Comparing Translation and Post-editing: An Annotation Schema for Activity Units
The current chapter introduces an annotation schema of TPR data that categorises post-editing behaviour into five different classes and compares general-language and domain-specific English-to-German translation and post-editing with respect to production times, key-logging (text production activity and text elimination activity) and eye-tracking data (total reading times on source text and on target text). The results support the hypothesis that post-editing is faster than translation from scratch for both domain-specific and non-domain-specific text types. When key-logging and eye-tracking data are taken into consideration, domain-specific texts require more effort when translating from scratch, but less effort, when the machine translation output is post-edited. It is hypothesized that the introduced annotation schema could provide more details about translation processes, and better insights into the differences between different domains.
KeywordsTranslation process research LSP Key-logging Eye-tracking Post-editing Annotation schema
We would like to thank David Imgrund who helped conduct the experiments in study II and Anke Tardel who helped prepare the data for analysis.
- Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical translation process research. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation. Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
- Carl, M., Gutermuth, S., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2014). Post-editing machine translation–a usability test for professional translation settings. In Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries in translation and interpretation studies. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
- Čulo, O., Gutermuth, S., Hansen-Schirra, S., & Nitzke, J. (2014). The influence of post-editing on translation strategies. In Post-editing of machine translation: Processes and applications. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
- De Palma, D. (2009). The business case for machine translation. Common Sense Advisory. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-DePalma-ppt.pdf
- Hommerich, C., & Reiß, N. (2011). Ergebnisse Der BDÜ-Mitgliederbefragung.Google Scholar
- Winther Balling, L., & Carl, M. (2014). Production time across languages and tasks: A large-scale analysis using the CRITT translation process database. In Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries in translation and interpretation studies. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar