Translating in fits and starts: pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes

ABSTRACT

Two pause thresholds were tested, aimed at chunking the translation task workflow into task segments and classifying pauses into different kinds. Pauses below 200 ms were dubbed delays and excluded. An upper threshold at 3 × median pause between words was hypothesized (H1) to capture more translation problems than 3 s pauses, but also to flag other cognitive processes. The upper threshold and a lower threshold at 2 × median pause within words were used to classify pauses into short pauses (between 200 ms and the lower threshold), mid pauses (between thresholds) and long pauses (above the upper threshold). Such mid pauses were hypothesized (H2) to mainly hint at different cognitive phenomena. Short pauses were assumed to hint at mechanical and strategic behaviors related to keyboarding, although this is not tested here. Finally, empty task segments (no new text or changes in existing copy) were hypothesized (H3) to be strategically distributed for planning and prospective reading. Results confirmed hypotheses 1 and 2 and partially supported hypothesis 3. Some unexpected findings point to the need of further research into the nature of task segments, understood as chunks of the action, rather than text excerpts.

KEYWORDS:

• Cognitive translation studies
• process analysis
• pause thresholds
• task segments
• keylogging
• cognitive translatology

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Ricardo Muñoz is a professional translator since 1987. He is a Professor of Translation Studies, coordinator of PETRA Research Group, editor of Translation, Cognition & Behavior, and member of TREC. His research interests comprise Cognitive Translation Studies, in general, and Cognitive Translatology, in particular.

José Mª. Cardona is a professional translator since 2015. He holds a B.A. and a M.A. in professional translation from ULPGC, Spain, an M.A. on Research in Translation Studies from UJI, Spain, and is currently a PhD student at the University of Bologna, Italy. His research interests comprise Cognitive Translatology, in general, and attention and cognitive resource management in translation processes, in particular.

ORCID

Ricardo Muñoz Martín http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-9673

José María Cardona Guerra http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4148-6660

Notes

1. Throughout this text, we will use writing to mean monolingual text production with no source text. For the physical activity of entering or changing text in writing and in translating with a computer, we will use typing.

2. Alves et al. (2008) also think that processes between planning and revising – i.e., moving from preverbal ideas into words, parsing them into symbols, activating and combining motor programs to add them to the text, and actually doing it – tend to happen more as people type than in pause time. Unfortunately, many writing process models call this phase translation. The first steps seem to coincide with Slobin’s (2003) notion of thinking for translating.

3. For parallel observations in simultaneous interpreting, see Cecot (2001). In consecutive interpreting, see Mead (2000, p. 9; 2002) for pause nature and control, and Cardoen (2012) on the effects of note taking.

4. Speaking is much faster than typing and oral pauses tend to be shorter. Also, simultaneous interpreters tend to stuff speakers’ longer pauses with their own delivery (Goldman-Eisler, 1968, p. 128). Thus, interpreters and translators display strategic behaviors but their use of pauses may be quite different. Nevertheless, shared influences, such as linguistic complexity and structure, and environmental factors and affordances suggest potential commonalities. Besides, many professionals engage in both translation and interpreting tasks and their behavior might be due to both. Behavioral differences related to task conditions may be seen as adaptations that an ever-growing list of multilingual mediated communication tasks does no longer necessarily bind to today's crumbling clusters of features traditionally associated either with oral or written tasks (see, e.g., Dragsted & Gorm Hansen, 2009).

5. Jääskeläinen’s (1993) approach does not necessarily adhere to the notion of literal translation or to the monitor model.

6. Perceived environmental and input clues prompting subject's behavior: buttons are to be pressed, knobs are to be turned, handles are to grip, etc.

7. In this didactic approach, trainees would offer their services in response to a different, (fake) client's request for each translation and would perform them if only if they reached an agreement, which was not always the case. From a research perspective, this improves ecological validity but adds the constraint that texts need to have been worked upon by all informants involved.

8. This is a PETRA-internal standard that we hope will become part of the specifications of a translation task definition for research purposes. Such longer STs allow the process to go beyond initial contextualization and also beyond customary attention decay spans. Translating for one hour contributes to lower white coat effects and makes it easier to compare results with industry work situations, for hours are also labor units.

9. Our coding standard uses UT values, rather than 3S pauses, to chunk STs. Figure 1 chunks the ST with 3S pauses but also enters our additional (chunking) long pauses (in milliseconds, in blue, between parentheses) for contrasting purposes.

10. Here problematic does not necessarily mean difficult. Leaving aside BW, searches and changes may also happen in easy texts where informants may, e.g., strive for very high quality, behave under a white coat effect or simply are more thorough.