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

References

• Alves, F., & Couto Vale, D. (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. In S. Göpferich, & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Process research into translation competence (pp. 251–273). [Special issue]. Across Language and Cultures, 10(2).
   Google Scholar
• Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., de Sousa, L., & Strömqvist, S. (2007). Typing skill and pause–execution cycles in written composition. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 55–65). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 969–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, P. (1994). The translation unit in human and machine. Babel, 40(1), 12–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardini, S. (2001). Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target, 13(2), 241–263.
   Google Scholar
• Brunia, C. H. M. (1993). Waiting in readiness: Gating in attention and motor preparation. Psychophysiology, 30(4), 327–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterworth, B. (1980). Evidence from pauses in speech. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Speech and talk, 1 (pp. 155–176). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butterworth, B., & Goldman-Eisler, F. (1979). Recent studies on cognitive rhythm. In A. W. Siegman, & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Of speech and time (pp. 211–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoen, H. (2012). The effect of note-taking on target-text fluency. In G. González, Y. Khaled, & T. Voinova (Eds.), Emerging Research in Translation Studies (pp. 1–22). Retrieved from https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/cardoen
   Google Scholar
• Carl, M., & Kay, M. (2011). Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 56(4), 952–975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.
   Google Scholar
• Chenu, F., Pellegrino, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2014). Interword and intraword pause threshold in writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(181), 1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Couto Vale, D. (2017). What does a translator do when not writing? In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 209–237). Berlin: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dragsted, B. (2005). Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty. Target, 17(1), 49–70.
   Google Scholar
• Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory. In G. M. Shreve, & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation & cognition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Dragsted, B., & Gorm Hansen, I. (2008). Comprehension and production in translation: A pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of reading and writing processes. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Looking at eyes (pp. 9–29). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Dragsted, B., & Gorm Hansen, I. (2009). Exploring translation and interpreting hybrids: The case of sight translation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 54(3), 588–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvall, E., Robbins, A., Graham, T., & Divett, S. (2014). Exploring filler words and their impact. Schwa. Language & Linguistics, 11, 35–49. Retrieved from http://schwa.byu.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2014). Challenges of translation process research at the workplace. In R. Muñoz (Ed.), Minding translation (pp. 355–383). [Special issue 1]. MonTI. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
   Google Scholar
• Fraundorf, S. H., & Watson, D. G. (2011). The disfluent discourse: Effects of filled pauses on recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 161–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton Jr., C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 244–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman-Eisler, F. (1967). Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech. Language and Speech, 10(2), 122–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, W. D., & Fu, W.-T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in the world for imperfect knowledge in the head. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 359–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heilmann, A., & Neumann, S. (2016). Dynamic pause assessment of keystroke logged data for the detection of complexity in translation and monolingual text production. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity, 98–103.
   Google Scholar
• Immonen, S. (2006). Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target, 18(2), 313–336.
   Google Scholar
• Immonen, S. (2011). Unravelling the processing units of translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 12(2), 235–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jääskeläinen, R. (1993). Investigating translation strategies. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Recent trends in empirical translation research (pp. 99–120). Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (1998). Logging time delay in translation. In G. Hansen (Ed.), LSP texts and the process of translation (pp. 73–101). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2002). Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Empirical translation studies (pp. 191–204). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2005). Instances of peak performance in translation. Lebende Sprachen, 50(3), 111–116.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with translog. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research (pp. 37–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kieras, D. (2001). Using the keystroke-level model to estimate execution times. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.cs.loyola.edu/~lawrie/CS774/S06/homework/klm.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, W. (2017). ‘It was on my mind all day.’ Literary translators working from home—Some implications of workplace dynamics. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milosevic (Eds.), Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 27–43). [Special issue]. Translation Spaces, 6(1) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kumpulainen, M. (2015). On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research. Translation & Interpreting, 7(1), 47–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacruz, I., & Shreve, G. M. (2014). Pauses and cognitive effort in post-editing. In S. O’Brien, L. Winther Balling, M. Carl, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Post-editing of machine translation: Processes and applications (pp. 244–272). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lacruz, I., Shreve, G. M., & Angelone, E. (2012). Average pause ratio as an indicator of cognitive effort in post-editing: A case study. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the AMTA, 2012 workshop on post-editing technology and practice (pp. 21–30). Stroudsburg, PA: AMTA.
   Google Scholar
• Laserna, C. M., Seih, Y.-T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2014). Um. . . Who like says you know: Filler word use as a function of age, gender, and personality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 328–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using input log to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285–337.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1982). On the ability to inhibit complex movements: A stop-signal study of typewriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 778–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, P. (2002). Exploring hesitation in consecutive interpreting. In G. Garzone, & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21^st century: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 73–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, P. (2005). Methodological issues in the study of interpreters’ fluency. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 13, 39–63.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R. (2009). Typos & Co. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Behind the Mind (pp. 167–189). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R. (2014). Situating translation expertise: A review with a sketch of a construct. In J. W. Schwieter, & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence (pp. 2–56). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R. (2016a). Processes of What Models? On the Cognitive Indivisibility of Translation Acts and Events. Translation Spaces, 5(1), 145–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R. (2016b). Of minds and men—Computers and translators. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 351–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz Martín, R., & Martín de León, C. (2018). Fascinatin’ rhythm – and pauses in translators’ cognitive processes. Hermes, 57, 29–47.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, S. (2006). Pauses as indicators of cognitive effort in post-editing machine translation output. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(1), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 173–194. doi:10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4.
   Google Scholar
• Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 594–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risku, H. (2014). Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. In R. Muñoz (Ed.) Minding translation (pp. 331–353). [Special issue 1 of MonTI]. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
   Google Scholar
• Risku, H., Milosevic, J., & Pein-Weber, C. (2016). Writing vs. translating: Dimensions of text production in comparison. In R. Muñoz (Ed.), Reembedding translation process research (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenqvist, S. (2015). Developing pause thresholds for keystroke logging analysis. B.A. thesis, University of Umea, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:834468/FULLTEXT01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ruge, H., Braver, T., & Meiran, N. (2009). Attention, intention and strategy in preparatory control. Neuropsychologia, 47(7), 1670–1685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Schilperoord, J. (2001). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Studies in writing, 10: Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 61–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Screen, B. A. (2016). What does translation memory do to translation? The effect of translation memory output on specific aspects of the translation process. Translation & Interpreting, 8(1), 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Getner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (pp. 157–192). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The monitor model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 50(2), 405–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood, N., Mesa Lao, B., García Martínez, M., Carl, M., Alabau, V., González Rubio, P., … Casacuberta Nolla, F. (2014). Evaluating the effects of interactivity in a post-editing workbench. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, … & S. Piperidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 553–559. Paris: ELRA.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, L. N. (2016). How do measures of cognitive effort relate to each other? A multivariate analysis of post-editing process data. Machine Translation, 30(1–2), 41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingarten, R., Nottbusch, G., & Will, U. (2004) Morphemes, syllables and graphemes in written word production. In T. Pechman, Thomas & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production, 529–572. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar