Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton June 13, 2016

Are gaze shifts a key to a translator’s text segmentation?

Arnt Lykke Jakobsen


Keystroke logging has demonstrated that a translator’s text production can be broken down into units separated by pause boundaries (Dragsted 2004, 2005, 2010). Reading research has not identified analogous boundaries, as the only interruptions in a reader’s visual attention to a text are often only blinks. However, in an experimental setup with tracking of a translator’s gaze movements across a screen showing the source text and (emerging) target text, gaze data show the translator’s shifts of visual attention between the two texts. Can such shifts be seen as an index of content processing units? And do such shifts give us more accurate information about segmentation or more information than keystroke intervals? Using a rather poorly calibrated recording of just one translator’s translation of a single sentence (within a longer task) for illustration, the paper seeks to tentatively explore the feasibility of identifying segments, understood as processing units, on the basis of gaze shifts, and to inquire into what motivates gaze shifts. It also seeks to illustrate how much our interpretation of gaze representations, not least suboptimal representations, depend on a theory of reading.

Arnt Lykke Jakobsen Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark

5 Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer for several very fine and helpful suggestions.


Alves, F. and D. Vale. 2009. “Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data”. Across Languages and Cultures 10(2). 251–273.Search in Google Scholar

Angelone, E. 2010. “Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task”. In: Shreve, G. and E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and cognition. (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XV.) 17–40.Search in Google Scholar

Baddeley, A.D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Balling, L.W., K.T. Hvelplund and A.C. Sjørup 2014. “Evidence of parallel processing during translation”. Meta 59(2). 234–259.Search in Google Scholar

Butterworth, B. 1980. “Evidence from pauses in speech”. In: Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language production. (Vol. 1. Speech and talk.) London: Academic Press. 155–176.Search in Google Scholar

Carl, M. and M. Kay. 2011. “Gazing and typing activities during translation: A comparative study of translation units of professional and student translators. Meta 56(4). 952–975.Search in Google Scholar

Carl, M. and B. Dragsted 2012. “Inside the monitor model: Processes of default and challenged translation production”. Translation: Corpora, computation, cognition. Special issue on the crossroads between contrastive linguistics, translation studies and machine translation 2(1). 127–145.Search in Google Scholar

Chesterman, A. 1989. Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Search in Google Scholar

de Groot, A.M.B. 1997. “The cognitive study of translation and interpretation”. In: Danks, J.H., G.M. Shreve, S.B. Fountain and M.K. McBeath (eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. London: Sage Publications. 2556.Search in Google Scholar

Dragsted, B. 2004. Segmentation in translation and translation memory systems. An empirical investigation of cognitive segmentation and effects of integrating a TM system into the translation process. (PhD dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.)Search in Google Scholar

Dragsted, B. 2005. “Segmentation in translation: Differences across levels of expertise and difficulty”. Target 17(1). 49–70.Search in Google Scholar

Dragsted, B. 2010. “Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted territory”. In: Shreve, G.M. and E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and cognition. (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XV.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. 41–62.Search in Google Scholar

Dragsted, B., I. Gorm Hansen. 2008. “Comprehension and production in translation: A pilot study on segmentation and the coordination of reading and writing processes. Copenhagen Studies in Language 36. 9–29.Search in Google Scholar

Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. “Pauses, clauses, sentences”. Language and Speech 15(2). 103–113.Search in Google Scholar

Immonen, S. and J. Mäkisalo. 2010. “Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation”. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies 44. 45–61.Search in Google Scholar

Ivir, V. 1981. “Formal correspondence vs. translation equivalence revisited”. Poetics Today 2(4). 51–59.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobsen, A.L. 2003. “Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation”. In: Alves, F. (ed.), Triangulating translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 69–95.Search in Google Scholar

Schilperoord, J. 1996. It’s about time. Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar

Timarová, S., B. Dragsted, and I. Gorm Hansen. 2011. “Time lag in translation and interpreting”. In: Alvstad, C., A. Hild and E. Tiselius (eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: integrative approaches in translation studies. (Benjamins Translation Library 94.). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 121–146.Search in Google Scholar

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2005. “The Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process research. META 50(2). 405–414.Search in Google Scholar

TPR-DB and Translog II. <> (Last accessed 09 Mar 2016.)Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-6-13
Published in Print: 2016-6-13

© 2016 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland