Cover not available
Part of
Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inquiries into Translation and Interpreting
Edited by Aline Ferreira and John W. Schwieter
[Benjamins Translation Library 115] 2015
► pp. 175–202

On a more robust approach to triangulating retrospective protocols

and key logging in translation process research

ORCID logo | Universidade Federal de Uberlândia
Verbal protocols were extensively used in the very infancy of translation process research. However, it seems that they have failed to stand many of their criticisms, as they now represent a secondary method for eliciting data in the field, especially after technological developments, such as key-logging and eye-tracking software/hardware. As such, this chapter describes a methodological proposal of how to approach retrospective protocols with the aim at increasing reliability and avoiding using it conveniently as a “crutch” for the key-logging analysis. This proposal involves exploring the notions of representation (Chi 2006a, 2006b) and segmentation (Dragsted 2004) as two related variables that can be explored by using retrospective protocols and key-logging data, respectively. Adopting two correlated concepts that can be approached with similar measures, but by using different, equally informative methods, can provide relevant insights to the understanding of the translation process. The proposal is supported by the results of a pilot experiment triangulating representation (as captured through retrospective protocols) and segmentation (as captured through key logging).
Published online: 22 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.08sil
References (57)
Alves, Fabio. 1995. Zwischen Schweigen und Sprechen: Wie Bildet sich eine Transkulturelle Brücke? Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Tradução, Cognição e Contextualização: Triangulando a Interface Processo-Produto no Desempenho de Tradutores Novatos.” D.E.L.T.A. 39: 71–108.Google Scholar
. 2005a. “Bridging the Gap Between Declarative and Procedural Knowledge in the Training of Translators: Meta-Reflection under Scrutiny.” Meta 50 (4): online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Ritmo Cognitivo, Meta-Reflexão e Experiência: Parâmetros de Análise Processual no Desempenho de Tradutores Novatos e Experientes.” In Competência em Tradução: Cognição e Discurso, ed. by Fabio Alves, Célia M. Magalhães, and Adriana S. Pagano, 109–169. Belo Horizonte: Ed. UFMG.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and José Luis Gonçalves. 2007. “Modelling Translator’s Competence: Relevance and Expertise under Scrutinity.” In Translation Studies: Doubts and Directions. Selected papers from the IV Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies, ed. by Yves Gambier, Miriam Schlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 41–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, and Daniel Vale. 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.” Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana S. Pagano, and Igor A.L. da Silva. 2011. “Modeling (Un)packing of Meaning in Translation: Insights from Effortful Text Production.” In Proceedings of the 8th International NLPCS Workshop (Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Sciences), ed. by Bernardette Sharp, Michael Zock, Michael Carl, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 153–162. Special Theme: Human-Machine Interaction in Translation . Copenhagen: Samfundslitterattur.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia. 1999. “Using Think-Aloud Protocols to Investigate the Translation Process: Methodological Aspects.” Working Papers in English 6: 179–199.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Donald E. 1975. “The Magic Number Seven After Fifteen Years.” In Studies in Long Term Memory, ed. by Alan Kennedy and Alan Wilkes, 3–18. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2011. “Patterns of Shallow Text Production in Translation.” In Proceedings of the 8th International NLPCS Workshop (Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Sciences). Special Theme: Human-Machine Interaction in Translation, ed. by Bernardette Sharp, Michael Zock, Michael Carl, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 143–151. Copenhagen: Samfundslitterattur.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Martin Kay. 2011. “Gazing and Typing Activities During Translation: A Comparative Study of Translation Units of Professional and Student Translators.” Meta 56 (4): 952–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew 1997. The Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chi, Michelene T.H. 2006a. “Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman, 21–30. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. “Laboratory Methods for Assessing Experts’ and Novices’ Knowledge.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman, 167–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowder, Robert G. 1976. Principles of Learning and Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
da Silva, Igor A.L. 2007. Conhecimento Experto em Tradução: Aferição da Durabilidade de Tarefas Tradutórias Realizadas por Sujeitos Não-Tradutores em Condições Empírico-Experimentais. Unpublished MA thesis. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. (accessed May 19, 2010) Available online at: [URL].
