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

Nitzke, Jean; Oster, Katharina

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_14

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The averages presented in Figure 2 support the findings by Carl, Dragsted, Elming, et al (2011) and Nitzke and Oster (2016) that most attention goes to the target text for both methods of translation and that the difference in attention is greater for post-editing than for human translation. This only contradicts Koglin (2015), who found more attention on the source text for human translation.…”

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…There was indeed a higher number of fixations on the target text when post-editing compared to human translation (Nitzke and Oster 2016).…”

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Processing of the source text during post-editing did indeed require fewer fixations per word than for human translation. The average fixation duration was also shorter when post-editing (Nitzke and Oster 2016), but only for the students. It seems that the cognitive load of professional processing of the source text is equal for both methods.…”

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…When considering the difference between source text processing and target text processing, findings become more complicated. Table 1 compares four studies : Carl, Dragsted, Elming, et al (2011), Koglin (2015, Nitzke and Oster (2016), Sharmin, Šparkov, et al (2008). Table 1 shows that the target text receives the most visual attention for both methods of translation, with the exception of human translation in the Koglin (2015) study.…”

Section: Post-editing Vs Human Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing with Students and Professional Translators

Daems

Vandepitte

Hartsuiker

et al. 2017

meta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RÉSUMÉBien que l'on ait une certaine connaissance des avantages de la post-édition pour les textes techniques, il reste difficile de savoir si celle-ci est une solution de remplacement viable à la traduction humaine pour les textes généraux. Il faut par ailleurs comprendre davantage les deux méthodes de traduction, et la façon dont elles sont appliquées par les étudiants et les traducteurs professionnels, pour en déterminer les écueils et adapter la formation des traducteurs en conséquence. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à mieux cerner les différences entre la traduction humaine et la post-édition pour les articles de journaux. L'oculométrie et l'enregistrement de frappes ont été utilisés pour étudier le processus de traduction et dégager les gains en productivité, la charge cognitive et l'utilisation de ressources externes. Nous avons également examiné la qualité de la traduction et l'attitude des traducteurs à l'égard des deux méthodes de traduction. L'étude de ces différentes perspectives met en évidence que les deux groupes de traducteurs comme les deux méthodes de traduction sont plus proches que ce que l'on pouvait présumer. ABSTRACTWhile the benefits of using post-editing for technical texts have been more or less acknowledged, it remains unclear whether post-editing is a viable alternative to human translation for more general text types. In addition, we need a better understanding of both translation methods and how they are performed by students as well as professionals, so that pitfalls can be determined and translator training can be adapted accordingly. In this article, we aim to get a better understanding of the differences between human translation and post-editing for newspaper articles. Processes are registered by means of eye tracking and keystroke logging, which allows us to study translation speed, cognitive load, and the use of external resources. We also look at the final quality of the product as well as translators' attitude towards both methods of translation. Studying these different aspects shows that both methods and groups are more similar than anticipated. RESUMENMientras que se reconocen cada vez más los beneficios del uso de la post-edición para la traducción de textos técnicos, aún no existen pruebas de que la post-edición sea una alternativa viable a la traducción humana para los textos más generales. Además, necesitamos una mejor comprensión de ambos métodos de traducción, así como de la forma en que son realizados por estudiantes y por profesionales, para que se puedan definir los posibles obstáculos y adaptar la formación de los traductores en función de ellos. En este artículo, nuestro objetivo es lograr una mejor comprensión de las diferencias entre la traducción humana y la post-edición de artículos periodísticos. Los procesos de traducción se registran mediante el seguimiento ocular y el registro de pulsaciones de teclas, lo que nos permite estudiar la velocidad de traducción, la carga cognitiva y el uso de recursos externos. También analizamos la calidad final del pro...

show abstract

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…There was indeed a higher number of fixations on the target text when post-editing compared to human translation (Nitzke and Oster 2016).…”

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Process: Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Post-editing Vs Human Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing with Students and Professional Translators

Daems

Vandepitte

Hartsuiker

et al. 2017

meta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Translog data, the translation process was divided into orientation, draft and revision phases (Dragsted & Carl, 2013;Nitzke & Oster, 2016). The orientation phase is that during which a translator reads the ST before any insertion or deletion takes place.…”

Section: Effects Of Thinking Aloud On Different Translation Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort in translation

Sun

Zhou

2021

LANS-TTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort in translation as a function of source-text difficulty level. It does so by considering time on task, duration of different translation phases (i.e., orientation, draft, revision), cognitive effort of processing the source and target texts, and translation quality. Twenty participants took part in an English–Chinese translation experiment, which comprised two matched sessions – translating while thinking aloud and translating silently. Their translation processes were recorded by means of an eye tracker and a key logger. An adapted NASA Task Load Index was employed to elicit their subjective assessments of translation difficulty levels. The quality of their translations was evaluated. The results of the study reveal a number of important effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort during translation: on translation duration, cognitive effort, the perceived level of difficulty of a translation as measured by NASA-TLX, and on translating easier texts.

show abstract

Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research

Hvelplund¹

2017

The Handbook of Translation and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing with Students and Professional Translators

Translation Methods and Experience: A Comparative Analysis of Human Translation and Post-editing with Students and Professional Translators

Effects of thinking aloud on cognitive effort in translation

Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About