Advertisement

Segmentation in Translation: A Look at Expert Behaviour

  • Arnt Lykke JakobsenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)

Abstract

The present contribution examines an interesting but technically quite imperfect sample recording in the CRITT Centre’s TPR-database in an attempt to demonstrate how imperfect gaze data can be meaningfully reconstructed and to illustrate and explore details of translational keystroke and gaze behaviour in a single translator. The data clearly show that translation proceeds segment by segment. A source text (ST) segment is read, comprehended, and translated. As the translation is typed, we see it emerging segment by segment. Perfectly smooth production of target text across extended stretches of time is not frequently seen, but is often approximated. Highly expert performers are able to bind processing segments together into a flow of continuous production. From their recorded gaze behaviour, we can observe that experts do process text segment by segment, so how is it that they can manage to sometimes maintain fairly continuous production? Evidence of how reading, comprehension, translation, formulation and typing activities are coordinated is found in recorded gaze data, which provide detailed evidence of what ST text unit was being worked on at any given point in time, and evidence provided by keystrokes. These combined sources of evidence can be used to infer both what ST (sub)segment was being processed within what ST context, and in what manner, always with the big unknowns at play of the translator’s knowledge, memory, meaning construction intelligence and expressive power – and the suspicion that the human brain is doing a good deal more than eye movements and keystrokes reveal.

Keywords

Gaze Data Target Text (TT) Verurteilt Keystroke Intervals Keystroke Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angelone, E. (2010). Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. (2012). Translatorische kreativität: Definition-messung-entwicklung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Butterworth, B. (1980). Evidence from pauses in speech. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production. Volume 1. Speech and talk (pp. 155–176). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carl, M., & Dragsted, B. (2012). Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition. Special Issue on the Crossroads Between Contrastive Linguistics, Translation Studies and Machine Translation, 2(1), 127–145.Google Scholar
  6. Carl, M., & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta, 56(4), 952–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dragsted, B. (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. PhD thesis. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  8. Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2008). Comprehension and production in translation: A pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of reading and writing processes. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes: Eyetracking studies of reading and translation processing (pp. 9–29). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  10. Gile, D. (1999). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – A contribution. Hermes, 23, 153–172.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15(2), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Immonen, S., & Mäkisalo, J. (2010). Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. Hermes, 44, 45–61.Google Scholar
  13. Ivir, V. (1981). Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited. Poetics Today, 2(4), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jakobsen, A. L. (2002). Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students. Traducción & Comunicación, 3, 89–103.Google Scholar
  15. Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakobsen, A. L. (2005). Instances of peak performance in translation. Lebende Sprachen, 50(3), 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakobsen, A. L. (2016). Are Gaze Shifts a Key to a Translator’s Text Segmentation? Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaeffer, M. (2013). The ideal literal translation hypothesis: The role of shared representations during translation. PhD thesis. University of Leicester, Leicester.Google Scholar
  20. Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  21. Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive translation studies – And beyond (Rev. Ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research and Innovation in Translation and Translation Technology, Department of Management, Society and CommunicationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations