Are gaze shifts a key to a translator’s text segmentation?

• Authors: Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Keystroke logging has demonstrated that a translator’s text production can be broken down into units separated by pause boundaries (Dragsted 2004, 2005, 2010). Reading research has not identified analogous boundaries, as the only interruptions in a reader’s visual attention to a text are often only blinks. However, in an experimental setup with tracking of a translator’s gaze movements across a screen showing the source text and (emerging) target text, gaze data show the translator’s shifts of visual attention between the two texts. Can such shifts be seen as an index of content processing units? And do such shifts give us more accurate information about segmentation or more information than keystroke intervals? Using a rather poorly calibrated recording of just one translator’s translation of a single sentence (within a longer task) for illustration, the paper seeks to tentatively explore the feasibility of identifying segments, understood as processing units, on the basis of gaze shifts, and to inquire into what motivates gaze shifts. It also seeks to illustrate how much our interpretation of gaze representations, not least suboptimal representations, depend on a theory of reading.

Keywords

EN

Translation process research; segmentation; attention shifts; attention units; processing units; translation units; eye tracking

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 52
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 149-173

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-06-13

Contributors

author

Arnt Lykke Jakobsen

• Copenhagen Business School

References

• Alves, F. and D. Vale. 2009. “Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data”. Across Languages and Cultures 10(2). 251–273.
• Angelone, E. 2010. “Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task”. In: Shreve, G. and E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and cognition. (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XV.) 17–40.
• Baddeley, A.D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Balling, L.W., K.T. Hvelplund and A.C. Sjørup 2014. “Evidence of parallel processing during translation”. Meta 59(2). 234–259.
• Butterworth, B. 1980. “Evidence from pauses in speech”. In: Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language production. (Vol. 1. Speech and talk.) London: Academic Press. 155–176.
• Carl, M. and M. Kay. 2011. “Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta 56(4). 952–975.
• Carl, M. and B. Dragsted 2012. “Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production”. Translation: Corpora, computation, cognition. Special issue on the crossroads between contrastive linguistics, translation studies and machine translation 2(1). 127–145.
• Chesterman, A. 1989. Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.
• de Groot, A.M.B. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation”. In: Danks, J.H., G.M. Shreve, S.B. Fountain and M.K. McBeath (eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Sage Publications. 2556.
• 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 dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.)
• Dragsted, B. 2005. “Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty”. Target 17(1). 49–70.
• Dragsted, B. 2010. “Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory”. In: Shreve, G.M. and E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and cognition. (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XV.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. 41–62.
• Dragsted, B., I. Gorm Hansen. 2008. “Comprehension and production in translation: A pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of reading and writing processes. Copenhagen Studies in Language 36. 9–29.
• Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. “Pauses, clauses, sentences”. Language and Speech 15(2). 103–113.
• Immonen, S. and J. Mäkisalo. 2010. “Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation”. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies 44. 45–61.
• Ivir, V. 1981. “Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited”. Poetics Today 2(4). 51–59.
• Jakobsen, A.L. 2003. “Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation”. In: Alves, F. (ed.), Triangulating translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 69–95.
• Schilperoord, J. 1996. It’s about time. Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Timarová, S., B. Dragsted, and I. Gorm Hansen. 2011. “Time lag in translation and interpreting”. In: Alvstad, C., A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: integrative approaches in translation studies. (Benjamins Translation Library 94.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 121–146.
• Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2005. “The Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process research. META 50(2). 405–414.
• TPR-DB and Translog II. <> (Last accessed 09 Mar 2016.)

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/psicl-2016-0015