Computer-assisted translation (CAT) has been touted as a means of increasing translator productivity and improving translation quality while decreasing the amount of effort required to complete certain translation and localization tasks. Translation memory (TM) tools are among the most prevalent in non-literary translation projects and potentially make the translation process more complex, since their use alters the task environment. To the typical comprehension-transfer-production sub-tasks of translation without a TM are added cross-language evaluation, acceptability decision-making (matching), and possible post-editing. Drawing on Angelone’s (2010) notion of uncertainty management in translation, we explore how professional translators behave when presented with translations proposed by a translation memory system. We argue that the editing behavior observed during an experimental task highlights a mismatch between the proffered TM segment and the participant’s internal conception of what an optimal translation (a match) should be. This mismatch results in a tendency to over-edit.
Austermühl, Frank. 2001. Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Bowker, Lynne. 2002. Computer-Aided Translation Technology. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
de Groot, Annette M.B. 1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael McBeath, 25–56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denkowski, Michael, and Alan Lavie. 2012. “TransCenter: Web-Based Translation Research Suite.” AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice Demo Session.
Dragsted, Barbara. 2004. Segmentation in Translation and Translation Memory Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Segmentation and Effects of Integrating a TM-System into the Translation Process. Ph.D. dissertation, Copenhagen Business School. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2008. “Comprehension and Production in Translation: A Pilot Study on Segmentation and the Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 9–30. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Dunne, Keiran J. 2013. “Computer-Assisted Translation.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by C.A. Chapelle, 839–843. Blackwell Publishing.
Hutchins, John. 1998. “The Origin of the Translator’s Workstation.” Machine Translation 13 (4): 287–307.
Kenny, Dorothy. 2011. “Electronic Tools and Resources for Translators.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by K. Malmkjær and K. Windle, 455–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kussmaul, Paul, and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1995. “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies” TTR VIII: 177–199.
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone. 2012. “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing: A Case Study.” Proceedings of the
AMTA 2012 Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice
. San Diego, CA.
Malkiel, Brenda. 2009. “When Idioti (Idiotic) Becomes “Fluffy”: Translation Students and the Avoidance of Target-language Cognates.” Meta 54 (2): 309–325.
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2014. Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Available at: [URL]
Mossop, Brian. 2001. Revising and Editing for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2008. “Processing Fuzzy Matches in Translation Memory Tools: An Eye Tracking Analysis.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, ed. by S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen, and I.M. Mees, 79–102. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Shlesinger, Miriam, and Brenda Malkiel. 2005. “Comparing Modalities: Cognates as a Case in Point.” Across Languages and Cultures 6 (2): 173–193.
Shreve, Gregory M., and Bruce J. Diamond. 1997. “Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting: Critical Issues.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by J.H. Danks, G.M. Shreve, S.B. Fountain, and M. McBeath, 233–252. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teixeira, Carlos S.C. 2014. “Perceived vs. Measured Performance in the Post-editing of Suggestions from Machine Translation and Translation Memories.” Proceedings of the
AMTA 2014 Third Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice
. Vancouver, BC.
2020. The ergonomics of translation tools: understanding when less is actually more. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:4 ► pp. 386 ff.
Massey, Gary & Regine Wieder
2019. Quality Assurance in Translation and Corporate Communications. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 57 ff.
2019. Metacognition and self-assessment in specialized translation education: task awareness and metacognitive bundling. Perspectives 27:4 ► pp. 604 ff.
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.