3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection – equipment and tools
The data for the study was collected using the software tool TRANSLOG II, a keylogging and eye-tracking software to investigate text production processes, and as such “an instrument to acquire […] digital data of human translation processes”(Carl, 2012, p. 4108). The program consists of a user module and a supervisor module. The latter allows the researcher to create the text file and adjust for a number of desired settings (e.g., presentation mode of source and target text window horizontal or vertical), as well as to replay and analyze the data file subsequent to the data collection process. The user interface presents participants (i.e., users) with a window frame, where the source text is presented in one part of the window and the target text (the translation) is to be typed into the other part of the window. In the background, TRANSLOG records each keystroke and mouse movement with an exact time stamp (measured in milliseconds), which enables the researcher to retrace the text production process meticulously in a systematic manner.
As evidenced by the CRITT Translation Process Research Database10, TRANSLOG has been used in a variety of studies on translation processes involving a large variety of language pairs. At the time of writing, the CRITT database consists of close to 30 translation (and text production) studies which account for approximately 500 hours of text production gathered in more than 1400 sessions. Since the release of TRANSLOG 2006, the predecessor of TRANSLOG II, an eye-tracking component has been included into the software.
Therefore, many of the studies in the database produced both keylogging and eye-tracking data. In many aspects, eye-tracking has become a vital part of translation process research and appears to be an almost obligatory addition to the collection of keylogging data. However, for the study at hand the use of an eye-tracker was discarded for practical reasons. As will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this chapter, the logistics in terms of data collection (e.g., travelling within and outside Norway) was deemed problematic regarding the use of an eye-tracker. Carrying and setting up eye-tracking equipment at different locations up to several times was simply not feasible.
10 https://sites.google.com/site/centretranslationinnovation/tpr-db (23 May 2016)
57 Thus, keylogging (i.e., the use of TRANSLOG II without an eye-tracker) was in many aspects considered the only option.
TRANSLOG II was installed on a Lenovo ThinkPad Mini with Windows 7 as operating system at the time of the data collection (October 2014 until September 2015). All students, both in Norway and in Germany, carried out the experiment on this particular laptop. Since the computer is equipped with a Norwegian keyboard, the German students were required to adjust their typing to this specific keyboard. This includes the spelling of the German umlauts ä, ö and ü as ae, oe and ue, as well as the reversed placement of the letters y and z.
Regarding the typing of the umlauts as two separate letters, it is acknowledged that Windows offers another keyboard shortcut option, which would have resulted in the correct spelling of the letters (i.e., ä, ö, ü). However, participants were not expected to be familiar with this option, and instead of spending time teaching each German participant this option, they were asked to spell the sounds as two separate letters instead. This was necessary in order to ensure comparability between each translation and between each participant, since typing (in this case the number of letters typed to represent the umlaut) is assumed to account for some form of effect in analysis 2, the analysis of production time.
Regarding the visual setup of the user interface, that is the placement of the source text window (English), TRANSLOG II offers different options. Since the English source text in this study is relatively short, and did therefore not require any kind of scrolling during the reading and production process, the source text was displayed to the left of the target text window. Figure 3 below shows the TRANSLOG II user display as presented to the participants of the experiment:
58
Figure 3: TRANSLOG II user interface with source text display
The source text appears in its entirety in the left hand window. Starting with the heading, the text is divided into seven sections (paragraphs) for reasons of improved readability. The participants typed their respective translations in the right-hand window. Both source- and target text were displayed in font size 11.
Due to the screen size of the laptop, a larger font would not have been possible.
The source text and its features will be described in more detail in a subsequent section of this chapter.
Besides TRANSLOG II, several other data collection methods were employed to enhance the data validity and to control for a number of variables. These methods will be introduced in the following subsections.
3.1.1 Questionnaire
Before starting the actual keylogging experiment, the participants were given a questionnaire in English containing seven questions regarding their language background and proficiency (i.e., English as a second language), and their experience with translating apart from their studies. Information regarding
59 language background and proficiency (e.g., grade for subject English on high school diploma) was considered important for two reasons. Firstly, production time for translations is assumed to be influenced by language proficiency.
Furthermore, in terms of metaphorical knowledge or metaphor understanding, advanced language proficiency might comprise a better or different understanding of, or knowledge about figurative language use, which in turn might lead to faster production time. Secondly, translation experience exceeding the occasional translation exercises in second language classes is also considered to have an impact on the measurement of production time. Thus, for reasons explained above, potential professional or non-professional translation experience needed to be surveyed. The questionnaires for both language groups are included in appendices A and B.
3.1.2 Scratch paper
Since, as described in an earlier chapter, translation processes are considered complex conscious and subconscious processes, the workflows supporting these processes are no less interesting. How translators go about their translation tasks is highly individual, and habits regarding, for example, the use of reference works or note taking are assumed to develop with experience over time. Since it was impossible to foresee or anticipate specific work habits, and certain aspects of a more natural translation workflow were prevented by the nature of the experimental setup, it was decided to offer a blank sheet of paper to the participants, which they could use to take notes in case they needed to.
This is interesting from a point of view of translation problems. Notetaking is considered to be closely related to problem solving. The scratch paper provides a more concise picture of the translation process, as it cannot be captured by the TRANSLOG II software alone.
3.1.3 Course portfolio
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, within translator training, metaphor has been treated from a purely didactic and normative perspective. Depending on different types of metaphors, Newmark (1983) proposes a number of metaphor
60 translation procedures to be taught to students. Therefore, the question of whether or not the participants of the study had been exposed to theoretical discussions or practical exercises regarding the translation of metaphor prior to the experiments became a point of interest. If the topic had been part of the programs’ curriculums, an influence on the performance data of the participants cannot be precluded. Thus, it was necessary to collect information regarding the course portfolio of the participants and the respective teaching content of those courses.
For the Norwegian participants, this task was manageable. The students follow the same predetermined course plan during their time at their Norwegian home institution. The course plan and reading list for the Norwegian students does not cover metaphor in any specific detail. For the German students on the other hand, the situation was different. Students have to complete compulsory courses as well as electives. They can choose between a number of courses from the compulsory portfolio to fulfill the course requirements. Thus, students do not necessarily follow the same curriculum, although they are at the same stage of their academic training (1st, 2nd, 3rd semester etc.). Therefore, they received a form to list the individual courses they have taken since the beginning of their studies. However, many of them (especially the students in the higher semesters) could not recall all courses or the correct subject names on the spot.
They were asked to take the form home and return it by email later.
Unfortunately, only a fraction of the students (eight out of eighteen) did so. A gentle email reminder did not yield any additional forms, thus the data set for this category is incomplete.
3.1.4 Translation brief
To ensure ecological validity of the data collection, a hypothetical translation brief was prepared. A translation brief contains “[i]nstructions or specifications accompanying a translation assignment that indicate the target audience and purpose of a translation assignment”(Koby, 2014, p. 247). Christiane Nord (1997) observes that “from a functionalist point of view (cf. Reiss/Vermeer 1984, Nord 1991), the translator’s decisions in the translation process should be governed by the function or communicative purpose the target text (TT) is
61 intended to fulfil in a particular target-culture situation” (p. 41). Writing from the perspective of a translator trainer highlighting the communicative function of translation, Nord states that the translation brief contains “as much knowledge as possible about the communicative purposes the target text is supposed to achieve for the addressees in their communicative situation” (p.
46). She points out that professional translators often infer those details from specific source texts and clients. Students, on the other hand, do not yet possess this specific insight into the workings of specific source texts and translation commissioners, and need therefore particular instructions which define “the conditions under which the target text should carry out its particular function”
(p. 47). In order to relieve the participants of the potential additional cognitive burden a translation without a brief may put on them, it was decided to present them with a translation brief. Both versions, the Norwegian and the German brief, are included as appendices E and F.