Slide 1

1 Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow & Gary Massey Seminar on Empirical and Experimental Research in Translation UAB, Barcelona, 2-3 July 2013 Slide 2 2 Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Focus on the situated activity of translation realist social theory (Carter & Sealey 2000) domain theory (Layder 1998) people / agency (psychobiography of translator) situated activity (computer workplaces) social settings (staff or freelance) contextual resources (information, economic, personnel) effect of processes on quality of products translation competence and emergent practices mixed-method approach 1 st -4 th levels of Progression Analysis (Perrin 2003) Slide 3 3 Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond 1 st level of Progression Analysis: translation situation participants linguistic and educational background participant observation at translation workplaces controlled recordings at translation institutes usability lab library, classrooms, and computer rooms (students) mobile workplace (students and freelance translators) industry partners offices (staff professionals) status of translation job temporal and economic constraints Slide 4 4 1 st level of Progression Analysis: translation situation students at different points in their translation careers beginners, advanced/MA, graduates six different language combinations (G-E, E-G, F-G, G-F, I-G, G-I) translation into L1 or L2 professionals with different levels of experience juniors and seniors at industry partner (translation into L1) free-lancers (translation into L1 or L2) Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 5 5 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: activities and practices keystroke logging InputLog 4.0 (van Waes & Leijten 2006) S-notation (Kollberg & Severinson-Eklundh 2001) positions and order of insertions and deletions progression graphs (Perrin 2003) development of target text over time screen recordings of translation processes all screen events (typing, searches, formatting, etc.) eye-tracking of translation processes location, focus, movements, etc. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 6 6 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: keystroke logging Temporal information about translation process from the logfile (ET0413_GE) Slide 7 7 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: S-notation {insertions} [deletions] Dangerous Toys from China (...) 1 [=| 1 ] 1 In EU 2 [me| 2 ] 2 states, more and more dangerous toys 3 [e| 3 ] 3 and electronic devices from China have to 5 [b 4 [y | 4 ] 4 e taken out ] 5 | 6 6 {be withdrawn from} 6 | 7 7 [of] 7 circulation.| 5 Last 8 [Year| 8 ] 8 year, EU authorities banned approximately one third more ever 9 [ | 9 ] 9 y day goods from stores than in 2005, 10 [an| 10 ] 10 reported EU 11 [-| 11 ] 11 commissioner for consumer affairs, Meglena Kuneva 53 {,} 53 | 54 12 { in Brussels} 12 on Thursday.| 12 For instance, plush bears, hair dryers, cleansing agents and ski bindings have 13 [pro| 13 ] 13 proven dangerous. Almost half of the over 920 24 {rejected } 24 | 25 goods 14 [c| 14 ] 14,15 [were impo| 15 ] 15,17 { 18 [about which the EU comp| 18 ] 18 in the EU 20 [about which there had been complaint 19 [s| 19 ] 19 | 20 ] 20 | 21 } 17,21 [had] 21 | 22 22 { 23 [that had| 23 ] 23 | 24 } 22,25 {had} 25 been imported from China. (... 16 [=| 16 ] 16 )| 17 According to the 28 {EU } 28 rapid aler 26 [s| 26 ] 26 t s 27 [i| 27 ] 27 ystem| 28 54 { RAPEX} 54 | 55, 36 [ ] 36 | 37 37 { 55 [in 2006] 55 | 56 38 [ ] 38 | 39 } 37 | 38 39 [ 29 [2006| 29 ] 29,31 {for the first time} 31 | 32 ] 39 | 40 32 [in 2006] 32,34 { 35 [ in 2006| 35 ] 35 | 36 } 34,57 [, ] 57 toys ha 30 [v| 30 ] 30 d proven more dangerous than electronic devices 33 [ | 31 in 2006] 33 | 34 40 { for the first time} 40,56 { in 2006} 56 | 57. | 33 (...) 41 [P| 41 ] 41,42 [T| 42 ] 42 Particularly 44 [for s 43 [am| 43 ] 43 mall children, | 44 ] 44 small child 45 [e| 45 ] 45 ren were in danger of swallowing loose parts, 46 [da| 46 ] 46 said the EU commission. The electronic d 47 [i| 47 ] 47 evices with 48 [r| 48 ] 48 drawn fro 49 [ m| 49 ] 49 m circulation threatened to cause electric shocks and 51 [ 50 {i} 50 | 51 ] 51 | 52 52 {, in part, } 52 were not fire proof.| 50 Link in German: http://kurier.at/nachrichten/wirtschaft/71206.php| 53 Slide 8 8 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: S-notation {insertions} [deletions] Dangerous Toys from China (...) 1 [=| 1 ] 1 In EU 2 [me| 2 ] 2 states, more and more dangerous toys 3 [e| 3 ] 3 and electronic devices from China have to 5 [b 4 [y | 4 ] 4 e taken out ] 5 | 6 6 {be withdrawn from} 6 | 7 7 [of] 7 circulation.| 5 Last 8 [Year| 8 ] 8 year, EU authorities banned approximately one third more ever 9 [ | 9 ] 9 y day goods from stores than in 2005, 10 [an| 10 ] 10 reported EU 11 [-| 11 ] 11 commissioner for consumer affairs, Meglena Kuneva 53 {,} 53 | 54 12 { in Brussels} 12 on Thursday.| 12 For instance, plush bears, hair dryers, cleansing agents and ski bindings have 13 [pro| 13 ] 13 proven dangerous. Almost half of the over 920 24 {rejected } 24 | 25 goods 14 [c| 14 ] 14,15 [were impo| 15 ] 15,17 { 18 [about which the EU comp| 18 ] 18 in the EU 20 [about which there had been complaint 19 [s| 19 ] 19 | 20 ] 20 | 21 } 17,21 [had] 21 | 22 22 { 23 [that had| 23 ] 23 | 24 } 22,25 {had} 25 been imported from China. (... 16 [=| 16 ] 16 )| 17 According to the 28 {EU } 28 rapid aler 26 [s| 26 ] 26 t s 27 [i| 27 ] 27 ystem| 28 54 { RAPEX} 54 | 55, 36 [ ] 36 | 37 37 { 55 [in 2006] 55 | 56 38 [ ] 38 | 39 } 37 | 38 39 [ 29 [2006| 29 ] 29,31 {for the first time} 31 | 32 ] 39 | 40 32 [in 2006] 32,34 { 35 [ in 2006| 35 ] 35 | 36 } 34,57 [, ] 57 toys ha 30 [v| 30 ] 30 d proven more dangerous than electronic devices 33 [ | 31 in 2006] 33 | 34 40 { for the first time} 40,56 { in 2006} 56 | 57. | 33 (...) 41 [P| 41 ] 41,42 [T| 42 ] 42 Particularly 44 [for s 43 [am| 43 ] 43 mall children, | 44 ] 44 small child 45 [e| 45 ] 45 ren were in danger of swallowing loose parts, 46 [da| 46 ] 46 said the EU commission. The electronic d 47 [i| 47 ] 47 evices with 48 [r| 48 ] 48 drawn fro 49 [ m| 49 ] 49 m circulation threatened to cause electric shocks and 51 [ 50 {i} 50 | 51 ] 51 | 52 52 {, in part, } 52 were not fire proof.| 50 Link in German: http://kurier.at/nachrichten/wirtschaft/71206.php| 53 Slide 9 9 Order of revisions Position in text Revisions 29-40 Revisions 54-57 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: progression graph ET0413_GE Translation into L2 (G-E) According to the 28 {EU } 28 rapid aler 26 [s| 26 ] 26 t s 27 [i| 27 ] 27 ystem| 28 54 { RAPEX} 54 | 55, 36 [ ] 36 | 37 37 { 55 [in 2006] 55 | 56 38 [ ] 38 | 39 } 37 | 38 39 [ 29 [2006| 29 ] 29,31 {for the first time} 31 | 32 ] 39 | 40 32 [in 2006] 32,34 { 35 [ in 2006| 35 ] 35 | 36 } 34,57 [, ] 57 toys ha 30 [v| 30 ] 30 d proven more dangerous than electronic devices 33 [ | 31 in 2006] 33 | 34 40 { for the first time} 40,56 { in 2006} 56 | 57. | 33 Slide 10 10 ET0413_GE Revisions 29-40 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: screen and ET Translation into L2 (G-E) Slide 11 11 ET0413_GE Revisions 54-57 2 nd level of Progression Analysis: screen and ET Translation into L2 (G-E) Slide 12 12 3 rd level of Progression Analysis: translation strategies eliciting cue-based retrospective verbal protocols (RVPs) replays of screenshot recordings to elicit verbalizations analyzing transcripts (e.g. problem areas in progression graphs and/or rich points) coding of propositions and practices (HyperResearch) inferring strategies from practices and propositions Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 13 13 here comes the part I actually thought about the mostwhich information should come where in the English sentence. At the end I still wasnt really convinced of my solution and I changed it around at the end. I probably would do it another way again tomorrow laughs. ok, that is the first variant, then another one, a second and a thirdI find it difficult to place all these adverbials in English putting it at the beginning of the sentence might work with one but with two it gets harder. .. and now I fiddled around with it again...yeah, I somehow have the feeling that a native speaker could say this better it probably wouldnt be a problem for them putting things in the right order. This is exactly the handicap I have as a non-native speaker. 3 rd level of Progression Analysis: RVPs According to the 28 {EU } 28 rapid aler 26 [s| 26 ] 26 t s 27 [i| 27 ] 27 ystem| 28 54 { RAPEX} 54 | 55, 36 [ ] 36 | 37 37 { 55 [in 2006] 55 | 56 38 [ ] 38 | 39 } 37 | 38 39 [ 29 [2006| 29 ] 29,31 {for the first time} 31 | 32 ] 39 | 40 32 [in 2006] 32,34 { 35 [ in 2006| 35 ] 35 | 36 } 34,57 [, ] 57 toys ha 30 [v| 30 ] 30 d proven more dangerous than electronic devices 33 [ | 31 in 2006] 33 | 34 40 { for the first time} 40,56 { in 2006} 56 | 57. | 33 ET0413_GE Translation into L2 (G-E) Slide 14 14 here comes the part I actually thought about the mostwhich information should come where in the English sentence. At the end I still wasnt really convinced of my solution