1 of 24

Exploring Cognitive Effort in Written Translation of Chinese Neologisms: �An Eye-tracking and Keylogging Study

Jinjin CHEN

& Prof. Defeng LI

& Prof. Victoria LEI

LOGO

2 of 24

Outline

Introduction

1

Research Questions

2

Methodology

3

Data Analysis

4

Pilot Study

Future Exploration

5

6

3 of 24

Introduction

🟉Neologisms pose challenges to translators.

Neologisms are newly coined lexical units or existing lexical units that acquire a new sense, and they pose great challenges to translators in conducting translation task (Newmark, 1998).

​

The English translating of Chinese neologisms is a problematic task displayed in two aspects of the translation process: understanding and expressing (Yang, 2003).

​

​

4 of 24

Introduction

🟉Cognitive efforts as clues to study the cognitive process of neologisms translation

Cognitive effort is the amount of mental resources an individual allocates to a cognitive task in order to cope with the demands imposed by the task (Muñoz Martin, 2012), which for instance can be reading and comprehending a word, producing a new text, making a decision in choosing a sentence structure, or solving a problem in translation.

​

It is through measuring cognitive effort that we can have an understanding of the energy that the human minds invest on information processing as well as language production.

​

5 of 24

Research Questions

​

Are translators more cognitively effortful when doing written translation of Chinese neologisms?

​

What different strategies do translators (of different translation experiences and with different background information) adopt in written translation of Chinese neologisms? What’s the relationship between their translation quality and cognitive effort in written translation of Chinese neologisms?

​

Does background information have an effect on the cognitive effort of translators when they are doing written translation of Chinese neologisms?

6 of 24

Methodology

  1. professional translators: 10;
  2. well-trained MA/MTI translation students: 10;

(3) untrained

translation

students/

bilinguals: 10.

​

  1. 4 texts: with 220 words and 8 neologisms; 2 with background information
  2. Pretest paper: 10 Chinese neologisms
  3. Follow-up questionnaire: personal information, translation strategies and self-evaluation

​

Participants

Equipments

Materials

1

2

3

​

Translog-II &

Tobbi 300

7 of 24

Methodology

Stage

Description

​

Early

Preparation

​

Consent form; Instructions

Order

Latin Square Design

Pretest

Understanding and translating 10 Chinese neologisms

Main tasks

Translating warm-up texts;

Translating 4 texts: two with background information provided and the other two without.

Follow-up

Questionnaire

Background Information, translation strategies, self-evaluation.

Procedures

4

8 of 24

Data Analysis

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Data Assortment & Alignment: Yawat

Selecting gaze and keystroke measures to calculate

Relating the cognitive data to the background information of texts, expertise, translation strategy, performance and so on

9 of 24

Gaze and Keystroke Measures

ST Gaze Measures

TT Gaze Measures

TT Keystroke Measures

​

FFDur;

RPDur;

Regr;

FixS;

FPDurS;

TrtS

FFDur;

RPDur;

Regr;

FixT;

FPDurT;

TrtT

Pause;

Ins;

Del;

Dur

More information in Carl, M., Bangalore, S., and Schaeffer, M. (Eds.) (2016). New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the TPR‐DB. Cham: Springer.

10 of 24

Pilot Study

  1. professional translators: 1;
  2. well-trained MA translation students: 1;

(3) bilinguals: 1.

​

  1. 2 texts: with 220 words and 8 neologisms; 1 with background information
  2. Pretest paper: 10 Chinese neologisms
  3. Follow-up questionnaire: personal information, translation strategies and self-evaluation

​

Participants

Equipments

Materials

1

2

3

​

Translog-II &

Tobbi 300

11 of 24

Data related to Research Question 1

​

1. Are translators more cognitively effortful when doing written translation of Chinese neologisms?

Chinese-Neologism words VS Non-Chinese-Neologism words

CN Word VS Non-CN word

​

ST Gaze Measures & TT Gaze Measures & TT Keystroke Measures

​

​

​

​

​

​

12 of 24

ST Gaze Measures��

Without

background

P01_T2

(Bilinguals)

