1. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow & Gary Massey
Seminar on Empirical and Experimental Research in Translation UAB, Barcelona, 2-3 July 2013

2. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
Focus on the situated activity of translation
realist social theory (Carter & Sealey 2000)
domain theory (Layder 1998)
people / agency (psychobiography of translator)
situated activity (computer workplaces)
social settings (staff or freelance)
contextual resources (information, economic, personnel)
effect of processes on quality of products
translation competence and emergent practices
mixed-method approach
 1st-4th levels of Progression Analysis (Perrin 2003)

3. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1st level of Progression Analysis: translation situation
participants’ linguistic and educational background
participant observation at translation workplaces
controlled recordings at translation institute’s usability lab
library, classrooms, and computer rooms (students)
mobile workplace (students and freelance translators)
industry partner’s offices (staff professionals)
status of translation job
temporal and economic constraints

4. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1st level of Progression Analysis: translation situation
students at different points in their translation careers
beginners, advanced/MA, graduates
six different language combinations (G-E, E-G, F-G, G-F, I-G, G-I)
translation into L1 or L2
professionals with different levels of experience
juniors and seniors at industry partner (translation into L1)
free-lancers (translation into L1 or L2)

5. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
2nd level of Progression Analysis: activities and practices
keystroke logging
InputLog 4.0 (van Waes & Leijten 2006)
S-notation (Kollberg & Severinson-Eklundh 2001)
positions and order of insertions and deletions
progression graphs (Perrin 2003)
development of target text over time
screen recordings of translation processes
all screen events (typing, searches, formatting, etc.)
eye-tracking of translation processes
location, focus, movements, etc.

6. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: keystroke logging
Temporal information about translation process from the logfile (ET0413_GE)

7. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: S-notation
{insertions} [deletions]
Dangerous Toys from China
(...)1[=|1]1 In EU 2[me|2]2states, more and more dangerous toys 3[e|3]3and electronic devices from China have to 5[b4[y |4]4e taken out ]5|66{be withdrawn from}6|77[of]7 circulation.|5 Last 8[Year|8]8year, EU authorities banned approximately one third more ever9[ |9]9y day goods from stores than in 2005, 10[an|10]10reported EU11[-|11]11 commissioner for consumer affairs, Meglena Kuneva53{,}53|5412{ in Brussels}12 on Thursday.|12 For instance, plush bears, hair dryers, cleansing agents and ski bindings have 13[pro|13]13proven dangerous.
Almost half of the over {rejected }24|25goods 14[c|14]14,15[were impo|15]15,17{18[about which the EU comp|18]18in the EU 20[about which there had been complaint19[s|19]19|20]20|21}17,21 [had]21|2222{23[that had|23]23|24}22,25{had}25 been imported from China. (...16[=|16]16)|17
According to the 28{EU }28rapid aler26[s|26]26t s27[i|27]27ystem|28 54{ RAPEX}54|55,36[ ]36|3737{ 55[in 2006]55|5638[ ]38|39}37|3839[29[2006|29]29,31 {for the first time}31|32]39|40 32[in 2006]32,34{35[ in 2006|35]35|36}34,57[, ]57toys ha30[v|30]30d proven more dangerous than electronic devices33[ |31in 2006]33|34 40{ for the first time}40,56{ in 2006}56|57. |33 (...) 41[P|41]41,42[T|42]42Particularly 44[for s43[am|43]43mall children, |44]44small child45[e|45]45ren were in danger of swallowing loose parts, 46[da|46]46said the EU commission. The electronic d47[i|47]47evices with48[r|48]48drawn fro49[ m|49]49m circulation threatened to cause electric shocks and51[ 50{i}50|51]51|5252{, in part, }52were not fire proof.|50
Link in German:

8. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: S-notation
{insertions} [deletions]
Dangerous Toys from China
(...)1[=|1]1 In EU 2[me|2]2states, more and more dangerous toys 3[e|3]3and electronic devices from China have to 5[b4[y |4]4e taken out ]5|66{be withdrawn from}6|77[of]7 circulation.|5 Last 8[Year|8]8year, EU authorities banned approximately one third more ever9[ |9]9y day goods from stores than in 2005, 10[an|10]10reported EU11[-|11]11 commissioner for consumer affairs, Meglena Kuneva53{,}53|5412{ in Brussels}12 on Thursday.|12 For instance, plush bears, hair dryers, cleansing agents and ski bindings have 13[pro|13]13proven dangerous.
Almost half of the over {rejected }24|25goods 14[c|14]14,15[were impo|15]15,17{18[about which the EU comp|18]18in the EU 20[about which there had been complaint19[s|19]19|20]20|21}17,21 [had]21|2222{23[that had|23]23|24}22,25{had}25 been imported from China. (...16[=|16]16)|17
According to the 28{EU }28rapid aler26[s|26]26t s27[i|27]27ystem|28 54{ RAPEX}54|55,36[ ]36|3737{ 55[in 2006]55|5638[ ]38|39}37|3839[29[2006|29]29,31 {for the first time}31|32]39|40 32[in 2006]32,34{35[ in 2006|35]35|36}34,57[, ]57toys ha30[v|30]30d proven more dangerous than electronic devices33[ |31in 2006]33|34 40{ for the first time}40,56{ in 2006}56|57. |33 (...) 41[P|41]41,42[T|42]42Particularly 44[for s43[am|43]43mall children, |44]44small child45[e|45]45ren were in danger of swallowing loose parts, 46[da|46]46said the EU commission. The electronic d47[i|47]47evices with48[r|48]48drawn fro49[ m|49]49m circulation threatened to cause electric shocks and51[ 50{i}50|51]51|5252{, in part, }52were not fire proof.|50
Link in German:

9. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: progression graph
According to the 28{EU }28rapid aler26[s|26]26t s27[i|27]27ystem|28 54{ RAPEX}54|55,36[ ]36|3737{ 55[in 2006]55|5638[ ]38|39}37|3839[29[2006|29]29,31 {for the first time}31|32]39|40 32[in 2006]32,34{35[ in 2006|35]35|36}34,57[, ]57toys ha30[v|30]30d proven more dangerous than electronic devices33[ |31in 2006]33|34 40{ for the first time}40,56{ in 2006}56|57. |33
Order of revisions
Position in text
Revisions 29-40
Translation into L2 (G-E)
Revisions 54-57
ET0413_GE

10. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: screen and ET
Revisions 29-40
Translation into L2 (G-E)
ET0413_GE

11. 2nd level of Progression Analysis: screen and ET
Revisions 54-57
Translation into L2 (G-E)
ET0413_GE

12. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
3rd level of Progression Analysis: translation strategies
eliciting cue-based retrospective verbal protocols (RVPs)
replays of screenshot recordings to elicit verbalizations
analyzing transcripts (e.g. problem areas in progression graphs and/or rich points)
coding of propositions and practices (HyperResearch)
inferring strategies from practices and propositions

13. 3rd level of Progression Analysis: RVPs
According to the 28{EU }28rapid aler26[s|26]26t s27[i|27]27ystem|28 54{ RAPEX}54|55,36[ ]36|3737{ 55[in 2006]55|5638[ ]38|39}37|3839[29[2006|29]29,31 {for the first time}31|32]39|40 32[in 2006]32,34{35[ in 2006|35]35|36}34,57[, ]57toys ha30[v|30]30d proven more dangerous than electronic devices33[ |31in 2006]33|34 40{ for the first time}40,56{ in 2006}56|57. |33
<00:11:59>here comes the part I actually thought about the most…which information should come where in the English sentence. At the end I still wasn’t really convinced of my solution and I changed it around at the end. I probably would do it another way again tomorrow<vocal>laughs</vocal>.
<00:12:26>ok, that is the first variant, then another one, a second and a third…I find it difficult to place all these adverbials in English … putting it at the beginning of the sentence might work with one but with two it gets harder.
….. <00:18:46>and now I fiddled around with it again...yeah, I somehow have the feeling that a native speaker could say this better… it probably wouldn’t be a problem for them… putting things in the right order. This is exactly the handicap I have as a non-native speaker.
Translation into L2 (G-E)
ET0413_GE

14. 3rd level of Progression Analysis: analyzing RVPs
According to the 28{EU }28rapid aler26[s|26]26t s27[i|27]27ystem|28 54{ RAPEX}54|55,36[ ]36|3737{ 55[in 2006]55|5638[ ]38|39}37|3839[29[2006|29]29,31 {for the first time}31|32]39|40 32[in 2006]32,34{35[ in 2006|35]35|36}34,57[, ]57toys ha30[v|30]30d proven more dangerous than electronic devices33[ |31in 2006]33|34 40{ for the first time}40,56{ in 2006}56|57. |33
<00:11:59>here comes the part I actually thought about the most…which information should come where in the English sentence. At the end I still wasn’t really convinced of my solution and I changed it around at the end. I probably would do it another way again tomorrow<vocal>laughs</vocal>.
<00:12:26>ok, that is the first variant, then another one, a second and a third…I find it difficult to place all these adverbials in English … putting it at the beginning of the sentence might work with one but with two it gets harder.
….. <00:18:46>and now I fiddled around with it again...yeah, I somehow have the feeling that a native speaker could say this better… it probably wouldn’t be a problem for them… putting things in the right order. This is exactly the handicap I have as a non-native speaker.
 problem identified (2 time adverbials)  source of problem identified (translation into L2)
Translation into L2 (G-E)
ET0413_GE

15. 3rd level of Progression Analysis: coding comments
Number of comments related to each category (n=112; translation into L2; G-E)

16. 3rd level of Progression Analysis: inferring strategies
ET0413_GE’s apparent strategies during different phases
Orientation phase:
- read through the text to get the main message
- organize workplace and open up dictionaries that might be needed
Translation phase:
- translate the title at the end unless it seems very straightforward
- translate literally whenever possible
- do research to get the details right
- consider formulations more carefully when translating into the L2
Revision phase:
- use cursor as a guide when checking the TT for errors

17. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
4th level of progression analysis: translation products
intermediate versions
revision analysis (choice of lexis, formulation of individual sentences, etc.)
target texts
overall quality
solutions to specific translation problems

18. 4th level of Progression Analysis: revision analysis
ET01413_EG
According to the EU rapid alert system,
00:12:37
inserts
for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices
00:12:54
cuts
00:12:55
pastes
for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices in 2006
00:13:12
writes
for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices in 2006.
00:13:14
00:13:15
for the first time in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices.
00:13:20
deletes
00:13:22
in 2006 for the first time, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices.
00:13:23
00:13:27
in 2006, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time. …
… (continues translating rest of source text)
00:18:48
00:18:50
, toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time in 2006.

19. 4th level of Progression Analysis: target texts
Translation into L2 by ET0413:
toys had proven more dangerous than electronic devices for the first time in 2006.
Translation into L1 by nine professionals:
in 2005 [sic], toys for the first time overtook electrical appliances as the most dangerous products.
toys were found to be more dangerous than electrical equipment in 2006 for the first time.
toys were found to be more dangerous than electronic equipment fort he [sic] first time in 2006.
toys turned out to be more dangerous than electrical appliances for the first time in 2006.
toys showed themselves to be more dangerous than electrical goods for the first time in 2006.
toys were first identified as being more dangerous than electric appliances in 2006.
2006 was the first year in which toys were found to be more dangerous than electrical goods.
2006 was the first year that toys proved to be more dangerous than electrical appliances.
2006 saw toys being branded as more dangerous than electrical equipment for the first time.

20. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
CTP corpus
* SCR=screen recordings; KSL=keystroke logging; ET=eye tracking; ST=source text; TT=target text; RVP=retrospective verbal protocol

21. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
Research questions driving the CTP project
What are the differences between the strategies and practices of beginner, novice and professional translators?
How conscious are translators with different levels of experience of their strategies and practices?
Which translation strategies and practices, if any, are unique to particular language combinations?
How much of the translation process is actually devoted to revision and how does this change as translators gain experience?
How do translators with different levels of experience compensate target language competence when translating into their L2?
In what ways are translation processes in the workplace comparable to translation processes in a controlled setting?

22. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1. Differences based on experience n
Translation
direction
Orientation phase (sec)
Title (hh:mm:ss)
TT words/m
Number of actions in the process
Consults
Writes
Revises
Pauses
E-G
Beg 15
L2-L1
101.3
00:03:10
4.0
22.0
26.4
21.1
22.1
Adv 8
100.1
00:01:32
4.5
13.4
31.0
27.3
24.8
Pro 11
90.6
00:01:20
5.6
12.7
26.7
27.1
28.9
G-E
L1-L2
192.1
00:02:30
2.9
20.9
17.9
14.7
19.1
122.6
00:02:07
26.1
19.5
80.4
00:01:37
7.5
13.0
27.4
34.4
24.3
Results for first 15 minutes of lab translation processes (Whale/Wale STs)

23. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1. Differences based on experience
Activities in first 15 minutes of lab translation processes (E-G; Whale ST)

24. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1. Differences based on experience
Duration of consults activities (average in seconds; Whales ST)

25. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
1. Differences based on experience
Duration of writing activities (average in seconds; E-G; Whale ST)

26. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
2. Awareness of strategies and practices
E-G /
Setting
Level
Direction
Words & phrases
Sentence structures
Text quality
Loyalty to ST
Reader-
ship
Account-ability
Lab
Beg
L2-L1 44 33 78 22
Adv 50 25 63
Pro 75 88
Work 38
100
G-E /
L1-L2 13 29 71 86 83 67
Percentage of each group that mentioned concerns with different aspects of the process

27. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
3. Strategies and practices unique to particular combinations
“very often” or “often”
Italian 56%
French 63%
English 91%
Online multilingual resource use by language in version

28. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
4. Revision in the translation process
Progression graphs of a beginner, advanced student, and professional (G-E; RAPEX ST)

29. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
5. Compensation when translating into L2
Categories of comments about the translation process in relation to translation direction

30. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
6. Comparability of lab and workplace settings
Percentages of activities during the translation processes in the lab and workplace (n=14)

31. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
Some “good performance” guidelines from the CTP project:
use internal resources more (think more)
identify problem types and use appropriate external resources
process larger stretches of text
reduce self-revision to a minimum after the drafting phase
reduce mental overload by concentrating on one activity at a time
become more aware of translation practices by observing own and peer processes
be aware that translation is not just an act but an event involving multiple responsibilities, actors, and factors
 diagnostics, teaching, curriculum design

32. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
New questions arising from the CTP project:
importance of research and revision during the drafting phase
need for different tools?
usability of tools and ergonomics
optimal access to aids within the process?
development of translation competence / expertise
fostered through non-routine tasks?
possibility of deliberate practice and feedback?
translator self-concept
use of own resources encouraged?
autonomy and responsibility?
 Cognitive and Physical Ergonomics of Translation (ErgoTrans)

33. Capturing Translation Processes and Beyond
Acknowledgements
Swiss National Foundation CTP grant 13DFD3_124653/1, 2 ( ) ErgoTrans grant CR13I1_143819/1 ( )
Industry partner:
Participants: Professionals, students, IUED translation teachers
CTP research team: Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Peter Jud, Kathrin Lohse, Annina Meyer, Daniel Perrin, Alexander Künzli, Gabriel Zuberbühler
Details of CTP and ErgoTrans

34. References
Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure and agency. What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3-20.
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Künzli, A. (2010). Methods of accessing metalinguistic awareness: a question of quality? In: Göpferich, S., Alves, F. & Mees, I.M. (eds), New Approaches in Translation Process Research. (Copenhagen Studies in Language 39). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Massey, G. (2008). Exploring translation competence by triangulating empirical data, Norwich Papers, 16, 1-20.
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Massey, G. (2013) Indicators of translation competence: Translators’ self-concepts and the translation of titles, Journal of Writing Research, 5 (1),
Ehrensberger-Dow, M, & Perrin, D. (2009). Capturing translation processes to access metalinguistic awareness, Across Language and Cultures, 10 (2),
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. & Perrin, D. (2013). Applying newswriting process research to translation, Target (Special Issue on Transdisciplinary Research), 25(1),
Hofer, Gertrud & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Evaluation of translation processes: Applying research techniques to professional development programs. In: Schmitt, Peter A., Herold, Susann & Weilandt, Annette (eds). Translationsforschung. Tagungsberichte der LICTRA IX. Leipzig International Conference on Translation & Interpretation Studies (Leipziger Studien zur angewandten Linguistik und Translatologie, 10). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang
Hunziker Heeb, A. (2012). The problem-solving processes of experienced and non-experienced translators. In: Kersten, Saskia, Ludwig, Christian, Meer, Dorothee, & Rüschoff, Bernd (eds). Language learning and language use - applied linguistics approaches. Duisburg: UVRR
Kollberg, P. & Severinson-Eklundh, K. (2001). Studying writers' revising patterns with S-notation analysis, in Olive, T. & Levy, C.M. (eds), Studies in Writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

35. References (cont’d)
Layder, D. (1998). The reality of social domains: Implications for theory and method. In: May, T. & Williams, M. (eds), Knowing the Social World. Buckingham: Open University Press. 86–102.
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2010). Investigating demands on language professionals, Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée (Special issue), 2010/1,
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Commenting on translation: implications for translator training, Journal of Specialised Translation 16,
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Investigating information literacy: A growing priority in translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 12 (2), DOI /Acr
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2011). Technical and instrumental competence in the translator’s workplace: Using process research to identify educational and ergonomic needs, ILCEA Revue, 14, [online].
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2012). Evaluating the process: implications for curriculum development. In: Zybatow, Lew, Petrova, Alena, & Ustaszewski, Michael (eds.) (2012): Translationswissenschaft interdisziplinär: Fragen der Theorie und der Didaktik. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang
Massey, G. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (forthcoming/2013) Evaluating translation processes: opportunities and challenges. In: Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Kiraly, Don, & Maksymski, Karin (eds). Innovation in Translation and Interpreting Pedagogy [Translation Studies Series edited by Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl]. Gunter Narr.
Perrin, D. (2003). Progression analysis (PA). Investigating writing strategies at the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6),
Van Waes & Leijten, M. (2006). Logging writing processes with Inputlog. In: Van Waes, L., et al. (eds), Writing and Digital Media. Oxford: Elsevier