Content uploaded by Sharon O ' Brien
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sharon O ' Brien on Apr 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Spaces
Translation
volume 4 number 1 2015
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of contents
Introduction
Articles
Psycholinguistic explorations of lexical translation equivalents: Thirty
years of research and their implications for cognitive translatology
Adolfo M. García
Results of PACTE’s experimental research on the acquisition of
translation competence: The acquisition of declarative and procedural
knowledge in translation. The dynamic translation index
Allison Beeby, L. Castillo, O. Fox, A. Galán Mañas, Amparo Hurtado Albir,
Anna Kuznik, G. Massana, Wilhelm Neunzig, Ch. Olalla,
Patricia Rodríguez Inés and L. Romero
(De)metaphorization in the cognitive process of professional translators
Tânia Liparini Campos
On the difficulties posed by the translation of subjectivity markers:
A case study
Mónica Cecilia Giozza and María del Mar Gatti
Ergonomics of the translation workplace: Potential for cognitive friction
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
The role of syntactic variation in translation and post-editing
Srinivas Bangalore, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot,
Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Jonas Schaeffer and Annegret Sturm
Translating and post-editing in the Portuguese-Chinese language pair:
Insights from an exploratory study of key-logging and eye tracking
Igor A. Lourenço da Silva, Marcia Schmaltz, Fabio Alves, Adriana Pagano,
Derek Wong, Lidia Chao, Ana Luísa V. Leal, Paulo Quaresma
and Caio Garcia
Design and statistics in quantitative translation (process) research
Laura Winther Balling and Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund
Translation
Spaces
A multidisciplinary, multimedia, and multilingual
journal of translation
volume 4 number 1 2015
ISSN 2211-3711 / E-ISSN 2211-372X
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Translation Spaces volume 4 number 1 2015
Cognition & Behavior
Translation as a cognitive activity
ts.4-1.cover.indd 1 11/08/2015 15:40:29
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam/Philadelphia
VOLUME NUMBER
Editors
Deborah A. Folaron
Concordia University
Gregory M. Shreve
Kent State University
Ricardo Muñoz Martín
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Consulting Editors
Yves Gambier
University of Turku
Anthony Pym
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Spaces
Translation
A multidisciplinary, multimedia, and multilingual
journal of translation
Advisory Board
Translation, Globalization, and Communication Technology
Frank Austermühl
Aston University
Translation, Commerce and Economy
Keiran J. Dunne
Kent State University
Translation, Government, Law and Policy
Michael Geist
University of Ottawa
Translation as an Object of Study
Ricardo Muñoz Martín
Univ. de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Translation, Computation and Information
Sharon O’Brien
Dublin City University
Translation and Entertainment
Minako O’Hagan
Dublin City University
Translation, Information, Culture, and Society
Gregory M. Shreve
Kent State University
Spaces
Translation
A multidisciplinary, multimedia, and multilingual
journal of translation
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Translation as a cognitive activity
Edited by Fabio Alves, Amparo Hurtado Albir
and Isabel Lacruz
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil / Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona, Spain / Kent State University, Ohio, USA
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Table of contents
Introduction 1
Articles
Psycholinguistic explorations of lexical translation equivalents: irty
years of research and their implications for cognitive translatology 9
Adolfo M. García
Results of PACTE’s experimental research on the acquisition of
translation competence: e acquisition of declarative and procedural
knowledge in translation. e dynamic translation index 29
A. Beeby, L. Castillo, O. Fox, A. Galán Mañas, A. Hurtado Albir, A.
Kuznik, G. Massana, W. Neunzig, Ch. Olalla, P. Rodríguez Inés, L.
Romero (in alphabetical order). Principal researcher: A. Hurtado Albir
(De)metaphorization in the cognitive process of professional translators 54
Tânia Liparini Campos
On the diculties posed by the translation of subjectivity markers:
A case study 75
Mónica Cecilia Giozza and María del Mar Gatti
Ergonomics of the translation workplace: Potential for cognitive friction 98
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
e role of syntactic variation in translation and post-editing 119
Srinivas Bangalore, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar
Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeer and
Annegret Sturm
Translating and post-editing in the Portuguese-Chinese language pair:
Insights from an exploratory study of key-logging and eye tracking 145
Igor A. Lourenço da Silva, Márcia Schmaltz, Fabio Alves, Adriana
Pagano, Derek Wong, Lidia Chao, Ana Luísa V. Leal, Paulo Quaresma
and Caio Garcia
Design and statistics in quantitative translation (process) research 170
Laura Winther Balling and Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Translation of subjectivity markers 97
Authors’ addresses
Mónica Cecilia Giozza
Universidad del Aconcagua
Barrio Parque Norte M-25 (5539) Mendoza,
Argentina
mgiozza@uda.edu.ar
María del Mar Gatti
Universidad del Aconcagua
Luis Agote 511. Godoy Cruz (5501),
Mendoza, Argentina
mdelmargatti@gmail.com
Translation Spaces 4 (2015), 98–118. doi 10.1075/ts.4.05ehr
issn 2211–3711 / e-issn 2211-372x © John Benjamins Publishing Company
Ergonomics of the translation workplace
Potential for cognitive friction
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
Zurich University of Applied Sciences / Dublin City University
Translation is a complex cognitive activity carried out in dierent settings by
translators that share an increasingly heavy reliance on language technology.
is raises the question of whether translators’ ergonomic needs are being met at
their workplaces and by the tools they use. Findings from an exploratory survey
study of sta translators in Switzerland are presented and contrasted with those
of freelance translators working in Ireland. e surveys address the ergonomic
aspects of computer workstations, workplace and working environment, tools
and resources, workow and organization as well as health and related issues.
Indicators of ‘cognitive friction’ (Cooper 2004) that might be attributable to the
cognitive, physical, and organizational ergonomics of translators’ workplaces
have been identied and incorporated into the design of a follow-up interna-
tional survey. e implications of this type of research are explored in light of
anticipated developments in the technologized translation workplace.
Keywords: cognitive ergonomics, physical ergonomics, professional translators,
cognitive friction, workplace, survey, sociotechnical aspects
Introduction
In most commercial and institutional settings in many countries in the world, the
heavy reliance on language technology means that professional translation is be-
coming an increasingly sophisticated form of human–computer interaction. For
example, translators employ many kinds of sources on the Internet to aid their
decision-making processes. ey deal with multiple le formats, some of which
are not presented in WYSIWYG format (e.g., XML les in translation memory
tools instead of the ‘what you see is what you get’ appearance of most text ed-
iting tools). ey translate using multiple editors, dealing with content that is
generated by other translators (in translation memory — TM — or terminology
management tools and by computers (in machine translation — MT — systems).
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 99
Moreover, they are oen expec ted to translate out-of-context segments of text,
instead of complete, coherent documents, yet still somehow maintain cohesion
and comprehensibility. While some research has focused on the impact of tech-
nology on the translation process and product (e.g., Alves and Liparini Campos
2009; Christensen 2011; Dragsted 2006; Hansen-Schirra 2012; Jiménez 2009; Pym
2011), the potential disruptions to cognitive processing that can result from the
deployment of less-than-optimal tools at ergonomically problematic workplaces
remains underexplored. We propose to address this gap by focusing on ergonomic
issues facing translators in two very dierent workplace settings, both of which
rely on language technology.
Ergonomic considerations
e study of ergonomics is oen understood as related to the physical condi-
tions of the workplace, yet it actually has a much broader scope. According to
the International Ergonomics Association (IEA)1, ergonomics is concerned with
“physical, cognitive, social, organizational, environmental and other relevant fac-
tors” of human work and the promotion of conditions that are “compatible with
the needs, abilities and limitations of people.” ese factors can be broadly catego-
rized as physical, cognitive, and organizational ergonomics. e IEA denes phys-
ical ergonomics as “human anatomical, anthropometric, physiological and biome-
chanical characteristics as they relate to physical activity.” ese include workplace
layout and safety, such as how people sit, stand, and move while doing their work.
When people are doing work that demands close attention and concentration,
they have to exert energy and ultimately cognitive resources to compensate for
the distraction of any physical discomfort. is is one of the reasons why it is so
important for translators and other heavy computer users to have ergonomically-
appropriate furniture, computer workstations, and oces. In addition, poor physi-
cal ergonomics at computer workplaces can result in musculoskeletal complaints,
vision problems, repetitive strain injuries, and other occupational health issues
over the long-term.
Cognitive ergonomics is dened by the IEA as being concerned with “mental
processes, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they
aect interactions among humans and other elements of a system.” In the context
of translation, this can include the mental load of doing web research (cf. Gwizdka
2009; 2010) and constant decision-making (cf. Levý 1967/2000; Pym 2003; Toury
2012) as well as the use of language technology tools and human–computer
1. http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html
100 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
interaction (see next section). ere is also evidence that emotional state can be
inuenced by human–computer interactions with technological aids (cf. Beale
and Peter 2008). Specically, Szameitat et al. (2009) report that delays in computer
responsiveness can aect task performance and cause negative emotions. ey
suggest that this potentially contributes to stress, work dissatisfaction, and even
health problems.
In addit ion to the use of translat ion aids and emotions , Hansen (2006) id en-
ties working conditions and time management as important parameters in the
translation process. Translation is an activity that is situated not only in time and
physical space but also within organizational structures: even freelancers are part
of a system of ‘translational action’ (cf. Holz-Mänttäri 1984) that involves initiators,
commissioners, source text authors, target text readers, and societal expectations.
As Risku (2002, 529) puts it: “Translation is done not only by the brain, but also by
complex systems, systems which include people, their specic social and physical
environments and all their cultural artefacts.” In IEA’s terms, this is covered by or-
ganizational ergonomics, which “is concerned with the optimization of sociotech-
nical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and processes.”
Translation is a complex bilingual cognitive activity that takes place within
a dynamic system involving multiple agents and human–computer interactions
in a wide variety of settings, which can range from a kitchen table or desk in a
quiet room in a f reelancer’s house to an open-plan oce of a busy commercial
language service provider. At the highly-technologized computer workplaces that
are a standard feature of most language service providers (LSPs), translating has
become a highly screen-intensive line of work that demands computer and infor-
mation literacy (cf. Massey and E hrensberger-Dow 2011) in addition to famil-
iarity with language technology and computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools.
Ideally, the tools that translators use lighten their mental load (cf. Muñoz 2012),
help them optimize their performance, and relieve them of tedious tasks such as
translating the same sentence several times or ensuring consistent terminology. In
reality, certain features in newly-designed or upgraded language technology sys-
tems can seem rather counter-intuitive to their intended users, thus having to be
consciously remembered and adding an unnecessary load to cognitive resources.
As Doherty and King (2005, 2) point out, “Systems development projects have
typically been viewed as exercises in technical change, rather than socio-technical
change.” Olohan (2011, 345) expands on this in her discussion of translators’ inter-
actions with translation technology by adding that “the human and organizational
aspects are not addressed at al l, or only implicitly, or in an ad-hoc fashion, when
the system is being developed.” e potential for poor ergonomics to have detri-
mental eects on the translation process, at least when such technical changes are
introduced, seems obvious.
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 101
Translation as human–computer interaction
O’Brien (2012) describes modern translation as human–computer interaction,
and this is especially true in a highly technologized workplace. e current reality
for translators, especially (though not limited to) t hose working in the informa-
tion technology sector, is that multiple tools are used to create translated texts.
At a basic level, this might include a word processing environment, a spreadsheet
for terminology, an e-mail client, and a web browser. More likely, though, is the
scenario in which the translator will also use at least one TM tool, and each of
those tools might include a built-in glossary management feature or require an
external terminology management tool. Increasingly, the translator may be asked
to interact with MT and/or a globalization management system, such as Idiom
Worldserver. e benets of these technologies for translators have been espoused
for many years: they increase the speed of translation and improve quality, pri-
marily by ensuring consistency (cf. Austermühl 2001; Risku 2007). Benets for
translation clients also include a reduction in price, through discounts for MT,
fuzzy, and exact matches.
e constraints imposed by translation technologies have also received atten-
tion. For example, Bowker (2005) investigated correlations between quality and
productivity when using TM, and Lagoudaki (2006; 2008) investigated translators’
attitudes to TM technology in general. Issues that frequently emerge when trans-
lators are asked about using translation technology include time pressure (they
are expected to work faster), quality (both of source text and translation units
stored in TMs), errors propagated in TMs through lack of quality control, pric-
ing (e.g., low rates or even no remuneration for exact matches), t ag handling for
text encoded in mark-up languages such as HTML and XML, and responsivity or
stability of the tools. A more recent survey carrie d out by Moorkens and O’Brien
(2013) on translators’ opinions towards how existing CAT tools might better sup-
port the task of post-editing indicated that translators were still quite skeptical
of MT and its integration in TM tools. Vieira and Specia (2011, 33) rated several
tools for suitability for the post-editing task and found that “a number of features
deemed desirable for the work of a translator were not satisfactorily found in any
of the toolkits analyzed” (e.g., integration of MT in TM with quality indicators,
track changes). is mismatch between features that would be optimal for transla-
tion tasks and the limitations of currently available tools is an aspect of workplace
ergonomics that des erves further consideration, since it could lead to cognitive
friction.
102 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
What is cognitive friction?
Cognitive friction is dened as “the resistance encountered by a human intel-
lect when it engages with a complex system of rules that change as the problem
changes” (Cooper 2004, 19). In the context of the technologized translation work-
place, cognitive friction may occur when the complex system of rules that govern
translation on both the micro and macro levels change, depending on the transla-
tion context. Friction might be caused not only by translation problems (e.g., ‘rich
points’ in the terminology of the PACTE research group; PACTE 2005, 214), but
also by technological and organizational constraints, which are explored more ful-
ly in the next section. e conceptualization of translation as a complex system of
changing rules is in keeping, we believe, with the view of translation as a situated
embodied cognitive task (cf. Risku et al. 2013). We also perceive cognitive friction
to be a state of being when ‘ow’ is disturbed. e term ‘ow’ is used in psychol-
ogy to mean being fully immersed in an activity such that it energizes the person
involved in the task and provides them with a feeling of enjoyment (Nakamura
and Csikszentmihalyi 2002). One important element in ow theory is the sense of
personal control or agency over the situation and activity, which we argue might
be reduced or even removed through the use of common translation tools in the
highly technologized workplace.
Referring again to Cooper’s denition of cognitive friction, we see transla-
tion as a multi-level system, with meta-level rules in the workplace per taining to
client requirements for quality, style, speed, price, and hierarchical rules among
translators/revisers (junior/senior), project managers, production managers and
so on. e complex system then extends to the technological level, where the sys-
tem might be a TM and/or MT engine, coupled with terminology management
tools, research and communication tools, with rules governing whether a segment
appears as an MT, fuzzy, or exact match, and the problem changing constantly de-
pending on whether one is translating, revising and/or editing a human-generated
fuzzy match or an MT-generated segment, all the while keeping the meta-level
rules and task requirements in mind. is complex system has vast potential for
cognitive friction and for preventing translators from entering t he state of ‘ow’
(see also Désilets et al. 2009).
Studies of the translation workplace also call into question the perceived status
of translators and of the translation profession, which has a clear link to organi-
zational ergonomics. e topic of translator status has been dealt with to some
extent by translation scholars such as Dam and Zethsen (2008; 2009; 2010), Katan
(2009a; 2009b), and Pym et al. (2102). Katan (2009b), for example, has investigat-
ed the divide between the academic notion of a translator as an empowered ‘cul-
tural mediator’ and the dominant self-image of working translators who primarily
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 103
translate technical, business, and legal content, and see little relevance in transla-
tion theory. However, we do not propose to enter into a discussion of occupational
status in this paper but focus instead on the potential of poor cognitive, physical,
and organizational ergonomics of the translation workplace to generate cognitive
friction, while keeping in mind that issues that cause cognitive friction may also
have an impact on, or be impacted by, the status of translation as a profession.
Indicators of cognitive friction in the translation workplace
Cognitive friction can be assumed to detract from the eciency of the translation
process, with potentially negative consequences on translator performance and
satisfaction. As such, there should be evidence of this in the work that professional
translators do and in their comments about their processes, practices, and work-
ing conditions. For example, a recently completed workplace study in Switzerland
has provided indications that ergonomic factors can have an impact on translators’
performance and job satisfaction (see below). As a follow-up to the workplace
study, the participating sta translators were asked to complete an exploratory
online survey focusing on the cognitive, physical, and organizational ergonomics
of their workplace, and a partial replication was carried out with freelance trans-
lators in Ireland. e results of these two exploratory surveys, presented below,
suggest that non-optimal ergonomics can increase the potential for cognitive fric-
tion, which might be compensated for in various ways. Since only two types of
translation workplaces could be investigated with these exploratory surveys, we
conclude this section by discussing the limitations of the study and how the scope
could be expanded to include institutional translators and to investigate practices
in other countries.
Relevant ndings from a workplace study
In a workplace study in Switzerland (cf. Ehrensberger-Dow 2014), translation pro-
cesses from eighteen sta translators employed by the same LSP were recorded
as the translators carried out their normal tasks.2 Since it was not feasible to in-
stall screen recording soware at each workstation, a proxy solution was devised
that involved two ‘slave’ computers linked to the translators’ screens.3 On-site
2. More information on the Capturing Translation Processes project and related publications are
available at www.linguistik.zhaw.ch/ctp.
3. e screen recording soware used was Camtasia Studio. See http://www.techsmith.com/
camtasia.html.
104 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
researchers contacted the translators each morning to ask who had processes that
could be recorded. e translators could ask the researchers to interrupt the re-
cording process whenever they wanted (i.e., if they started doing other work) or if
they had to for reasons of condentiality. On a date convenient to them, they were
shown a screen recording of one of the processes they had done earlier that par-
ticular day, and they commented on what they saw themselves doing. Aerwards,
they participated in a semi-structured interview about various aspects of transla-
tion and the tools they normally used. By the end of the six-month data collection
phase of the study, a corpus consisting of at least 19 hours of screen recordings of
partial and complete translation processes of various durations had been collected
from each translator as well as a retrospective commentary from each of them of
one of their processes and their answers to interview questions.
From the workplace observations by the onsite researchers and from analyses
of the screen recordings, it became clear that certain features of the text editing
soware seemed to be slowing down the process, as did the frequent switching be-
tween windows, necessitated partly by the translators using only one screen, which
was the norm at this particular LSP. In addition, some of the CAT tools forced the
translators to produce their t arget texts in a small eld in the lower half or right
half of the computer screen, with the result that they had to constantly shi be-
tween areas of the screen to check information. ere were indications in many
of the recordings that the translators had trouble nding where they had been
working on their texts aer breaking o to research information or revise previ-
ous parts of their target texts (see Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey (2014) for more
details about the cognitive ergonomic issues identied in the screen recordings).