and I changed it around at the end. I probably would do it another way again tomorrow laughs. ok, that is the first variant, then another one, a second and a thirdI find it difficult to place all these adverbials in English putting it at the beginning of the sentence might work with one but with two it gets harder. .. and now I fiddled around with it again...yeah, I somehow have the feeling that a native speaker could say this better it probably wouldnt be a problem for them putting things in the right order. This is exactly the handicap I have as a non-native speaker. problem identified (2 time adverbials) source of problem identified (translation into L2) 3 rd level of Progression Analysis: analyzing RVPs According to the 28 {EU } 28 rapid aler 26 [s| 26 ] 26 t s 27 [i| 27 ] 27 ystem| 28 54 { RAPEX} 54 | 55, 36 [ ] 36 | 37 37 { 55 [in 2006] 55 | 56 38 [ ] 38 | 39 } 37 | 38 39 [ 29 [2006| 29 ] 29,31 {for the first time} 31 | 32 ] 39 | 40 32 [in 2006] 32,34 { 35 [ in 2006| 35 ] 35 | 36 } 34,57 [, ] 57 toys ha 30 [v| 30 ] 30 d proven more dangerous than electronic devices 33 [ | 31 in 2006] 33 | 34 40 { for the first time} 40,56 { in 2006} 56 | 57. | 33 ET0413_GE Translation into L2 (G-E) Slide 15 15 3 rd level of Progression Analysis: coding comments Number of comments related to each category (n=112; translation into L2; G-E) Slide 16 ET0413_GEs apparent strategies during different phases Orientation phase: - read through the text to get the main message - organize workplace and open up dictionaries that might be needed Translation phase: - translate the title at the end unless it seems very straightforward - translate literally whenever possible - do research to get the details right - consider formulations more carefully when translating into the L2 Revision phase: - use cursor as a guide when checking the TT for errors 16 3 rd level of Progression Analysis: inferring strategies Slide 17 17 4th level of progression analysis: translation products intermediate versions revision analysis (choice of lexis, formulation of individual sentences, etc.) target texts overall quality solutions to specific translation problems Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 18 18 4 th level of Progression Analysis: revision analysis ET01413_EGAccording to the EU rapid alert system, 00:12:37inserts for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices 00:12:54 cuts for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices 00:12:55 pastes for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices in 2006 00:13:12writes for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices in 2006. 00:13:14 cuts for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices in 2006. 00:13:15 pastes for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices. 00:13:20 deletes for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices. 00:13:22 inserts in 2006 for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices. 00:13:23 cuts in 2006 for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices. 00:13:27pastes in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time. (continues translating rest of source text) 00:18:48cuts in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time. 00:18:50pastes, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time in 2006. Slide 19 19 4 th level of Progression Analysis: target texts Translation into L2 by ET0413: toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time in 2006. Translation into L1 by nine professionals: in 2005 [sic], toys for the first time overtook electrical appliances as the most dangerous products. toys were found to be more dangerous than electrical equipment in 2006 for the first time. toys were found to be more dangerous than electronic equipment fort he [sic] first time in 2006. toys turned out to be more dangerous than electrical appliances for the first time in 2006. toys showed themselves to be more dangerous than electrical goods for the first time in 2006. toys were first identified as being more dangerous than electric appliances in 2006. 2006 was the first year in which toys were found to be more dangerous than electrical goods. 2006 was the first year that toys proved to be more dangerous than electrical appliances. 2006 saw toys being branded as more dangerous than electrical equipment for the first time. Slide 20 20 * SCR=screen recordings; KSL=keystroke logging; ET=eye tracking; ST=source text; TT=target text; RVP=retrospective verbal protocol Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond CTP corpus Slide 21 21 Research questions driving the CTP project 1.What are the differences between the strategies and practices of beginner, novice and professional translators? 2.How conscious are translators with different levels of experience of their strategies and practices? 3.Which translation strategies and practices, if any, are unique to particular language combinations? 4.How much of the translation process is actually devoted to revision and how does this change as translators gain experience? 5.How do translators with different levels of experience compensate target language competence when translating into their L2? 6.In what ways are translation processes in the workplace comparable to translation processes in a controlled setting? Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 22 22 1. Differences based on experience Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond n Translation direction Orientation phase (sec) Title (hh:mm:ss) TT words/m Number of actions in the process ConsultsWritesRevisesPauses E-G Beg 15L2-L1 101.300:03:104.022.026.421.122.1 Adv 8L2-L1 100.100:01:324.513.431.027.324.8 Pro 11L2-L1 90.600:01:205.612.726.727.128.9 G-E Beg 11L1-L2 192.100:02:302.920.917.914.719.1 Adv 11L1-L2 122.600:02:074.522.126.119.119.5 Pro 8L2-L1 80.400:01:377.513.027.434.424.3 Results for first 15 minutes of lab translation processes (Whale/Wale STs) Slide 23 23 1. Differences based on experience Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Activities in first 15 minutes of lab translation processes (E-G; Whale ST) Slide 24 24 1. Differences based on experience Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Duration of consults activities (average in seconds; Whales ST) Slide 25 25 1. Differences based on experience Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Duration of writing activities (average in seconds; E-G; Whale ST) Slide 26 26 2. Awareness of strategies and practices Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond E-G / Setting Level Direction Words & phrases Sentence structures Text quality Loyalty to ST Reader- ship Account- ability Lab BegL2-L14433 07822 AdvL2-L15025 506325 ProL2-L1257588508825 Work ProL2-L13888100 7588 G-E / Setting Lab BegL1-L25075 0380 AdvL1-L2385063253813 ProL2-L1297110086 33 Work ProL2-L183 67100 Percentage of each group that mentioned concerns with different aspects of the process Slide 27 27 3. Strategies and practices unique to particular combinations Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond very often or often Italian 56% French 63% English 91% Online multilingual resource use by language in version Slide 28 28 4. Revision in the translation process Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Progression graphs of a beginner, advanced student, and professional (G-E; RAPEX ST) Slide 29 29 5. Compensation when translating into L2 Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Categories of comments about the translation process in relation to translation direction Slide 30 30 6. Comparability of lab and workplace settings Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Percentages of activities during the translation processes in the lab and workplace (n=14) Slide 31 31 Some good performance guidelines from the CTP project: use internal resources more (think more) identify problem types and use appropriate external resources process larger stretches of text reduce self-revision to a minimum after the drafting phase reduce mental overload by concentrating on one activity at a time become more aware of translation practices by observing own and peer processes be aware that translation is not just an act but an event involving multiple responsibilities, actors, and factors diagnostics, teaching, curriculum design Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 32 32 New questions arising from the CTP project: importance of research and revision during the drafting phase need for different tools? usability of tools and ergonomics optimal access to aids within the process? development of translation competence / expertise fostered through non-routine tasks? possibility of deliberate practice and feedback? translator self-concept use of own resources encouraged? autonomy and responsibility? Cognitive and Physical Ergonomics of Translation (ErgoTrans) Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 33 33 Acknowledgements Swiss National Foundation CTP grant 13DFD3_124653/1, 2 (2009-12) ErgoTrans grant CR13I1_143819/1 (2013-14) Industry partner: Participants: Professionals, students, IUED translation teachers CTP research team: Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Peter Jud, Kathrin Lohse, Annina Meyer, Daniel Perrin, Alexander Knzli, Gabriel Zuberbhler Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond Slide 34 34 References Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure and agency. What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3-20. Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Knzli, A. (2010). Methods of accessing metalinguistic awareness: a question of quality? In: Gpferich, S., Alves, F. & Mees, I.M. (eds), New Approaches in Translation Process Research. (Copenhagen Studies in Language 39). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. 113-132. Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Massey, G. (2008). Exploring translation competence by triangulating empirical data, Norwich Papers, 16, 1-20. Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Massey, G. (2013) Indicators of translation competence: Translators self-concepts and the translation of titles, Journal of Writing Research, 5 (1), 103-131. Ehrensberger-Dow, M, & Perrin, D. (2009). Capturing translation processes to access metalinguistic awareness, Across Language and Cultures, 10 (2), 275-288. Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Perrin, D. (2013). Applying newswriting process research to translation, Target (Special Issue on Transdisciplinary Research), 25(1), 77-92. Hofer, Gertrud & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Evaluation of translation processes: Applying research techniques to professional development programs. In: Schmitt, Peter A., Herold, Susann & Weilandt, Annette (eds). Translationsforschung. Tagungsberichte der LICTRA IX. Leipzig International Conference on Translation & Interpretation Studies 19.-21.5.2010. (Leipziger Studien zur angewandten Linguistik und Translatologie, 10). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 321-332. Hunziker Heeb, A. (2012). The problem-solving processes of experienced and non-experienced translators. In: Kersten, Saskia, Ludwig, Christian, Meer, Dorothee, & Rschoff, Bernd (eds). Language learning and language use - applied linguistics approaches. Duisburg: UVRR. 177-186. Kollberg, P. & Severinson-Eklundh, K. (2001). Studying writers' revising patterns with S-notation analysis, in Olive, T. & Levy, C.M. (eds), Studies in Writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing, 89-104. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Slide 35 35 References (contd) Layder, D. (1998). The reality of social domains: Implications for theory and method. In: May, T. & Williams, M. (eds), Knowing the Social World. Buckingham: Open University Press. 86102. Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2010). Investigating demands on language professionals, Bulletin suisse de linguistique applique (Special issue), 2010/1, 127-141. Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Commenting on translation: implications for translator training, Journal of Specialised Translation 16, 26-41. Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Investigating information literacy: A growing priority in translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 12 (2), 193-211. DOI 10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4 Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Technical and instrumental competence in the translators workplace: Using process research to identify educational and ergonomic needs, ILCEA Revue, 14, [online]. http://ilcea.revues.org/index1060.html Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2012). Evaluating the process: implications for curriculum development. In: Zybatow, Lew, Petrova, Alena, & Ustaszewski, Michael (eds.) (2012): Translationswissenschaft interdisziplinr: Fragen der Theorie und der Didaktik. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang. 95-100. Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (forthcoming/2013) Evaluating translation processes: opportunities and challenges. In: Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Kiraly, Don, & Maksymski, Karin (eds). Innovation in Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy [Translation Studies Series edited by Franz Pchhacker and Klaus Kaindl]. Gunter Narr. Perrin, D. (2003). Progression analysis (PA). Investigating writing strategies at the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 907-921. Van Waes & Leijten, M. (2006). Logging writing processes with Inputlog. In: Van Waes, L., et al. (eds), Writing and Digital Media. Oxford: Elsevier. 158-165.