P02_T2

(Professionals)

P03_T2

(Well-trained MAs)

​

​

​

​

With background

P01_T1

(Bilinguals+Background)

P02_T1

(Professionals+Background)

P03_T1

(Well-trained MAs+Background)

​

​

​

​

​

13 of 24

TT Gaze Measures��

Without

background

P01_T2

(Bilinguals)

P02_T2

(Professionals)

P03_T2

(Well-trained MAs)

​

​

​

​

With background

P01_T1

(Bilinguals+Background)

P02_T1

(Professionals+Background)

P03_T1

(Well-trained MAs+Background)

​

​

​

​

​

14 of 24

TT Keystroke Measures��

Without background

P01_T2

(Bilinguals)

P02_T2

(Professionals)

P03_T2

(Well-trained MAs)

​

​

​

​

With background

P01_T1

(Bilinguals+Background)

P02_T1

(Professionals+Background)

P03_T1

(Well-trained MAs+Background)

​

​

​

​

​

Finding 1: Translators are more cognitively effortful in translating Chinese neologisms than Non-Chinese neologisms.

15 of 24

TT Keystroke Measures in translation without background information��

P01_T2

(Bilinguals)

P02_T2

(Professionals)

​

​

Finding 2: Bilinguals are more cognitively effortful in translating Chinese neologisms than professionals.

16 of 24

TT Keystroke Measures in translation without background information��

P02_T2

(Professionals)

P03_T2

(Well-trained MAs)

​

​

Finding 2: Professionals and well-trained MAs are similarly cognitively effortful in translating Chinese neologisms.

17 of 24

Data related to Research Question 2

Background information VS No background information

​

ST Gaze Measures & TT Gaze Measures & TT Keystroke Measures

​

​

​

​

​

​

Does background information have an effect on the

cognitive effort of translators when they are doing

written translation of Chinese neologisms?

18 of 24

ST Gaze Measures��

Finding 3: Background information helps translators reduce their cognitive effort in translating Chinese neologisms.

T1: with background information

T2: without background information

​

19 of 24

TT Gaze Measures��

Finding 3: Background information helps translators reduce their cognitive effort in translating Chinese neologisms. (partially support)

T1: with background information

T2: without background information

​

20 of 24

TT Keystroke Measures��

Finding 3: Background information helps translators reduce their cognitive effort in translating Chinese neologisms.

T1: with background information

T2: without background information

​

21 of 24

TT Keystroke Measures in translation with vs without background information��

Finding 4: Background information helps bilinguals reduce their cognitive effort a lot, but it’s not always the case for professionals and well-trained MAs.

T1: with background information

T2: without background information

​

22 of 24

Future Exploration�

  1. Measures that can support our assumptions and that can not.
  2. Cognitive effort in different phases of translation: orientation, drafting and revision; more measures
  3. The relationship between cognitive effort, translation strategies and translation quality.

23 of 24

References

  • Carl, M. (2012b). The CRITT TPR-DB 1.0: A database for empirical human translation process research. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the AMTA 2012 workshop on post-editing technology and practice (WPTP 2012) (pp. 9–18). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).
  • Carl, M., Bangalore, S., and Schaeffer, M. (Eds.) (2016). New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the TPR‐DB. Cham: Springer.
  • Demberg, V. and F. Keller. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109, 193-210.
  • Hyönä, J., R. F. Lorch Jr. and M. Rinck (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach and H. Deubel (eds). The Mind’s Eye – Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Jakobsen, A.L. (2002). Translation drafting by professional translators and by translation students. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Empirical translation studies: Process and product (pp. 191–204). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
  • Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. London: Prentice Hall.
  • Q., Yang (2003). Englishing of Chinese Neologisms: A Problematic Task. Chinese Translators Journal, 24(5), 70-74.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372-422.
  • Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time – temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Volden, J., & Lord, C. (1991). Neologisms and idiosyncratic language in autistic speaker. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 21(2), 109- 130.

​

​

​

​

24 of 24

LOGO