Professional translation is also a physical activity : analyses of recordings of
translation processes done in the lab by the same professionals showed that on
average they typed approximately 1,000 characters and spaces and made over 80
mouse clicks within 15 minutes (Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey 2014, 72). ese
observations were conrmed by the translators’ responses to certain questions in
the interviews aer commenting on their translation processes. Although they ba-
sically seemed satised with their computer workstations and user interfaces, all
of them spontaneously mentioned issues related to physical and cognitive ergo-
nomics, such as the impossibility to work standing up and the size of their com-
puter screens. e latter complaint was related to the limited space available for
inputting target text because of the number of menus and optional functions in
the CAT tools. Some of the translators also expressed their concerns about or-
ganizational and contextual factors such as ambient noise, furniture, and oor
plans in light of an oce move due to take place shortly before the completion
of the recording phase of the workplace study. Such observations and comments
prompted the present study, which explores the ergonomics of the situated activity
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 105
of professional translation and attempts to relate it to t he potential for cognitive
friction.
Exploratory surveys of translation workplaces
In order to collect more systematic information about the ergonomic situation at
the LSP that was investigated in the workplace study described in the previous sec-
tion, a structured questionnaire was designed in collaboration with occupational
health scholars.4 In line with the denitions provided by the IEA, the question-
naire included items related to cognitive, physical, and organizational ergonomics.
e questions dealt with computer settings and peripherals; work stations, furni-
ture, and oce layout; language technology; sources of disturbance; workow; as
well as potential health issues (see Table 1). Most of the sta translators involved in
the workplace study chose to complete the questionnaire, which was administered
as an anonymous online survey, conrming the impressions from the recordings
and interviews in the workplace study that various ergonomic issues were of some
concern in professional translation, or at least to the professionals working at this
LSP.
Since translation is a situated activity, it is important to consider organiza-
tional and environmental factors before making any claims about ergonomic is-
sues of the profession in general. e LSP involved in the workplace study and the
sta survey described above specializes in the nancial and life sciences sectors, is
the largest employer of sta translators in Switzerland, and has many international
subsidiaries. eir sta translators work in highly-technologized, modern facili-
ties with access to IT support and project managers. e LSP also has a network of
freelancers that they rely on to do the bulk of their translation work, but the sta
translators have little or no direct contact with them. Some of the constraints that
those freelancers are working under may be similar to the sta translators, but the
organizational and physical conditions are probably quite dierent.
Rather than trying to access the LSP ’s network and factoring out shared con-
straints, we decided to partially replicate the exploratory ergonomics survey for the
sta translators with a dierent group of translators in another country (Ireland)
that have no connection with that particu lar LSP. In this way, we hoped to con-
trast the ergonomic realities of sta translators to freelancers as two examples of
‘extreme cases’ of professional translation (cf. Eisenhardt 1989; Glaser and Strauss
1967). Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the sample of translators who
took part in the exploratory sta and freelance ergonomics surveys.
4. e helpful advice from Prof. Heidrun Becker and her colleagues at the ZHAW Institute of
Occupational erapy is gratefully acknowledged.
106 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
Tab le 1. Characteristics of samples and exploratory ergonomics surveys
StaFreelance
Participants n=14 (11 women, 3 men) n=9 (8 women, 1 man)
Age range 26–65 years old 26–65 years old
Country Switzerland Ireland
Employment All at same LSP Self-employed
Survey timing November 2012 April 2013
Survey sections 1. Screen and visual aspects 1. Screen and lighting
2. Peripherals and workspace 2. Workstation
3. Oce 3. Workspace and environment
4. Technical infrastructure 4. Tools and resources
5. Organization 5. Workow and organization
6. Relaxation 6. Workday
7. Health 7. Health
8. Personal details 8. Personal details
Survey questions n=88 n=140
e sta survey and freelance survey were each organized into eight similar sec-
tions (see Table 1), with questions that were intended to capture and reect good
practice recommendations available in the literature (e.g., Chevalier and Kicka
2006; de León 2007; Lavault-Olléon 2011; Salvendy 2012) and made by insurance
companies.5 Some of the questions in the sta survey, which was designed for the
situation at one particular LSP in Switzerland, had to be adapted to suit the work-
ing realities of freelancers in Ireland. e freelance survey also included numerous
questions about CAT tool use, which had not been necessary in the sta survey
because those data were available from the workplace study described above.
Results of the exploratory surveys
e questions shared between the sta and freelance surveys were grouped into 1)
workspace issues, which basically concern physical ergonomics; 2) hardware and
soware issues, which can be related to cognitive ergonomics; 3) sociotechnical
issues, part of organizational ergonomics; and 4) health issues, which can be con-
sidered potential outcomes of various aspects of poor ergonomics. In each of the
5. For example, the Swiss accident insurance company has published its recommendations for
computer workplaces at http://www.suva.ch/startseite-suva/service-suva/lernprogramme-suva/
ergonomie-am-bildschirmarbeitsplatz-suva.htm.
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 107
categories, good practice was identied for those aspects in which at least 85% of
the translation workplaces were reported to be consistent with ergonomic recom-
mendations (i.e., by at least 20 out of 23 translators surveyed). Warning signs were
indicated for areas in which 15–29% of translators reported less recommendable
practices, with some signicant dierences between sta and freelance translators.
Possibly problematic issues were identied as areas in which at least 30% of t he
translators seemed to engage in poor ergonomic practice, with several interesting
dierences emerging between the two groups of translators.
Workspace issues. Most of the translators reported that they had a workplace
dedicated to the purpos e of translation work, with sucient storage space and
a comfortable chair t hat allowed their upper and lower legs to be at right angles
(see Table 2). However, a number said that the layout of t heir workplace was not
satisfactory, and a signicantly higher proportion of freelancers than sta reported
having a smaller desk than recommended by most ergonomics guidelines for of-
ce furniture (χ2 = 7.53, p < 0.01). Also less than optimal were t he space behind
the chair, the lack of exibility of chair height, the proximity of the printer, and,
especially for the sta translators, the air quality (χ2 = 5.22, p < 0.05).
Tab le 2. Combined results for ergonomics of sta and freelance workspaces (n = 23)
Good workspace practice (>85% of the translators surveyed)
+ Dedicated workspace
+ Chair comfortable
+ Upper and lower legs at right angles
+ Sucient storage space
Warning signs for the workspace
o Workplace layout unsatisfactory (22%)
o Smaller desk than recommended (17%)**
o Less than 1 m space behind chair (17%)
o Chair height not adjustable (22%)
o Printer within reach of desk (17%)
o Air quality of concern (26%)*
Possibly problematic for the workspace
− Desk height not adjustable (39%)**
− No armrests on chair (30%)**
− No possibility to sit on ball (65%)
− Cannot look out of window (35%)
− Disturbing noise from inside (70%)*
− Temperature is uncomfortable (39%)*
− No use of footrest (70%)
− No use of manuscript holder (74%)
*more problematic for sta, p < 0.05
**more problematic for freelancers, p < 0.01
108 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
Of potentially more concern, several respondents in each group could not look
out the window from their workspace, and few had access to or made use of ergo-
nomic resources such as exercise balls, footrests, or manuscript holders, the lack of
which could result in unnecessary strain over the long-term. A signicantly larger
proportion of the freelancers had no armrests on their chairs (χ2 = 9.17, p < 0.01),
and none of them had the possibility to adjust the height of their desk if they
wanted to work standing up (χ2 = 23.00, p < 0.001) whereas all of the sta did. e
sta translators were more concerned than the freelancers about disturbing noise
from outside (χ2 = 4.41, p < 0.05) and about the temperature of their workplace
(χ2 = 4.87, p < 0.05). Although some of these aspects may seem like minor incon-
veniences, they all have the possibility of aecting translators’ concentration and
causing friction, especially during cognitively demanding tasks.
Hardware and soware issues. With respect to practices related to hardware
and soware (see Table 3), the majority of translators found the size of their com-
puter screen(s) comfortable, their computer mouse comfortable to use, and their
internet connection good. Nevertheless, several of them reported that the edge of
the screen was higher than recommended and that there was sometimes disturbing
glare on the screen. Signicantly fewer freelancers used keyboards for which the
angle could be adjusted (χ2 = 12.63, p < 0.001) or CAT tools (χ2 = 12.63, p < 0.01).
Especially problematic, however, was the number of translators who only used one
screen, with a higher proportion for the sta translators (χ2 = 5.37, p < 0.05).
Tab le 3. Combined results for ergonomics of hardware and soware at sta and freelance
workplaces (n = 23)
Good hardware and soware practice (>85%)
+ Size of screen(s) comfortable
+ Mouse comfortable to use
+ Internet connection good
Warning signs for hardware and soware
o Edge of screen(s) above eye level (17%)
o Disturbing glare on screen (26%)
o Angle of keyboard not adjustable (26%)**
o No CAT tools used (26%)**
Possibly problematic for hardware and soware
− Only one screen (61%)*
*more problematic for sta, p < 0.05
**more problematic for freelancers, p < 0.01
Sociotechnical issues. e translators reported satisfaction concerning how socio-
technical aspects of their workow were organized (see Table 4). In their view,
communication tools were adequate to their needs and the linguistic resources
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 109
they had access to (e.g., dictionaries) were sucient. ey reported being able
to talk to other translators about problems, having autonomy over when to take
breaks, and deadlines being clear. Less positively, a higher proportion of freelanc-
ers than sta translators reported that they do not always receive sucient feed-
back on the quality of t heir work (χ2 = 7.88, p < 0.05) and that their client work-
ows are not ecient (χ2 = 7.53, p < 0.01).
Tab le 4. Combined results for sociotechnical ergonomics at sta and freelance work-
places (n = 23)
Good sociotechnical/organizational practice (>85%):
+ Communication tools adequate
+ Linguistic resources sucient
+ Can talk about problems with other translators
+ Autonomy over timing of breaks
+ Deadlines clear
Warning signs for organization:
o Not always provided with sucient feedback on quality of work (26%)**
o Client workows not ecient (17%)**
Possibly problematic sociotechnical issues:
− Additional resources not oen supplied by customer/project manager (52%)**
− Interruptions from email, etc. (43%)*
− Distractions from other people (61%)*
− Screen visible to others (43%)
− Cannot plan work week in advance (52%)*
− No hourly breaks (70%)*
− No breaks away from workplace (30%)*
− No possibility to withdraw and relax at breaks (35%)*
*more problematic for sta, p < 0.05
**more problematic for freelancers, p < 0.05
More problematically, proportionately fewer freelancers than sta have access to
sucient additional resources (χ2 = 8.98, p < 0.05), contributing to their isolation.
In contrast, the sta translators seem to be suering f rom too much (unwanted)
contact with others. A higher proportion of them reported that they were oen
interrupted by e-mail, chats, and phone calls (χ2 = 14.60, p = 0.001) and were dis-
tracted by other people walking around (χ2 = 4.71, p < 0.05). As well, it bothers
many of them that their screen is visible to others.
e sta translators seemed to have less autonomy than the freelancers; pro-
portionately more sta reported that they cannot plan their work week in advance
(χ2 = 16.00, p < 0.001). Opportunities to relax regularly during the workday were
also more limited for sta than for freelancers: none of the sta translators took
breaks every hour whereas several of t he freelancers did (χ2 = 15.65, p < 0.001). In
110 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
addition, more sta than freelancers reported t hat they did not leave their work-
place during breaks (χ2 = 6.47, p < 0.05) and that they did not have enough pos-
sibilities available near their workplace to relax during breaks (χ2 = 7.89, p = 0.005).
Health issues. In general, almost all of the translators reported that their health
was good or very good and that they exercised at least twice a week. Yet when
asked specically about health problems and whether they felt these were related
to their work, all of the sta translators and two-thirds of the freelancers indicated
that this was partly or denitely the case. e sta translators as a group reported
a far higher proportion and range of hea lth issues than the freelancers did (see
Table 5).
Tab le 5. Percentage of translators in each group reporting that they sometimes, oen, or
very oen experienced a particular health problem
Health issues Sta %
(n = 14)
Freelancers %
(n = 9)
Related to sitting at a desk (workspace):
(Lower) back pain 64 22
Leg or feet ache, heavy legs 43 11
Other pain in joints, muscles and/or limbs 14 11
Rheumatic pain or neuralgia 21 0
Cold hands or feet 64 22
Related to interacting with a computer (hardware/soware):
Pain in the neck or shoulders and/or neck stiness 79 44
Discomfort or pain in arms, hands, or upper limbs 36 22
Burning or hypersensitive eyes 64 22
Impaired vision due to visual fatigue 57 33
Headache, migraine, or head pressure 64 22
Related to being part of an organization (sociotechnical):
Time pressure 100 78
Stress 93 67
Nervousness, tension, or irritability 86 56
Diculty falling asleep or sleeping through the night 57 67
Diculty concentrating 71 22
General weakness, fatigue, or burnout 79 44
Mental overload 71 33
Mental underload/boredom 29 33
Depressive mood, depression, or fear 36 22
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 111
Of the ve p otential health issues related to the physical ergonomics of sitting at
a desk for extended periods, more than half of the sta translators reported prob-
lems with (lower) back pain and cold hands or feet whereas relatively few of the
freelancers reported any health problems. e freelancers may be compensating
for oce furniture that is less than ergonomically optimal (cf. Table 2) by taking
numerous breaks, controlling their oce environment (i.e., temperature, humid-
ity, ventilation, air quality), and leaving their workplace regularly.
Contrary to concerns raised in the literature about hand and wrist tendonitis
mentioned with respect to the heavy keyboarding activity demanded in profes-
sional translation (e.g., de Léon 2007; Lavault-Olléon 2011; Pineau 2011), the sta
translators actually identied neck pain and/or shoulder pain as well as headaches
and problems with eyes and vision as the most s erious physical ergonomic issues
related to interacting with a computer (see Table 5). e freelancers reported far
lower rates of health issues related to using hardware and soware than the sta
translators did, though their incidence of neck pain was also highest.
Although the freelancers may be able to compensate for problematic cognitive
and physical ergonomic aspects by ta king hourly breaks and having control over
their oce environment, they suered along with sta translators in certain socio-
technical aspects related to being part of an organization and being dependent on
others. e majority of both groups reported experiencing time pressure, stress,
nervousness, and sleeping diculties, all potentially evidence of cognitive friction
related to their working conditions. In addition, over 70% of the sta translators
reported the following problems: diculty concentrating; general weak ness, fa-
tigue, or burnout; and mental overload. ese are strong indicators that the ergo-
nomics of their workplaces are aecting their cognitive processes during the situ-
ated activity of translation. On the positive side, professional translation seems to
be a stimulating activity: neither mental underload/boredom nor depressive mood
was identied as particularly problematic by either of the groups.
Limitations of the present study
Clearly, these exploratory sur veys are based on very small samples, and they do
not allow us to make any claims about the ergonomics of professional transla-
tion in general or even about sta and freelance translators’ working conditions in
these two countries in particular. However, they might prove useful in generating
hypotheses that can be tested with larger-scale studies. As Risku (2014: 349) has
pointed out, even t he apparently simplest dyad of a freelance translator working
directly for a client who is also the author of the source text can actually represent
“complex full-grown interactive networks.” is has implications for understand-
ing the ergonomics of the translation workplace: it is important for us to consider
112 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
as many cognitive, physical, and organizational aspects in as many professional
settings as possible.
In addition to the freelancers and sta translators surveyed in this exploratory
study, many professionals work for institutions (e.g., government departments,
NGOs) that are subject to economic and organizational constraints that dier
from those working on their own account or for a commercial enterprise. And
since by its nature translation is a cross-regional or cross-national activity, a larger
international survey would provide a more representative picture of ergonomic
conditions than these two exploratory surveys in two small countries could. Based
on the results presented in the previous section, a larger survey should elicit more
details about translators’ employment arrangements, oce layouts, language tools,
computer set-ups, preferred peripherals, soware settings, modes of working, and
other ergonomic concerns. If we take seriously the notion of translation being a
situated activity, then we have to provide opportunities for translators to explain
what their personal preferences are and to have their voices heard by designers of
translation workplaces and language technology. In a complex system, optimal
workplace conditions and use of tools depends on many human factors and may
well have to be adjusted to meet the needs of each individual (i.e., optimization
through ‘personalization’).
Future realities and conclusions
e list of physical, cognitive, and organizational constraints impinging on profes-
sional translation is already long and challenging, but when we consider what may
be coming down the line for translators, it is clear that the working environment
will become even more complex, with even more potential for cognitive friction.
e adoption of l anguage technology tools in most sectors of the translation in-
dustry is testimony to their usefulness, despite the constraints that they impose on
the situated activity of translation and on the translators using them. In the drive
for increased volumes of translation, at greater speeds and lower cost, additional
technological solutions are constantly being introduced yet there has been rela-
tively little consideration of end users’ needs.
In the past decade, we have witnessed an increase in the deployment of ma-
chine translation, for instance, and we are now seeing what might be called a con-
vergence of translation technology. MT and TM are being merged in various con-
stellations; segments below certain fuzzy match values can be identied, machine
translated and imported into a TM so that translators never have to translate a
segment ‘from scratch’ but rather edit either a fuzzy match or an MT-generated
segment. A major criticism of MT and the task of post-editing is that translators
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 113
have to correct the same errors repeatedly, both within a text and over time. is
issue could be tackled to a certain extent when the dominant MT paradigm was
rule-based (RBMT); linguists encoded language-pair dependent transfer rules that
‘forced’ the MT system to eliminate recurring errors. However, in the data-driven
MT era (statistical MT, or SMT), the system learns how to transfer words and
phrases using translation corpora and probabilities. If the system that the transla-
tor is working with remains static, the same errors are likely to be reproduced each
time, causing frustration and cognitive friction.
Researchers have been working on solutions for this issue for some time, the
most obvious b eing to retrain the engine with additional data so that recurring
errors can be eliminated (cf. Koehn and Schroeder 2007; Och 2003). e eect
of retraining is not always predictable, though, and an additional problem is that
retraining of an engine can take many hours or days. us, the MT research com-
munity is seeking solutions for how to ‘learn’ from post-edited data and retrain en-
gines ‘on the y’ so that an error xed in one segment will be automatically updat-
ed if it occurs in a later segment (see, for example, Bertoldi et al. 2014; Denkowski
et al. 2014). Such a breakthrough could potentially ease cognitive friction among
post-editors and translators, but we do not yet know how successful on-the-y
machine learning techniques could be.
A nal potential future reality worth mentioning here is speech as input for
translation and post-editing. Typically, translators are very good typists and thus
the argument that TM and MT make them faster is somewhat superuous since
many are already extraordinarily fast. Moreover, translation is much more than a
typing task, and pauses are required to nd solutions to translation problems (e.g.,
Englund Dimitrova 2005; Immonen 2006; O’Brien 2006). However, the argument
that TM and MT editing means less typing is plausible. At the same time, editing
means that there is much moving around of text as well as use of deletion keys and
keyboard shortcuts such as those used for ‘cut and paste’. e task is quite key-
board intensive and there is a signicant number of switches between mouse and
keyboard (see previous section). e potential for repetitive strain injury, among
other types of ergonomics-related issues, is high among translators. Consequently,
the once-abandoned technique of dictation has moved into the spotlight. is shi
has also been fuelled by improvements in speech-to-text soware over the past few
years. Early-stage research on the use of speech as input for translation (e.g., Mees
et al. 2013) and post-editing of MT output has already started to appear (e.g., Mesa
2014) and may play important roles in the future for translators, especially those
in need of solutions for repetitive strain injury or other hand problems. Easing or
eliminating physical discomfort might reduce cognitive friction and free up cogni-
tive resources, thus allowing translators to more easily enter the state of ow that
seems to produce peak performance.
