Recognition of Neologisms During Translation: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1510.19Keywords:
cognitive effort, translating neologisms, eye-tracking, keystroke loggingAbstract
This study explores whether neologisms are recognized as unfamiliar words or treated as standard words during translation by examining the cognitive effort they require. Previous research has highlighted the challenges of recognizing, comprehending, and translating newly coined terms. Focusing specifically on recognition, this study hypothesizes that translating neologisms requires greater cognitive effort than translating standard words. To test this, an experiment was conducted with six participants using three short source texts, each containing a single neologism. Eye-tracking and keystroke logging were used to measure fixation and pause durations. A Linear Mixed Model was applied to determine whether neologisms required significantly more cognitive effort. The eye-tracking results showed a statistically significant difference, suggesting that neologisms were recognized as unfamiliar words during translation. In contrast, keylogging data revealed no significant difference, indicating that participants did not spend additional time typing neologisms. Methodological factors—such as the merging of pause types (PDB and PDW) and participants’ unfamiliarity with physical keyboards—likely influenced the keylogging results. These findings highlight the need to refine pause-type analysis and account for typing behavior to better distinguish cognitive from non-cognitive influences in translation.
References
Al-Jarf, R. (2010). Translation students’ difficulties with English neologisms. Analele Universităţii “Dunărea De Jos” Din Galaţi Fascicula, 24(2), 431–437.
Alves, F., Pagano, A., & da Silva, I. (2009). A new window on translators' cognitive activity. In I. Mees, F. Alves, & S. Göpferich (Eds.), Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research (pp. 267–291). Samfundslitteratur.
Balling, L. W., & Hvelplund, K. T. (2015). Design and statistics in quantitative translation (process) research. Translation Spaces, 4(1), 169–184.
Beason, L. (2010). Eyes Before Ease. McGraw Hill Professional.
Brand, J., Diamond, S. G., Thomas, N., & Gilbert-Diamond, D. (2021). Evaluating the data quality of the Gazepoint GP3 low-cost eye tracker when used independently by study participants. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 1502–1514.
Cabré, M. T. (1999). Terminology: Theory, methods, and applications (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing.
Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 4108–4112). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Istanbul, Turkey.
Carl, M. (2012). Translog-II: A program for recording user activity data for empirical translation process research. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Applications, 3(1), 153–162.
Chen, J. (2021). Translating Chinese neologisms without knowledge of context: An exploratory analysis of an eye-tracking and key-logging experiment. In M. Carl (Ed.), Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research (Vol. 3, pp. 315–337). Springer.
CRITT. (2024). Translog-II. Retrieved December 9, 2024, from https://sites.google.com/site/centretranslationinnovation/translog-ii
Cui, Y., Liu, X., & Cheng, Y. (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, 13(1), 1–15.
Cummins, R. G. (2017). Eye tracking. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1–9). Texas Tech University. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0099
Cuve, H. C., Stojanov, J., Roberts-Gaal, X., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2022). Validation of Gazepoint low-cost eye-tracking and psychophysiology bundle. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 1027–1049.
Daily Mail. (2012). Grandparents take children on holiday as busy parents take a break in new 'gramping' trend. Retrieved October 18, 2024, from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191369/Grandparents-children-holiday-busy-parents-break-new-gramping-trend.html
Dragsted, B. (2012). Indicators of difficulty in translation—correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 81–98.
El Mustapha Lahlali. (2014). Advanced English-Arabic Translation: A Practical Guide. Edinburgh University Press.
Gile, D., & Lei, V. (2021). Translation, Effort and Cognition. In R. Muñoz, C. Alvstad, A. Wadensjö, & A. Assis Rosa (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 263–278). Routledge.
GP3. (2024). GP3 Eye Tracker Placement and Positioning. https://gazept.com/dl/GP3_Placement_and_Positioning.pdf
GPB. (2023). Neologisms and New Words. Retrieved May 15, 2023, from, https://www.gpb.eu/2023/05/neologisms-new-words.html
Hanaqtah, M. F. (2019). Translation of Political Neologisms Coined by Politicians; Issues and Strategies. Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), 8(1), 157–168.
Hope, W., & Johnson, R. (2004). What is an Infomercial? Advertising & Society Review, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2004.0006
Hubert, M. D. (2016). Teaching translation to foreign-language majors. In Teaching Translation (pp. 55–62). Routledge.
Hubscher-Davidson, S. (2018). Translation and Emotion: A Psychological Perspective. Routledge.
Hvelplund, K. T. (2011). Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-Tracking and Key-Logging Study. Copenhagen Business School.
Hvelplund, K. T. (2014). Eye tracking and the translation process: Reflections on the analysis and interpretation of eye-tracking data. MonTI Special Issue. Minding Translation, Special Issue 1, 201–223. https://doi.org/10.6035/monti.v0i0.292854
Immonen, S., & Mäkisalo, J. (2017). Pauses reflecting the processing of syntactic units in monolingual text production and translation. HERMES–Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 44, 45–61.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2017). Translation Process Research. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 19–49).
Kalugina, O. A., Vasbieva, D. G., Valeeva, R. A., Maystrovich, E. V., & Pashanova, O. V. (2019). Peculiarities of using creative neologisms in publicistic texts. XLinguae, 12(4), 119–129.
Koglin, A. (2015). An empirical investigation of cognitive effort required to postedit machine translated metaphors compared to the translation of metaphors. Translation & Interpreting, 7, 126–141.
Koponen, M. (2016). Machine translation post-editing and effort: Empirical studies on the post-editing process [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts.
Korpal, P. (2015). Eye-tracking in Translation and Interpreting Studies: The growing popularity and methodological problems. In Ł. Bogucki & M. Deckert (Eds.), Accessing Audiovisual Translation (pp. 199–212). Peter Lang.
Krings, H. P. (2001). Repairing Texts: Empirical Investigations of Machine Translation Post-Editing Processes (G. S. Koby, Ed.). Kent State University Press.
Kumpulainen, M. (2015). On the operationalisation of ‘pauses’ in translation process research. Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 7(1), 47–58.
Lacruz, I. (2017). Cognitive effort in translation, editing, and post-editing. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 386–401). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 369–382.
Llopart-Saumell, E. (2023). “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”: On the emotional effects of breaking word-formation rules. Current Perspectives in Spanish Lexical Development, 68, 189–214.
Massey, G. (2016). Remapping Meaning: Exploring the Products and Processes of Translating Conceptual Metaphor. In Ł. Bogucki, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Translation and Meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 67–83). Peter Lang.
Mellinger, C., & Hanson, T. (2016). Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Prentice-Hall.
O’Brien, S. (2009). Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions. In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research (Vol. 38, pp. 251–266). Samfundslitteratur.
Pavlovic, N., & Hvelplund Jensen, K. T. (2009). Eye tracking translation directionality. In A. Pym & A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation Research Projects 2 (pp. 93–109). Intercultural Studies Group.
Plużyczka, M. (2020). Tracking mental processes in sight translation: Neurobiological determinants of selected eye-tracking parameters. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 3(2), 209–232.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Rogers, M. (2015). Specialised Translation: Shedding the 'non-literary' tag. Springer.
Rosa, R. N., Sinar, T. S., Ibrahim-Bell, Z., & Setia, E. (2018). Pauses by student and professional translators in translation process. International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies, 6(1), 18–28.
Rydning, A. F., & Lachaud, C. M. (2010). The Reformulation Challenge in Translation. In Translation and Cognition (pp. 85–108).
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Routledge.
Schmied, J., & Ivanova, M. (2023). Comparing Confidence and Trust Online and Offline. Cuvillier Verlag.
Steinmetz, S., & Kipfer, B. A. (2012). The Life of Language: The Fascinating Ways Words are Born, Live & Die. Diversified Publishing.
Thomsen, O. N. (Ed.). (2006). Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (Vol. 279). John Benjamins.
