Analysing the impact of TAPs on temporal, technical and cognitive effort in monolingual post-editing

References

• Albrecht, J. S., Hwa, R., & Marai, G. E. (2009, March). Correcting automatic translations through collaborations between MT and monolingual target-language users. In EACL 2009. Proceedings of the 12th conference of the European chapter of the ACL (pp. 60–68). Athen: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Alves, F. (Ed.). (2003). Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardini, S. (2001). Think-aloud protocols: achievements, limits, future prospects. Target, 13(2), 241–263. Retrieved from http://www3.uji.es/~aferna/EA0921/3c-TAPs.pdf doi: 10.1075/target.13.2.03ber
   Google Scholar
• Carl, M. (2012, May). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. In LREC 2012. Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2012) (pp. 4108–4112). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
   Google Scholar
• Castro, R. A. (2016). Desenvolvimento, implementação e teste de ferramentas integradas para análise textual e tratamento estatístico de dados em pesquisas linguísticas (Unpublished master's thesis). Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Depraetere, I. (2010, May). What counts as useful advice in a university post-editing training context? Report on a case study. In Proceeding of the 14th annual conference of the European association for machine translation. St Raphaël: EAMT. Retrieved from http://www.mt-archive.info/EAMT-2010-Depraetere-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Künzli, A. (2010). Methods of accessing metalinguistic awareness: A question of quality? In S. Göpferich, F. Alves, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), New approaches in translation process research (pp. 113–132). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, N. (2016). Pós-edição monolíngue: Uma análise de indicadores de dispêndio de esforço temporal, técnico e cognitivo (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1843/LETR-AZQMPW
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, N., & Alves, F. (2016). Assessing complexity and difficulty levels of machine-translated texts. Letras & Letras, 32(1), 306–337. Retrieved from http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/letraseletras/article/view/33248/18702 doi: 10.14393/LL63-v32n1a2016-16
   Google Scholar
• Hu, C., Resnik, P., Kronrod, Y., Eidelman, V., Buzek, O., & Bederson, B. B. (2011, July). The value of monolingual crowdsourcing in a real-world translation scenario: Simulation using Haitian Creole emergency SMS messages. In C. Callison-Burch, P. Koehn, C. Monz, & O. F. Zaidan (Eds.), ACL 2011. Proceedings of the sixth workshop on statistical machine translation (pp. 399–404). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/monotrans/publications/wmt11monotrans.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hvelplund, K. T. (2011). Allocation of cognitive resources in translation: An eye-tracking and key-logging study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8314/Kristian_T_Hvelplund_SL.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Hvelplund, K. T. J. (2014). Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data. In R. M. Muñoz (Ed.), Minding translation: con la traducción en mente, MonTI special issue 1 (pp. 201–223). Alicante: Universitad de Alicante.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision and segmentation. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, A. L., & Schou, L. (1999). Translog documentation version 1.0. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Probing the process of translation: Methods and results, Appendix 1 (pp. 1–36). Copenhagen Studies in Language (24). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Jääskeläinen, R. (2011). Back to basics: Designing a study to determine the validity and reliability of verbal report data on translation processes. In S. O’Brien (Ed.), Cognitive explorations of translation (pp. 15–29). London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, K. T. H. (2009). Indicators of text complexity. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 37, 61–80.
   Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehn, P. (2010, June). Enabling monolingual translators: Post-editing vs. options. In ACL 2010. Proceedings of the human language technologies: The 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the ACL (pp. 537–545). Los Angeles, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N10-1078
   Google Scholar
• Krings, H. P. (2001). Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes. (G. S. Koby, Ed.). Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mesa-Lao, B. (2013). Introduction to post-editing – The CasMaCat GUI. Retrieved from http://bridge.cbs.dk/projects/seecat/material/hand-out_post-editing_bmesa-lao.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nitzke, J. (2016). Monolingual post-editing: An exploratory study on research behaviour and target text quality. In S. Hansen-Schirra & S. Grucza (Eds.), Eyetracking and applied linguistics (pp. 83–108). Berlin: Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, S. (2009). Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. In I. M. Mees, F. Alves, S. Gopferich (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Copenhagen Studies in Language (38), Copenhage: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 251–266.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, R., & Zambarbieri, D. (1991). Strategies of eye-head coordination. In R. Schmid & D. Zambarbieri (Eds.), Oculomotor control and cognitive process (pp. 197–212). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland).
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, L., Anderson, T., Gwinnup, J., & Young, K. (2014, June). Machine translation and monolingual postediting: The AFRL WMT-14 system. In ACL 2014. Proceedings of the ninth workshop on statistical machine translation (pp. 186–194). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-3321.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Silva, F. (2010). Análise comparativa dos resultados de mecanismos de tradução automática baseados em regras e estatísticas (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www.pget.ufsc.br/curso/dissertacoes/Fernando_da_Silva_-_Dissertacao.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sjørup, A. (2013). Cognitive effort in metaphor translation: an eye-tracking and key-logging study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/8698
   Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, S. (2011). Think-aloud-based translation process research: Some methodological considerations. Meta, 56(4), 928–951. doi: 10.7202/1011261ar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar