« Plus » est-il synonyme de « mieux » ? Logiciels commerciaux contre logiciels libres du point de vue de l’ergonomie

Grass, Thierry

doi:10.4000/ilcea.1052

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, LeBlanc (2017) observed shifts in business and administrative practices in a translation agency after implementing CAT tools. Studies on the attitude of translators to technology, their willingness (or lack thereof) to use technology and adapt to software changes (Gough 2011;Grass 2011;Olohan 2011;LeBlanc 2013), and the related influence of organisational culture (Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey, this volume) have also delivered important insights. Such studies bear witness to the fast-moving pace of translation practices.…”

Section: Topics In Translation/interpreting Workplace Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the debate surrounding the role of translation tools, ergonomics research reminds us not to lose sight of the translators themselvesthe ones who actually use the tools and whose needs they should address. Pym (2011), Bundgaard, Christensen, and, and Christensen and Schjoldager (2016) have been looking more closely at how translators use CAT tools and at the impact of such tools on the realities of translation work (with regard to their possibilities to survive and succeed in the translation marketplace, see Grass 2011). Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow (2011) and Teixeira and O'Brien (this volume) have sought to approach these questions from the cognitive ergonomics perspective.…”

Section: Topics In Translation/interpreting Workplace Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes

Risku

Rogl

Milošević

2019

Benjamins Current Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

that permits insights into the diversity and complexity of translation practice, aspects that cannot really be reconstructed in a laboratory setting.While the specific theoretical foundations of the individual articles in this volume might differ and range from situated cognition and ergonomics to practice theory, they all nonetheless agree on the situatedness of translation, interpreting and related processes, one of the main assumptions of our research. Of particular interest are the processes at the workplace, the actions of those involvedas embedded in a specific environmentand how such workplaces develop over time, i.e., the process dimension of translation work. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to begin with an overview of the notion of the translation/interpreting process in Translation Studies before moving on to introduce and discuss those elements of workplace research that are of relevance for this Special Issue and for contemporary translation studies research. The derivation and diversification of translation process researchInterest in TPR has continued to grow since the first pioneering works emerged in the 1980s (e.g., Gerloff 1986;Krings 1986;Lörscher 1987). The study of translation as a process complements research that focuses on source/target text relationships or the cultural and literary systems of which they form part. TPR applies empirically sound cognitive science approaches to observe and describe translation processes in order to identify patterns in the behaviour of translators/interpreters under different conditions and draw inferences on their cognitive processes. Theories and models initially from the cognitive sciences, cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics in particular are used to describe and explain the connections in this behaviour and obtain a better understanding of translation processes (e.g., Risku 2010;Muñoz 2010a;Martín 2013). TPR looks at factors related to people, tasks and (work) settings, studying, for example, whether bilingual laypersons translate differently to advanced translation students (Hansen 2003); whether and how creativity shows itself in the translation process (Kußmaul 2000;Bayer-Hohenwarter 2009); how contextual information influences translation (Rydning and Lachaud 2010); how reading and writing processes are distributed during translation (Dragsted 2010); or the special challenges faced in sight translation (Shreve, Lacruz, and Angelone 2010).Substantial parts of translation/interpreting processes take place in the brain or, in the case of translation, on the screen and are therefore difficult to observe with the naked eye. Thus, TPR uses various data collection methods (e.g., introspection, EEG measurement, think-aloud protocols, retrospective self-reflection, screen recording, keystroke logging, pupillometry and eye tracking), often in combination, to increase the reliability of the results (cf. triangulation; Alves 2003; Lachaud 2011). In the case of interpreting, separating the process from the

show abstract

Section: Topics In Translation/interpreting Workplace Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Topics In Translation/interpreting Workplace Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes

Risku

Rogl

Milošević

2019

Benjamins Current Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Current research on socio-cognitive processes" Translation Spaces 6 (1): 3-26. doi: 10.1075/ts.6.1.01ris they should address. Pym (2011), Bundgaard, Christensen, and Schjoldager (2016), and Christensen and Schjoldager (2016) have been looking more closely at how translators use CAT tools and at the impact of such tools on the realities of translation work (with regard to their possibilities to survive and succeed in the translation marketplace, see Grass 2011). Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow (2011) and Teixeira and O'Brien (this volume) have sought to approach these questions from the cognitive ergonomics perspective.…”

Section: Topics In Translation/interpreting Workplace Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation practice in the field

Risku

Rogl

Milošević

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

that permits insights into the diversity and complexity of translation practice, aspects that cannot really be reconstructed in a laboratory setting. While the specific theoretical foundations of the individual articles in this volume might differ and range from situated cognition and ergonomics to practice theory, they all nonetheless agree on the situatedness of translation, interpreting and related processes, one of the main assumptions of our research. Of particular interest are the processes at the workplace, the actions of those involvedas embedded in a specific environmentand how such workplaces develop over time, i.e., the process dimension of translation work. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to begin with an overview of the notion of the translation/interpreting process in Translation Studies before moving on to introduce and discuss those elements of workplace research that are of relevance for this Special Issue and for contemporary translation studies research. 2. The derivation and diversification of translation process research Interest in TPR has continued to grow since the first pioneering works emerged in the 1980s (e.g., Gerloff 1986; Krings 1986; Lörscher 1987). The study of translation as a process complements research that focuses on source/target text relationships or the cultural and literary systems of which they form part. TPR applies empirically sound cognitive science approaches to observe and describe translation processes in order to identify patterns in the behaviour of translators/interpreters under different conditions and draw inferences on their cognitive processes. Theories and models initially from the cognitive sciences, cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics in particular are used to describe and explain the connections in this behaviour and obtain a better understanding of translation processes (e.g., Risku 2010; Muñoz 2010a; 2010b; Martín 2013). TPR looks at factors related to people, tasks and (work) settings, studying, for example, whether bilingual laypersons translate differently to advanced translation students (Hansen 2003); whether and how creativity shows itself in the translation process (Kußmaul 2000; Bayer-Hohenwarter 2009); how contextual information influences translation (Rydning and Lachaud 2010); how reading and writing processes are distributed during translation (Dragsted 2010); or the special challenges faced in sight translation (Shreve, Lacruz, and Angelone 2010). Substantial parts of translation/interpreting processes take place in the brain or, in the case of translation, on the screen and are therefore difficult to observe with the naked eye. Thus, TPR uses various data collection methods (e.g., introspection, EEG measurement, think-aloud protocols, retrospective self-reflection, screen recording, keystroke logging, pupillometry and eye tracking), often in combination, to increase the reliability of the results (cf. triangulation; Alves 2003; Lachaud 2011). In the case of interpreting, separating the process from the

show abstract

La traduction comme travail : perspectives croisées en ergonomie, sociologie et traductologie

Kuznik¹

2016

ilcea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

« Plus » est-il synonyme de « mieux » ? Logiciels commerciaux contre logiciels libres du point de vue de l’ergonomie

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes

Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes

Translation practice in the field

La traduction comme travail : perspectives croisées en ergonomie, sociologie et traductologie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About