Article published in:
Culture and Society
[Translation Spaces 5:2] 2016
► pp. 222243
References

References

Barbour, Rosaline
2007Doing Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Josep
2013Honing Quality in 23 Languages MT  at EC—The Right Foundation. Unpublished DGT intranet report. Accessed May 25, 2015.Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke
2006 “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Castilho, Sheila, Sharon O’Brien, Fabio Alves, and Morgan O’Brien
2014 “Does Post-Editing Increase Usability? A Study with Brazilian Portuguese as Target Language.” In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, edited by Marko Tadić, Philipp Koehn, Johann Roturier, and Andy Way, 183–190. Dubrovnik: EAMT.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2013Translation in the Digital Age. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
DePalma, Donald A., and Benjamin B. Sargent
2013Transformative Translation. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.Google Scholar
DePalma, Donald A., Vijayalaxmi Hegde, Hélène Pielmeier, and Robert G. Stewart
2013The Language Services Market: 2013. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.Google Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, and Sharon O’Brien
2014 “Assessing the Usability of Raw Machine Translated Output: A User-Centered Study Using Eye Tracking.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30 (1): 40–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen
2014 “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the Workplace.” MonTI Monographs in Translation and Interpreting Special Issue 1: 355–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
2014 “Translators and Machines: Working Together.” In Proceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I), edited by Wolfram Baur, Brigitte Eichner, Sylvia Kalina, Norma Keßler, Felix Mayer, and Jeanette Ørsted, 199–207. Berlin: BDÜ.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien
2015 “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisele, Andreas
2013 “MT at EC: Serving the Multilingual Needs of the European Commission.” Paper presented at 8th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation , Sofia, August 8.
European Commission
2012Translation Tools and Workflow. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Gaspari, Federico, Antonio Toral, Sudip Kumar Naskar, Declan Groves, and Andy Way
2014 “Perception vs Reality: Measuring Machine Translation Post-Editing Productivity.” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 60–72. Vancouver: AMTA.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
International Ergonomics Association
2016Definition and Domains of Ergonomics. Accessed June 7, 2016. http://​www​.iea​.cc​/whats​/index​.html.
Koskinen, Kaisa
2008Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa, and Minna Ruokonen
Forthcoming. “Love Letters or Hate Mail? Translators’ Affective Responses to Technology.” In Human Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon Routledge
Kluvanec, Daniel
2013 “The Way Forward with MT at EC in 2014 and Beyond.” Paper presented at European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment , Brussels, December 3.
2014 “Getting the Right Mix: Approaches to Machine Translation in the European Commission.” In Proceedings of the XXth World Congress of the International Federation of Translators (Vol. I), edited by Wolfram Baur, Brigitte Eichner, Sylvia Kalina, Norma Keßler, Felix Mayer, and Jeanette Ørsted, 51–57. Berlin: BDÜ.Google Scholar
Koponen, Maarit
2012 “Comparing Human Perceptions of Post-Editing Effort with Post-Editing Operations.” In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, 181–190. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lagoudaki, Elina
2006 “Translation Memories Survey 2006: Users’ Perceptions around TM Use.” Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 28 , London, November 16–17.
2008Expanding the Possibilities of Translation Memory Systems: From the Translator’s Wishlist to the Developer’s Design. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Lavault-Olléon, Élisabeth
2011 “Une introduction à la problématique « Traduction et Ergonomie » [Introducing Translation and Ergonomics].” ILCEA Traduction et Ergonomie. Accessed May 17, 2016. https://​ilcea​.revues​.org​/1118.Google Scholar
Le Blanc, Matthieu
2013 “Translators on Translation Memory (TM): Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” Translation and Interpreting 5 (2): 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liamputtong, Pranee
2011Focus Group Methodology: Principle and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moorkens, Joss, Sharon O’Brien, Igor A.L. da Silva, Norma B. de Lima Fonseca, and Fabio Alves
2015 “Correlations of Perceived Post-Editing Effort with Measurements of Actual Effort”. Machine Translation 29 (3-4): 267–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O’Brien
Forthcoming. “Assessing User Interface Needs of Post-Editors of Machine Translation.” In Human Issues in Translation Technology edited by Dorothy Kenny Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon Routledge
Morgan, David L.
1997Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon
2012 “Translation as Human-Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1: 101–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, Maureen Enhrensberger-Dow, Marcel Hasler, and Megan Connolly
Submitted. “Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators” submitted to Hermes, Journal of Language and Communication, Special Issue on Translation Technology.
Pilos, Spyridon
2014 “MT at EC – The New Machine Translation of the European Commission.” Paper presented at CEF Information Day , Luxembourg, January 16.
Plitt, Mirko, and François Masselot
2010 “A Productivity Test of Statistical Machine Translation Post-Editing in a Typical Localisation Context.” The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 93: 7–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony, Alexander Perekrestenko, and Bram Starink
2006Translation Technology and Its Teaching: (With Much Mention of Localization). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2010 “A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation: Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 22 (01): 94–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Florian Windhager
2013 “Extended Translation: A Socio-Cognitive Research Agenda.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 25 (1): 33–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rummel, Dieter
2015Machine Translation Annual Activity Report 2014. Unpublished DGT intranet report. Accessed May 25, 2015.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. Friedman, and Prem N. Shamdasani
2015Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Teixeira, Carlos S.C.
2014 “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-Editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP3), edited by Sharon O’Brien, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 450–59. Vancouver: AMTA.Google Scholar
Van den Bergh, Jan, Eva Geurts, Donald Degraen, Mieke Haesen, Iulianna van der Lek-Ciudin, and Karin Coninx
2016 “Recommendations for Translation Environments to Improve Translators’ Workflows.” Paper presented at Translating and the Computer 38 , London, November 17–18.
Cited by

