Cover not available

Article published In: Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research
Edited by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich and Sharon O'Brien
[Target 25:1] 2013
► pp. 140–154

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Sound effects in translation

 | Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark
Published online: 4 March 2013
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.11mee
On the basis of a pilot study using speech recognition (SR) software, this paper attempts to illustrate the benefits of adopting an interdisciplinary approach in translator training. It shows how the collaboration between phoneticians, translators and interpreters can (1) advance research, (2) have implications for the curriculum, (3) be pedagogically motivating, and (4) prepare students for employing translation technology in their future practice as translators. In a twophase study in which 14 MA students translated texts in three modalities (sight, written, and oral translation using an SR program), Translog was employed to measure task times. The quality of the products was assessed by three experienced translators, and the number and types of misrecognitions were identified by a phonetician. Results indicate that SR translation provides a potentially useful supplement to written translation, or indeed an alternative to it.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Research questions and methods of analysis
    • 2.2Procedure
  • 3.Analyses
    • 3.1Results for phase 1
    • 3.2Comparison of results for phases 1 and 2 (March 2010 vs. December 2010)
      • 3.2.1Time and quality (Research questions 1 and 2)
      • 3.2.2Number and types of misrecognitions (Research question 3)
    • 3.3Quantitative conclusions
    • 3.4Retrospective interviews
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Dedication
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (20)
References
Chafe, Wallace, and Jane Danielewicz. 1987. “Properties of Spoken and Written Language.” In Comprehending Oral and Written Language, ed. by Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay, Samuels, 83–113. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Beverley, and Inger M. Mees. 2013. Practical Phonetics and Phonology, 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1994. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, 5th ed. London: Arnold. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derwing, Tracey M., Murray J. Munro, and Michael Carbonaro. 2000. “Does Popular Speech Recognition Software Work with ESL Speech?” TESOL Quarterly 34 (3): 592–603.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, Inge Gorm Hansen, and Henrik Selsøe Sørensen. 2009. “Experts Exposed.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, ed. by Inger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 293–317. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 38.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, Inger M. Mees, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2011. “Speaking Your Translation: Students’ First Encounter with Speech Recognition Technology.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 10–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Differences and Prospects for Partnership.” In Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, ed. by , 10–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2010. “The Translation of Instructive Texts from a Cognitive Perspective: Novices and Professionals Compared.” In New Approaches in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Fabio Alves, and Inger M. Mees, 5–55. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 39.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Inge Gorm, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2007. “The Silver Lining: Technology and Self-Study in the Interpreting Classroom.” Interpreting 9 (1): 95–118.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog Documentation.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [Copenhagen Studies in Language, 24.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H., Martin. 2000. Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, Sylvie. 2004. “Shared Attention during Sight Translation, Sight Interpretation and Simultaneous Interpretation.” Meta 49 (2): 294–306.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, Daniel Janssen, and Luuk Van Waes. 2010. “Error Correction Strategies of Professional Speech Recognition Users: Three Profiles.” Computers in Human Behavior 261: 964–975.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, Mariëlle, and Luuk Van Waes. 2005. “Writing with Speech Recognition: The Adaptation Process of Professional Writers with and without Dictating Experience.” Interacting with Computers 171: 736–772.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luyckx, Bieke, Tijs Delbeke, Luuk van Waes, Mariëlle Leijken, and Aline Remael. 2010. “Live Subtitling with Speech Recognition: Causes and Consequences of Text Reduction.” Artesis Working Papers in Translation Studies 11. Antwerp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillipson, Robert. 2003. English-Only Europe: Challenging Language Policy?. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 2008. Longman Dictionary of Pronunciation, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zong, Chengqing, and Mark Seligman. 2005. “Toward Practical Spoken Language Translation.” Machine Translation 19 (2): 113–137. [URL] (accessed 20 January 2012).
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Sannholm, Raphael, Laura Babcock & Elisabet Tiselius
2025. Mapping synergies in cognitive research on Multilectal Mediated Communication. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:2 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2024. An Active Inference Agent for Modeling Human Translation Processes. Entropy 26:8 ► pp. 616 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Lulu & Sanjun Sun
2023. Dictating translations with automatic speech recognition: Effects on translators’ performance. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Hwang, Wu-Yuin, Van-Giap Nguyen & Siska Wati Dewi Purba
2022. Systematic survey of anything-to-text recognition and constructing its framework in language learning. Education and Information Technologies 27:9 ► pp. 12273 ff. DOI logo
Hoang Ca, Vo, Nguyen Tan Danh & A.D. Nazarov
2021. Effects of Technology and Sustainable Development on Japanese Translation Industry in Vietnam. E3S Web of Conferences 295 ► pp. 05026 ff. DOI logo
Albir, PACTE Group. Amparo Hurtado, Anabel Galán-Mañas, Anna Kuznik, Christian Olalla-Soler, Patricia Rodríguez-Inés & Lupe Romero
2020. Translation competence acquisition. Design and results of the PACTE group’s experimental research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14:2 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen & Sharon O'Brien
2015. Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace. Translation Spaces 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Zapata, Julián
2014. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue