Abstract
This chapter introduces translator-information interaction (TII) as the field of study that investigates translators’ interaction with (digital) information and information tools. In particular, the current chapter examines translators’ interaction with a prototype biconcordancer (BiConc) tool integrated in the CASMACAT workbench. The BiConc was introduced in the third CASMACAT field trial (The data of the third CASMACAT field trial is stored in the TPR-DB under the study name CFT14, cf. Chap. 2, this volume.) a post-editing experiment involving seven English-to-Spanish professional translators. In addition to external online tools, the BiConc was one of the informational resources that participants could use while post-editing two machine-translated texts under two different conditions: (1) traditional post-editing and (2) interactive post-editing with online learning (A description of the CASMACAT online-learning mode is provided in Chap. 3 in this volume). In the case study reported in this chapter, only the segments in which participants used the CASMACAT BiConc tool were examined. On the basis of screen recordings, the present study analyses the way translators interacted with the BiConc and other informational resources in order to solve a particular problem while post-editing. Overall, the chapter argues that human-centered research is essential not only in the understanding of the cognitive processes involved in translation activity, but also in the development and the improvement of tools intended to better address the professional needs of translators. Thus, this case study and subsequent TII investigations can be used to inform the efficient integration of the BiConc tool and other informational resources to CASMACAT and other future-generation (web-based) translation environments.
[R]egardless of how our universe got to be the way it is, we can start our story with a world based on information.
—Ray Kurzweil, How to Create a Mind (2013)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
ICTs are defined as the bulk of technological applications based on computing, microelectronics, telecommunications and multimedia, the combination and interconnection of which allow people to search, capture, process and transmit data of different nature (text, audio, image, video, etc.); to interact with each other and with machines; to access information; and to spread and share information (Touré et al. 2009, p. 35).
- 2.
LTs are defined in this chapter as the bulk of natural language processing (NLP) applications that facilitate the active or passive use of a natural language. Certain LTs are developed for the general public, while others are developed for language professionals (e.g., writers, translators, terminologists, etc.). LTs may be divided in two categories: spoken-language-based and written-language-based. Each one of these categories may be divided into two types: passive applications (e.g., unchangeable information on the web or electronic/online dictionaries and term banks) and active applications (e.g. text processing software, spellcheckers and speech recognition systems).
- 3.
This pilot study was carried out within the framework of the TDA project held in July-August 2014 at the Centre for research and innovation in translation and translation technology (CRITT), located at the Copenhagen Business School, in Denmark. The aim of the TDA project was to explore and analyse translator-computer interaction data available in the CRITT TPR-DB in an effort to assess and elaborate methods to produce data-driven user profiles, to investigate differences in communication styles, and to identify patterns of user behavior for more and less successful man–machine communication. The TDA project was supported by the European Union’s 7th Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 287576 (CASMACAT).
- 4.
According to Fidel (2012, p. 85) context is important because, even before carrying out any search, it is context that shapes the informational needs, since the motivation to search for information is not only cognitive, but also contextual.
- 5.
The team of researchers listed below are to be acknowledged for their work on the CASMACAT workbench and, in particular, for running the CFT14 experiment and providing us with the data presented in this section: Vicent Alabau, Michael Carl, Francisco Casacuberta, Mercedes García Martínez, Jesús González-Rubio, Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, Philipp Koehn, Daniel Ortiz-Martínez, and Moritz Schaeffer.
- 6.
Only participant 4 (P4) reported that she did not have any experience in post-editing. As it will be seen in the Methodology section below, this does not have an impact on the results of the pilot experiment reported in this chapter.
- 7.
- 8.
The Cygwin package is available at: www.cygwin.com
- 9.
The videos are available in .fbr format in the following address: http://bridge.cbs.dk/field_trial3/VIDEO/. While playing the files, it is necessary to forward the video to the specific segment being analyzed. The segment ID can be seen on the left hand side of the CASMACAT user interface.
- 10.
By examining the videos, it was possible to notice that the BiConc tool was not accessible to P4 in neither condition (i.e. that the BiConc tool button did not appear on the CASMACAT interface). The reason for this issue is unknown. Thus, only half of participants who had access to the tool actually made use of it.
- 11.
The notion of information relevance will be discussed below.
- 12.
While relevance has been mainly associated with the performance evaluation of information systems, it has also been associated with the human processes that take place when people determine how relevant a piece of information is, and the elements that shape these processes (Fidel 2012, p. 27).
- 13.
As it can be observed in the screen videos, post-editors may “use” the information found in different ways: they can copy/paste it, or they could type it into the post-editing interface, for instance.
- 14.
This observation is based on screen recording examinations (i.e., by looking at the videos it was possible to observe that this particular resource was extensively used by all post-editors throughout the experiment). However, no exact figures on the total use of external resources in the CFT14 are available. Logging software such as Inputlog (Leijten and Van Waes 2013) will be included in future investigations.