Dragsted, Barbara. 2004. Segmentation in Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM System into the Translation Process. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation: Differences Across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta, and Elisabet Tiselius. 2009. “Exploring Retrospection as a Research Method for Studying the Translation Process and the Interpreting Process.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 109–134. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert A. Simon. 1980. ”Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Review 87: 215–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman. 2006. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert A. Simon. 1984/1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Aline. 2012. “Investigando o Processamento Cognitivo de Tradutores Profissionais em Tradução Direta e Inversa no Par Linguístico Inglês-Português.” Cadernos de Tradução 1: 73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Janet. 1996. “The Translator Investigated: Learning from Translation Process Analysis.” The Translator 2 (1): 65–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela A. 1988. From French to English: a Look at the Translation Process in Students, Bilinguals and Professional Translators. Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.
Gile, Daniel. 2004. “Integrated Problem and Decision Reporting as a Translator Training Tool.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 2: 2–20.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitta Jääskeläinen. 2009. “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go?“ Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde. 2006. “Retrospection Methods in Translator Training and Translation Research.” Journal of Specialised Translation 5: 1–41.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1999. “Logging target text production with Translog.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Orientation, Segmentation, and Revision in Translation.” In Empirical Translation Studies: Process and Product, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 191–204. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
2005. “Instances of Peak Performance in Translation.” Lebende Sprachen 50 (3): 111–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian Tangsgaard Jensen. 2008. “Eye Movement Behaviour Across Four Reading Tasks.” Copenhagen Studies in Language 36: 103–124.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog Documentation.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by G. Hansen, Apendix, p. 1–36. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Königs, Frank G. 1987. “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” Die Neueren Sprachen 86: 162–185.Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1986. “Linguistic Aspects of Translation Processes: Towards an Analysis of Translation Performance.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 277–292. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2006. “Translation Units.” In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown, 92–93. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.Google Scholar
. 2013. “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” Target 25 (1): 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model.” In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pagano, Adriana S., and Igor A.L. da Silva. 2008. “Domain Knowledge in Translation Task Execution: Insights from Academic Researchers Performing As Translators.” In Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress . Xangai: Foreign Language Press.
Russel, Debra, and Betsy Winston. 2014. “Tapping into the Interpreting Process: Using Participant Reports to Inform the Interpreting Process in Educational Settings.” The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 6 (1): 102–127.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter. 1991. “Literate Expertise.” In Toward a General Theory of Expertise, ed. by K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith, 172–194. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, Joost. 1996. It’s about Time: Temporal Aspects of Cognitive Processes in Text Production. Utrecht: USI.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory. M. 2006. “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite, and William C. Mann. 2006. “Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory.” Discourse Studies 8 (4): 567–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos, Sonia M.R., Martha M. Sorenson, and Jacqueline Leta. 2007. “Scientist-Friendly Policies for Non-Native English-Speaking Authors: Timely and Welcome.” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 40: 743–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Richard K. 1991. “Managerial Problem Solving.” In Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms, ed. by Robert J. Sternberg and Peter A. Frensch, 159–183. Hillsdale: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Rüdiger, and Klaus P. Schneider. 1987. “The Collective Learner Tested: Retrospective Evidence for a Model of Lexical Search.” In Introspection in Second-Language Research, ed. by Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper, 177–196. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Puerini, Sara
2023. Text-production tasks at the keyboard. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 6:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Alves, Fabio & Igor A. Lourenço da Silva
2021. Bridging Paradigms to Approach Expertise in Cognitive Translation Studies. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Bulatovna Garipova, Alina & Niyaz Rastamovich Latypov
2019. THINK-ALOUD PROTOCOLS, EYE-TRACKING AND KEY-LOGGING IN IDENTIFICATION AND ADDRESSING TRANSLATION CHALLENGES. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 7:6 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.