IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i1p21582440231155849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study on the Effort of Human Translation and Post-Editing in Relation to Text Types: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Cui
  • Xiao Liu
  • Yuqin Cheng

Abstract

With the increasing utilization of Machine Translation, it is worth exploring in what areas it actually reduces translators’ effort. This study focuses on the English-Chinese language pair and compares the effort of human translation (HT) and that of post-editing (PE) in relation to text types, covering advertising, news, legal, and literary texts, via an eye-tracking and key-logging experiment and a follow-up questionnaire survey. It refers to Krings’ framework and explores effort in terms of temporal, cognitive, and technical dimensions. Data were obtained from 33 Chinese student translators, and data analyses lead to the following conclusions. First, PE involves less effort than HT, and PE increases productivity and improves translation quality. Second, the tendency that PE involves less effort is seen in the advertising, news, and literary text types, but the measures of effort show variation for the legal text. Third, the objective measures, including Seconds per Target Word, Edits per Target Word, Pause Count per Target Word, Pause Duration per Target Word, Source Fixation Duration per Source Word, and Source Fixation Count per Source Word, are reliable and well correlated with subjective measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Cui & Xiao Liu & Yuqin Cheng, 2023. "A Comparative Study on the Effort of Human Translation and Post-Editing in Relation to Text Types: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Experiment," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:21582440231155849
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231155849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231155849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231155849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:21582440231155849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.