译者认知过程中的节奏与停顿

Q2 Arts and Humanities Hermes (Denmark) Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI:10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192
Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Celia Martín de León
{"title":"译者认知过程中的节奏与停顿","authors":"Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Celia Martín de León","doi":"10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Monitor Model fosters a view of translating where two mind modes stand out and alternate when trying to render originals word-by-word by default: shallow, uneventful processing vs problem solving. Research may have been biased towards problem solving, often operationalized with a pause of, or above, 3 seconds. This project analyzed 16 translation log files by four informants from four originals. A baseline minimal pause of 200 ms was instrumental to calculate two individual thresholds for each log file: (a) A low one – 1.5 times the median pause within words – and (b) a high one – 3 times the median pause between words. Pauses were then characterized as short (between 200 ms and the lower threshold), mid, and long (above the higher threshold, chunking the recorded activities in the translation task into task segments), and assumed to respond to different causes. Weak correlations between short, mid and long pauses were found, hinting at possible different cognitive processes. Inferred processes did not fall neatly into categories depending on the length of possibly associated pauses. Mid pauses occurred more often than long pauses between sentences and paragraphs, and they also more often flanked information searches and even problem-solving instances. Chains of proximal mid pauses marked cases of potential hesitations. Task segments tended to happen within 4–8 minute cycles, nested in a possible initial phase for contextualization, followed by long periods of sustained attention. We found no evidence for problem-solving thresholds, and no trace of behavior supporting the Monitor Model. ","PeriodicalId":38609,"journal":{"name":"Hermes (Denmark)","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fascinatin’ Rhythm – and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes\",\"authors\":\"Ricardo Muñoz Martín, Celia Martín de León\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Monitor Model fosters a view of translating where two mind modes stand out and alternate when trying to render originals word-by-word by default: shallow, uneventful processing vs problem solving. Research may have been biased towards problem solving, often operationalized with a pause of, or above, 3 seconds. This project analyzed 16 translation log files by four informants from four originals. A baseline minimal pause of 200 ms was instrumental to calculate two individual thresholds for each log file: (a) A low one – 1.5 times the median pause within words – and (b) a high one – 3 times the median pause between words. Pauses were then characterized as short (between 200 ms and the lower threshold), mid, and long (above the higher threshold, chunking the recorded activities in the translation task into task segments), and assumed to respond to different causes. Weak correlations between short, mid and long pauses were found, hinting at possible different cognitive processes. Inferred processes did not fall neatly into categories depending on the length of possibly associated pauses. Mid pauses occurred more often than long pauses between sentences and paragraphs, and they also more often flanked information searches and even problem-solving instances. Chains of proximal mid pauses marked cases of potential hesitations. Task segments tended to happen within 4–8 minute cycles, nested in a possible initial phase for contextualization, followed by long periods of sustained attention. We found no evidence for problem-solving thresholds, and no trace of behavior supporting the Monitor Model. \",\"PeriodicalId\":38609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hermes (Denmark)\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hermes (Denmark)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hermes (Denmark)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i57.106192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

Monitor模型培养了一种翻译的观点,当试图逐字逐句地呈现原文时,两种思维模式脱颖而出,交替进行:肤浅、平淡的处理与解决问题。研究可能偏向于解决问题,通常需要暂停3秒或以上。本项目分析了4名线人从4份原件中提取的16份翻译日志文件。基线最小暂停时间为200毫秒,这有助于为每个日志文件计算两个单独的阈值:(A)低的阈值是单词内暂停中值的1.5倍;(b)高的阈值是单词之间暂停中值的3倍。然后将暂停分为短暂停(在200毫秒和较低阈值之间)、中暂停和长暂停(高于较高阈值,将翻译任务中记录的活动分成任务段),并假设对不同的原因做出响应。短停顿、中停顿和长停顿之间存在弱相关性,暗示可能存在不同的认知过程。根据可能关联的暂停的长度,推断的进程并没有被整齐地分类。中间停顿比句子和段落之间的长停顿更常见,它们也更经常出现在信息搜索甚至解决问题的例子之间。近端中间停顿链标志着潜在的犹豫。任务段往往在4-8分钟的周期内发生,嵌套在可能的情境化初始阶段,随后是长时间的持续关注。我们没有发现问题解决阈值的证据,也没有发现支持Monitor模型的行为痕迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fascinatin’ Rhythm – and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes
The Monitor Model fosters a view of translating where two mind modes stand out and alternate when trying to render originals word-by-word by default: shallow, uneventful processing vs problem solving. Research may have been biased towards problem solving, often operationalized with a pause of, or above, 3 seconds. This project analyzed 16 translation log files by four informants from four originals. A baseline minimal pause of 200 ms was instrumental to calculate two individual thresholds for each log file: (a) A low one – 1.5 times the median pause within words – and (b) a high one – 3 times the median pause between words. Pauses were then characterized as short (between 200 ms and the lower threshold), mid, and long (above the higher threshold, chunking the recorded activities in the translation task into task segments), and assumed to respond to different causes. Weak correlations between short, mid and long pauses were found, hinting at possible different cognitive processes. Inferred processes did not fall neatly into categories depending on the length of possibly associated pauses. Mid pauses occurred more often than long pauses between sentences and paragraphs, and they also more often flanked information searches and even problem-solving instances. Chains of proximal mid pauses marked cases of potential hesitations. Task segments tended to happen within 4–8 minute cycles, nested in a possible initial phase for contextualization, followed by long periods of sustained attention. We found no evidence for problem-solving thresholds, and no trace of behavior supporting the Monitor Model. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hermes (Denmark)
Hermes (Denmark) Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Master Narratives in US Contemporary War Discourse: Situating and Constructing Identities of Self and Other Discourse Analysis of the 2022 Australian Tennis Open: A Multimodal Appraisal Perspective Strategies of Justification in Resolving Conflicts of Values and Interests. A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Argumentation in Cases of Animal Sacrifice consentimiento informado en la comunicación médico-paciente: análisis crítico del marco legislativo Introduction: Evaluation, Argumentation and Narrative(s) in Conflicting Contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1