Cited by 17 other publications

Bi, Shengqin, Andino Maseleno, Xiaohui Yuan & Valentina E. Balas
2020. Intelligent system for English translation using automated knowledge base. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 39:4  pp. 5057 ff. Crossref logo
Cadwell, Patrick, Sharon O’Brien & Carlos S. C. Teixeira
2018. Resistance and accommodation: factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators. Perspectives 26:3  pp. 301 ff. Crossref logo
de Faria Pires, Loïc
2020. Master’s students’ post-editing perception and strategies. FORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation 18:1  pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana & Antonio Toral
2020. The impact of post-editing and machine translation on creativity and reading experience. Translation Spaces 9:2  pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo
Kappus, Martin & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2020. The ergonomics of translation tools: understanding when less is actually more. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4  pp. 386 ff. Crossref logo
Kenny, Dorothy, Joss Moorkens & Félix do Carmo
2020. Fair MT. Translation Spaces 9:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Kudrinko, Karly, Emile Flavin, Michael Shepertycky & Qingguo Li
2021. Assessing the Need for a Wearable Sign Language Recognition Device for Deaf Individuals: Results from a National Questionnaire. Assistive Technology Crossref logo
Moorkens, Joss, Antonio Toral, Sheila Castilho & Andy Way
2018. Translators’ perceptions of literary post-editing using statistical and neural machine translation. Translation Spaces 7:2  pp. 240 ff. Crossref logo
Mossop, Brian
2019. Subjective Responses to Translation Memory Policy in the Workplace. TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction 32:1  pp. 309 ff. Crossref logo
Nunes Vieira, Lucas & Elisa Alonso
2020. Translating perceptions and managing expectations: an analysis of management and production perspectives on machine translation. Perspectives 28:2  pp. 163 ff. Crossref logo
O’Brien, Sharon & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2020. MT Literacy—A cognitive view. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 3:2  pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl & Jelena Milosevic
2017. Translation practice in the field. Translation Spaces 6:1  pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl & Jelena Milosevic
2019.  In Translation Practice in the Field [Benjamins Current Topics, 105],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Sánchez-Gijón, Pilar, Joss Moorkens & Andy Way
2019. Post-editing neural machine translation versus translation memory segments. Machine Translation 33:1-2  pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Tang, Jun
2020. Graduate-level career preparation for Chinese translation students: a perspective of educational ergonomics. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4  pp. 405 ff. Crossref logo
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, Patrick Cadwell, Hendrik Kockaert & Winibert Segers
2020. A turn to ergonomics in translator and interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4  pp. 363 ff. Crossref logo
Yang, Yanxia & Xiangling Wang
2019. Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education 133  pp. 116 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 april 2021. 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.