114 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
As the preceding sections have portrayed, the technologized translation work-
place is already a complex system and, if the early-stage initiatives under develop-
ment come to fruition, it is likely to be come ever more complex with increased
need for the juggling of tools, task requirements, and modalities, leading, we be-
lieve, to increased potential for cognitive f riction among translators. If we add to
this some of the physical and organizational issues identied in our survey, there is
evidence to suggest that the professional translator is under strain and yet has little
opportunity to reect on its cause or relieve it. Such strain may just be a symptom
of the modern workplace and we can shrug our shoulders and carry on, but rais-
ing awareness might help mitigate aspects that are relatively easy to change (e.g.,
interfaces, number of s creens, glare, ambient noise). Introducing feedback loops
at critical points in the system, including research and development, might also
allow translators to take more control of the process in order to better utilize the
language technology and internal resources at their disposal.
Many worthwhile research questions have emerged from this study, such as how
ergonomics issues impact on the agency and self-determination of the professional
translator, how translation technology contributes to cognitive friction, how we
might reduce that friction, and what impact cognitive friction might have on ‘ow’
and, ultimately, on health. e goal of such research, we suggest, should be to pro-
vide good practice recommendations for the technologized translation workplace.
References
Alves, Fabio, and Tânia Liparini Campos. 2009. “Translation Technology in Time: Investigating
the Impact of Translation Memory Systems and Time Pressure on Types of Internal and
External Support.” In Behind the Mind. Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process
Research, edited by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 191–218.
Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.
Austermühl, Frank. 2001. Electronic Tools for Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Beale, Russell, and Christian Peter. 2008. “e Role of Aect and Emotion in HCI.” In Aect and
Emotion in Human–Computer Interaction: From eory to Applications, edited by Christian
Peter and Russell Beale, 1–11. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-85099-1_1
Bertoldi, Nicola, Patrick Simianer, Mauro Cettolo, Katharina Wäschle, Marcello Federico, and
Stefan Riezler. 2014. “Online Adaptation to Post-Edits for Phrase-Based Statistical Machine
Translation.” In Special Issue of Machine Translation: Post-Editing, edited by Sharon O’Brien
and Michel Simard, 309–339. Berlin: Springer.
Bowker, Lynne. 2005. “Productivity vs Quality. A Pilot Study on the Impact of Translation
Memory Systems.” Localization Focus 4: 13–20.
Chevalier, Aline, and Maud Kicka. 2006. “Web Designers and Web Users: Inuence of t he
Ergonomic Quality of the Web Site on the Information Search.” International Journal of
Human–Computer Studies 64: 1031–1048. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.002
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 115
Christensen, Tina P. 2011. “Studies on the Mental Processes in Translation Memory-Assisted
Translation - the State of the Art.” trans-kom 4 (2): 137–160. Accessed March 11, 2015.
http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd04nr02/trans-kom_04_02_02_Christensen_Translation_
Memory.20111205.pdf.
Cooper, Alan. 2004. e Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why Hi-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy
and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams Publishing.
Dam, Helle van, and Karen Korning Zethsen. 2008. “Translator Status: Helpers and Opponents
in the Ongoing Battle of an Emerging Profession.” Target 22 (2): 194–211.
DOI: 10.1075/target.22.2.02dam
Dam, Helle van, and Karen Korning Zethsen. 2009. “Who Said Low Status? A Study on Factors
Aecting the Perception of Translator Status.” Journal of Specialised Translation 12: 2–36.
Accessed March 11, 2015. http://www.jostrans.org/issue12/art_dam_zethsen.pdf.
Dam, Helle van, and Karen Korning Zethsen. 2010. “ Translator Status: A Study of Danish
Company Translators.” e Translator 14 (1): 71–96. DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250
de León, Mónica E. 2007. “Ergonomics for Translators and Interpreters.” AbroadLink. Accessed
March 11, 2015. https://www.abroadlink.com/en/articles/ergonomics-translators-and-
interpreters.
Denkowski, Michael, Alon Lavie, Isabel Lacruz, and Chris Dyer. 2014. “Real Time Adaptive
Machine Translation for Post-Editing with cdec and TransCenter.” Proceedings of the EACL
2014 Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation, Gothenburg, Sweden,
Association for Computational Linguistics, 72–77. Accessed July 8, 2015. http://aclweb.
org/anthology/W14-0311.
Désilets, Alain, Christiane Melançon, Genev iève Patenaude, and Louise Brunette. 2009. “How
Translators Use Tools and Resources to Resolve Translation Problems: An Ethnographic
Study.” MT Summit XII – Workshop: Beyond Translation Memories: New Tools for Translators.
Accessed March 11, 2015. http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2009-Desilets-2.pdf.
Doherty, Neil F., and Malcolm King. 2005. “From Technical to Socio-Technical Change: Tackling
the Human and Organizational Aspects of Systems D evelopment Projects.” European
Journal of Information Systems 14 (1): 1–5. Accessed July 8, 2015.
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000517
Dragsted, Barbara. 2006. “Computer-Aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.”
Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (2): 443–464. DOI: 10.1075/pc.14.2.17dra
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. 2014. “Challenges of Translation Process Research at the
Workplace.” MonTI Special issue 1: Minding Translation, Con la traducción en mente, edited
by Ricardo Munoz Martin, 355–383.
DOI: 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.12
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey. 2014. “Cognitive Ergonomic Issues in
Professional Translation.” In e Development of Translation Competence: eories and
Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, edited by John W. Schwieter
and Aline Ferreira, 58–86. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building eories from Case Study Research.” Academy of
Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and E xplicitation in the Translation Process.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.64
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. e Discovery of Grounded eory: Strategies of
Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
116 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
Gwizdka, Jacek. 2009. “Assessing Cognitive Load on Web Search Tasks.” e Ergonomics Open
Journal 2: 114–123. Accessed March 11, 2015. DOI: 10.2174/1875934300902010114
Gwizdka, Jacek. 2010. “Distribution of Cognitive Load in Web Search.” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (11): 2167–2187. Accessed July 8, 2015.
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21385
Hansen, Gyde. 2006. Erfolgreich Übersetzen. Entdecken und Beheben von Störquellen. Tübingen:
Narr Francke Attempto.
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia. 2012. “Nutzbarkeit von Sprachtechnologien für die Translation.” trans-
kom 5 (2): 211–226. Accessed July 8, 2015. http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd05nr02/trans-
kom_05_02_02_Hansen-Schirra_Sprachtechnologien.20121219.pdf.
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. eorie und Methode. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Immonen, Sini. 2006. “ Translation as a Writing Process: Pauses in Translation versus
Monolingual Text Production.” Target 18 (2): 313–335. DOI: 10.1075/target.18.2.06imm
Jiménez Crespo, Miguel A. 2009. “e Eect of Translation Memory Tools in Translated Web
Texts: Evidence from a Comparative Product-Based Study.” In Evaluation of Translation
Technology, edited by Walter Daelemans and Véronique Hoste, 213–232. Antwerpen:
Artesis University College.
Katan, David. 2009a. “Translation as Intercultural Communication.” In e Routledge
Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Jeremy Munday, 74–92. Oxford: Routledge.
Katan, David. 2009b. “Translation eory and Professional Practice: A Global Survey of the
Great Divide.” Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42: 111–153.
Koehn, Philipp, and Josh Schroeder. 2007. “Experiments in Domain Adaptation for Statistical
Machine Translation.” In Proceedings of StatMT ’07 the Second Workshop on Statistical
Machine Translation, Association for Computational Linguistics, 224–227.
DOI: 10.3115/1626355.1626388
Lagoudaki, Elina. 2006. “ Translation Memories Survey 2006: Users’ Perceptions around TM
Use.” Proceedings of ASLIB Translating and the Computer 28. London, UK, 15–16 November
2006.
Lagoudaki, Elina. 2008. E xpanding the Possibilities of Translation Memory Systems: From the
Translator’s Wishlist to the Developer’s Design. Ph.D. dissertation. Imperial College, London,
UK.
Lavault-Olléon, Élisabeth. 2011. “L’ergonomie, nouveau paradigme pour la traductologie.” ILCEA
Traduction et Ergonomie. Accessed July 8, 2015. http://ilcea.revues.org/1078?lang=en.
Levý, Jiri. 1967/2000. “Translation as a Decision Process.” In e Translation Studies Reader,
edited by Lawrence Venuti, 148–159. London: Routledge.
Massey, Gary, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. “Investigating Information Literacy: A
Growing Priority in Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (2): 193–211.
DOI: 10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.4
Mees, Inger M., Barbara Dragsted, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2013. “Sound
Eects in Translation.” Target 25 (1): 140–154. DOI: 10.1075/target.25.1.11mee
Mesa Lao, Bartolomé. 2014. “Speech-Enabled C omputer-Aided Translation: A Satisfaction
Survey with Post-Editor Trainees.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human and Computer-
Assisted Translation (HaCaT), edited by Ulrich Germann, Michael Carl, Philipp Koehn,
Germán Sanchis-Trilles, Francisco Casacuberta, Robin Hill, and Sharon O’Brien, 99–103.
Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
2nd proofs
PAGE P ROOFS
© JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
Ergonomics of the translation workplace 117
Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O’Brien. 2013. “User Attitudes to the Post-Editing Interface.” In
Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-
2), Nice, France, 19–25. Accessed July 8, 2015. http://www.mt-archive.info/10/MTS-2013-
W2-Moorkens.pdf.
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2012. “Just a Matter of Scope. Mental Load in Translation Process
Research.” Translation Spaces 1: 169–188. DOI: 10.1075/ts.1.08mun
Nakamura, Jeanne, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2002. “Flow eory and Research.” In
Handbook of Positive Psychology, edited by C. R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez, 89–105.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2006. “Eye-Tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives: Studies
in Translatology 14 (3): 185–205.
O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation as Human–Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1:
101–122. DOI: 10.1075/ts.1.05obr
Och, Franz. 2003. “Minimum Error Rate Training in Statistical Machine Translation.” In ACL
’03 Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics,
Association for Computational Linguistics, 1: 160–167. DOI: 10.3115/1075096.1075117
Olohan, Maeve. 2011. “Translators and Translation Technology: e Dance of Agency.”
Translation Studies 4 (3): 342–357. DOI: 10.1080/14781700.2011.589656
PACTE. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.”
Meta 50 (2): 609–619. Accessed July 8, 2015. DOI:10.7202/011004ar
Pineau, Martine. 2011. “La main et le clavier: histoire d ’un malentendu.” ILCEA Traduction et
Ergonomie 14. Accessed March 11, 2015. http://ilcea.revues.org/index1067.html.
Pym, Anthony. 2003. “Redening Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of
a Minimalist Approach.” Meta 48 (4): 481–497. Accessed July 8, 2015.
DOI: 10.7202/008533ar
Pym, Anthony. 2011. “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation and Interpreting 3
(1): 1–9. Accessed March 11, 2015. http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/
view/121/81.
Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Sfreddo, and Andy L. J. Chan. 2012. e Status of the
Translation Profession in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.
Risku, Hanna. 2002. “Situatedness in Translation Studies.” Cognitive Systems Research 3: 523–
533. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4
Risku, Hanna. 2007. “e Role of Technology in Translation Management.” In Doubts and
Directions in Translation Studies, edited by Yves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and
Radegundis Stolze, 85–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.72.11ris
Risku, Hanna. 2014. “Translation Process Research as Interaction Research: From Mental to
Socio-Cognitive Processes.” MonTI Special issue 1: Minding Translation, Con la traducción
en mente, edited by Ricardo Munoz Martin, 331–353. DOI: 10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.11
Risku, Hanna, Florian Windhager, and Matthias Apfelthaler. 2013. “A Dynamic Network Model
of Translatorial Cognition and Action.” Translation Spaces 2: 151–182.
DOI: 10.1075/ts.2.08ris
Salvendy, Gavriel. 2012. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 4th Edition. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118131350
Szameitat, André J., Jan Rummel, Diana P. Szameitat, and Annette Sterr. 2009. “Behavioral and
Emotional Consequences of Brief Delays in Human–Computer Interaction.” International
Journal of Human–Computer Studies 67: 561–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.02.004
118 Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Sharon O’Brien
Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised Edition. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/btl.100
Vieira, Lucas Nunes, and Lucia Specia. 2011. “A Review of Translation Tools from a Post-Editing
Perspective.” In Proceedings of the ird Joint EM+CNGL Workshop “Bringing MT to the
User: Research Meets Translators” (JEC ’11), Luxembourg, October, 33–42.
Author’s addresses
Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
ZHAW Institute of Translation and
Interpreting
eaterstrasse 15c
CH-8401 Winterthur, Switzerland
maureen.ehrensberger@zhaw.ch
Sharon O’Brien
SALIS
Dublin City University
Dublin 9, Ireland
sharon.obrien@dcu.ie
