Integrating Treebank Annotation and User Activity in Translation Research

Abstract

The Center for Innovation of Translation and Translation Technology (CRITT) environment at Copenhagen Business School (CBS) draws on primarily two types of NLP resources, namely treebanks and the logging of user activity data (UAD) during text production and translation activities, in order to do research into the cognitive processes that lie behind translation activity. In this paper we make a short presentation of the Copenhagen Dependency Treebank (CDT), and elaborate how UAD is obtained and represented in Translog-II. Finally, the paper discusses some general perspectives on how process-oriented translation research methodology could benefit from the integration of UAD with structural linguistic information in the form of linguistically annotated text data.

Keywords

Translation Activity Text Production Cursor Position Target Text Mouse Activity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelone E (2010) Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. Translation and Cognition pp 17–40 Google Scholar
  2. Buch-Kromann M, Korzen I, Müller HH (2009) Uncovering the lost structure of translations with parallel treebanks. Copenhagen Studies in Language 38: 199–224 Google Scholar
  3. Carl M, Dragsted B (2011) Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production. In: Contrastive Linguistics, Translation Studies, Machine Translation – What can we Learn from Each Other? workshop held in conjunction with the Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (GSCL 2011), Hamburg, Germany Google Scholar
  4. Carl M, Dragsted B, Lykke Jakobsen A (2011) On the systematicity of human translation processes. In: Proceedings of Translation Careers and Technologies: Convergence Points for the Future (Tralogy 2011), Paris, France Google Scholar
  5. Dragsted B (2010) Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation. Translation and Cognition, American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia Google Scholar
  6. Hyrskykari A (2006) Utilizing eye movements: Overcoming inaccuracy while tracking the focus of attention during reading. Special issue: Attention aware systems Google Scholar
  7. Jakobsen A (1999) Logging target text production with translog. In: Hansen G (ed) Probing the process in translation: methods and results, Copenhagen Studies in Language, vol 24, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp 9–20 Google Scholar
  8. Korzen I, Müller HH (2011) The copenhagen dependency treebank. Forskellige niveauer samme relationer Google Scholar
  9. Müller HH, Durst-Andersen P (eds) (2012) Ny forskning i Grammatik. Odense Universitetsforlag, Odense Google Scholar
  10. Pavlovic N, Jensen KTH (2009) Eye tracking translation directionality. In: Pym A, Perekrestenko A (eds) Translation Research Projects 2, Intercultural Studies Group, Tarragona, pp 93–109. http://isg.urv.es/publicity/isg/publications/trp_2_2009/index.htm Google Scholar
  11. Schou L, Dragsted B, Carl M (2009) Ten years of translog. Copenhagen Studies in Language 37:37–51 Google Scholar
  12. Trautner-Kromann M (2003) The Danish dependency treebank and the DTAG treebank tool. In: 2nd Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, Växjo, Sweden, pp 217–220 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Languages & Computational LinguisticsCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations