. In the comparison of features of the translation process, findings show that ST reading times were longer without visual feedback, while increased translational choice (implying more monitoring) affected eye movements on the source text (ST) in the same way in both conditions. We found that, without visual feedback, when faced with more translational options, translators read the ST less linearly. Participants were more likely to look at the TT screen or read the TT the longer they read the ST and the more the more translational options the ST offered, even if the TT window was blank.
Keywords: monitoring, visual feedback, eye-tracking, keylogging, co-activation
Published online: 07 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00017.sch
References

References

Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Couto Vale
2011 “On Drafting and Revision in Translation: a Corpus Linguistics Oriented Analysis of Translation Process Data.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition. 1 (1): 105–122.Google Scholar
Angelone, Erik
2010 “Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 17–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2013 “languageR: Data sets and Functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics”.” Available at https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/languageR​/languageR​.pdf
Baddeley, Alan
1986 Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 “The Episodic Buffer: A New Component of Working Memory?” Trends in Cognitive Science 4 (11): 417–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Working Memory and Language: An Overview.” Journal of Communication Disorders 36: 189–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. and Graham Hitch
1974 “Working memory.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Edited by G. H. Bower, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using {lme4}.” Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. CrossrefGoogle 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. Istanbul, 21–27 May 2012.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted
2012 “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Corpora, computation, cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Martin Kay, and Kristian T. H. Jensen
2010 “Long-distance Revisions in Drafting and Post-editing.” Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, CICLing-2010 , Iaşi, Romania, 21–27 March, 2010.
Carl, Michael, and Moritz J. Schaeffer
2017 “Why Translation Is Difficult: A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation.” Hermes 56: 43–57.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Moritz J. Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore
2016 “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database”. In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. J. Schaeffer, 13–54. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Peiyao, Susan C. Bobb, Noriko Hoshino, and Viorica Marian
2017 “Neural Signatures of Language Co-activation and Control in Bilingual Spoken Word Comprehension.” Brain Research 1665: 50–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. Ann, and John R. Hayes
2003 “The Inner Voice in Writing.” Written Communication 20 (1): 99–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Degani, Tamar, Anat Prior, Chelsea M. Eddington, Ana B. Arêas da Luz Fontes, and Natasha Tokowicz
2016 “Determinants of Translation Ambiguity: a Within and Cross-language Comparison.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6 (3): 290–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara
2010 “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. M. Shreve and E. Angelone, 41–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John, and Jangman Hong
2009 “Effect Displays in {R} for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the {effects} Package.” Journal of Statistical Software 32: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giezen, Marcel R., Henrike K. Blumenfeld, Anthony Shook, Viorica Marian, Karen Emmorey
2015 “Parallel Language Activation and Inhibitory Control in Bimodal Bilinguals.” Cognition 141: 9–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François
1997 “The Bilingual Individual.” Interpreting 2: 163–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2018 “Metalinguistic Knowledge/Awareness/Ability and Translation: Some Questions.” Hermes 57: 11–28.Google Scholar
Hayes, John R.
2012 “Modeling and Remodeling Writing.” Written Communication 29 (3): 369–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, John R., and N. Ann Chenoweth
2007 “Working Memory in an Editing Task.” Written Communication 24 (4): 283–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter
1980 “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review 87: 329–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T.
1996 “A Model of Working Memory in Writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications. Edited by C. M. Levy, and S. E. Ransdell, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kitchener, Karen Strohm
1983 “Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistemic Cognition, a Three-Level Model of Cognitive Processing.” Human Development 26: 222–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen
2017 “{lmerTest} Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software 82: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R.
2018 emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. Available at https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/package​=emmeans/
Macizo Soria, Pedro, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina
2006 “Reading for Repetition and Reading for Translation: Do they Involve the Same Processes?” Cognition 99: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malakoff, Marguerite, and Kenji Hakuta
1991 “Translation Skill and Metalinguistic Awareness in Bilinguals.” In Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Edited by E. Bialystok, 141–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2016 “Of Minds and Men – Computers and Translators.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52 (2): 351–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olive, Thierry
2012 “Working Memory in Writing.” In Past, Present and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology. Edited by V. Wise Berninger, 485–503. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Olive, Thierry, Ronald T. Kellogg, and Annie Piolat
2008 “Verbal, Visual, and Spatial Working Memory Demands during Text Composition.” Applied Psycholinguistics 29: 669–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olive, Thierry, and Jean-Michel Passerault
2012 “The Visuospatial Dimension of Writing”. Written Communication 29 (3): 326–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olive, Thierry and Annie Piolat
2002 “Suppressing Visual Feedback in Written Composition: Effects on Processing Demanda and Coordination of the Writing Processes.” International Journal of Psychology 37 (4): 209–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oster, Katharina
2017 “The Influence of Self-monitoring on the Translation of Cognates.” In Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. Eitedd by S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, and S. Hofmann, 23–39. Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel
1994 “Toward a Neurolinguistic Theory of Simultaneous Translation: The Framework” International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10: 319–335.Google Scholar
Prior, Anat, Dhuly Wintner, Brian MacWhinney, and Alon Lavie
2011 “Translation Ambiguity In and Out of Context.” Applied Psycholinguistics 32: 93–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, Erik D., Tessa Warren, and Kerry McConnell
2009 “Using E-Z Reader to Model the Effects of Higher Level Language Processing on Eye Movements During Reading.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Isabelle S., Jim J. J. Ureel, Aline Remael, and Ayla Rigouts Terryn
2017 “Conceptualizing Translation Revision Competence: a Pilot Study on the « Fairness and Tolerance » Attitudinal Component.” Perspectives 26 (1): 2–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Navarro, Carmen, Natalia Paredes Jiménez, Pedro Macizo Soria, and Mª Teresa Bajo Molina
2008 “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica 128: 490–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., and Michael Carl
2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process. A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” In Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg: ACL.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Michael Carl, and Isabel Lacruz
2016 “Measuring Cognitive Translation Effort with Activity Units.” Baltic Journal of Modern Computing 4 (2), 331–345.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Anke Tardel, Sascha Hofmann, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2019 “Cognitive Effort and Efficiency in Translation Revision”. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting. Edited by E. Huertas, S. Vandepitte, and E. Iglesias. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz J., Kevin B. Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kirsten Malmkjær
2017 “Reading for Translation.” In Translation in Transition. Edited by A. L. Jakobsen, and Bartolomé Mesa Lao, 17–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., and Isabel Lacruz
2017 “Aspects of a Cognitive Model of Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. Edited by J. W. Schwieter, and A. Ferreira, 127–143. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sirén, Selja, and Kai Hakkarainen
2002 “Expertise in Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 71–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkonnen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The Monitor Model Revised: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, Mark, Vibeke Rønneberg, Christer Johansson, and Per H. Uppstad
2016 “Adolescent Weak Decoders Writing in a Shallow Orthography: Process and Product.” Scientific Studies of Reading 20 (5): 375–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2020. 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.