- 15.
This behaviour can be attributed to one, two or all three participants who made use of the BiConc tool.
- 16.
Cognitive psychology studies have shown that some cognitive functions such as reading, learning and memorizing are affected by the (intensive) use of the Internet. In fact, people will turn to a search engine to search answers to even the simplest question. Just knowing that a piece of information is readily available anywhere and anytime leads humans not to memorize it (Duval 2012).
- 17.
Knight, A., Pyzark, G. & Green, C. (2007). When two methods are better than one: combining user study with cognitive modeling. In CHI’07 proceedings (pp. 1783–1788).
References
Alabau, V., Carl, M., García-Martínez, M., González-Rubio, J., Mesa-Lao, B., Ortiz-Martínez, D., et al. (2014). D6.3: Analysis of the third field trial. Technical report, CasMaCat project.
Aubert, B., Cohendet, P., & Montreuil, B. (2010). L’innovation et les technologies de l’information et des communications. Québec: CEFRIO.
Austermühl, F. (2001). Electronic tools for translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Balling, L. W., & Carl, M. (2014). Production time across languages and tasks: A large-scale analysis using the CRITT translation process database. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 239–268). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Borja, A. (2008). Corpora for translators in Spain. The CDJ-GITRAD corpus and the GENTT project. In M. Rogers & G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating corpora: The linguist and the translator (pp. 243–265). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-aided translation technology: A practical introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Carl, M., Dragsted, B., & Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). On the systematicity of human translation processes. In Actes de la conférence de Tralogy. Retrieved from http://lodel.irevues.inist.fr/tralogy/index.php?id=103
Duval, C. (2012). L’impact du Web en 4 questions. La Recherche, 467(September), 46–50.
Fidel, R. (2012). Human information interaction. An ecological approach to information behaviour. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gershon, N. (1995). Human Information Interaction. In 4th international world wide web conference.
Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., & Sellen, A. (2008). Being human: Human-computer interaction in the year 2020. Cambridge: Microsoft Research.
Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 79–102.
Hvelplund, K. T., & Carl, M. (2012). User activity metadata for reading, writing and translation research. In V. Arranz, D. Broeder, B. Gaiffe, M. Gavrilidou, M. Monachini, & T. Trippel (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation. LREC 2012: Workshop: describing LRs with metadata: Towards flexibility and interoperability in the documentation of LR (pp. 55–59). Paris: ELRA.
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: Benjamins.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). Tracking translators’ keystrokes and eye movements with Translog. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 37–55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jakobsen, A. L., & Jensen, K. T. H. (2008). Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 36, 103–124.
Karamanis, N., Luz, S., & Doherty, G. (2011). Translation practice in the workplace: A contextual analysis and implications for machine translation. Machine Translation, 25(1), 35–52.
Kurzweil, R. (2013). How to create a mind. The secret of human thought revealed (p. 336). New York: Penguin.
Langlois, L. (1996). Bilingual concordancers: A new tool for bilingual lexicographers. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of the american machine translation association. Retrieved from http://mt-archive.info/AMTA-1996-Langlois.pdf
LeBlanc, M. (2013). Translators on translation memory (TM). Results of an ethnographic study in three translation services and agencies. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(2), 1–13.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392.
Marchionini, G. (2008). Human-information interaction research and development. Library and Information Science Research, 30(3), 165–174. Retrieved from http://www.ils.unc.edu/~march/Marchionini_Inf_interact_LISR_2008.pdf.
O’Brien, S. (2009). Eye tracking in translation-process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38, 251–266.
O’Brien, S. (2012). Translation as human–computer interaction. Translation Spaces, 1(1), 101–122. doi:10.1075/ts.1.05obr.
Shneiderman, B. (2008). Foreword. In A. Sears & J. A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (2nd ed., pp. xix–xx). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simard, T. (2013). Analyse comparative de la couverture et de l’acceptabilité des solutions d’un dictionnaire bilingue spécialisé, d’une banque de données terminologiques et d’un concordancier en ligne: application au domaine de la traduction médicale. University of Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/fr/handle/10393/24929
Taravella, A. M., & Villeneuve, A. O. (2013). Acknowledging the needs of computer-assisted translation tools users: The human perspective in human-machine translation. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 19(January), 62–74. Retrieved from http://www.jostrans.org/issue19/art_taravella.pdf.
Touré, M. A., Mbangwana, M., & Sène, P. A. (2009). Que sont les TIC : Typologie des outils et des systèmes. In T. Karsenti (Ed.), Intégration pedagogique des TIC en Afrique. Stratégies d’action et pistes de réflexion (pp. 33–56). Ottawa: CRDI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zapata, J. (2016). Investigating Translator-Information Interaction: A Case Study on the Use of the Prototype Biconcordancer Tool Integrated in CASMACAT. In: Carl, M., Bangalore, S., Schaeffer, M. (eds) New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20357-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20358-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)