Comparing Translation and Post-editing: An Annotation Schema for Activity Units

  • Jean NitzkeEmail author
  • Katharina Oster
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


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.


Translation 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.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. De Palma, D. (2009). The business case for machine translation. Common Sense Advisory. Accessed March 30, 2015.
  5. Dragsted, B., & Carl, M. (2013). Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye-tracking and key-logging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hommerich, C., & Reiß, N. (2011). Ergebnisse Der BDÜ-Mitgliederbefragung.Google Scholar
  7. O’Brien, S. (2011). Towards predicting post-editing productivity. Machine Translation, 25, 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Language, Culture and Translation Studies Germersheim (FTSK)University of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations