Purpose of the study: The research is focused on studying the translation process using the methods of allied sciences for improving a translation end product. This article deals with the identification of the most challenging prospective translation difficulties and analysis of the main macro- and micro strategies of translation on the basis of conducted experiments with combination of eye-tracking and think-aloud protocols and an experiment using keystroke logging. In the article we also make an attempt to undercover the basic principles which influence decision-making.

Methodology: Conclusions based on the results of the study have both theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical significance of the research is expressed with the summarizing of the main translation difficulties and translation strategies of the tested. It was also revealed that the translation difficulty is not always predictable and is not always explained theoretically. As a result of the experiments the theory of H. Krings on 3 stages of translation Micro Strategy has been confirmed. Finally, the analysis of the experiments made it possible to determine the factors influencing a particular translation solution: grammatical, contextual and stylistic accuracy and euphony of the translation end product.

Results: Regarding the first experiment, TAPs required a voice recorder, and respectively, eye-tracking assumed the usage of eye-tracker, procured by the Laboratory of Small Computer Engineering of Kazan Federal University. As equipment for the second experiment, we used a laptop with a loaded keystroke logging program recording each keystroke, as well as the time intervals between these presses. In this case, the task of the tested was to submit a written translation of the given text.

Applications of this study: This research can be used for the universities, teachers, and students.

Novelty/Originality of this study: In this research, the model of the Think-Aloud Protocols, Eye-Tracking, and Key-Logging in Identification and Addressing Translation Challenges are presented in a comprehensive and complete manner.


  1. Akhmanova, O.S. (1966). Dictionary of linguistic terms. Moscow: Sov. enciklopediya.
  2. Bobyreva, N.N., & Latypov, N.R. (2015). Special Purpose Languages as a Tool of Modern Linguistic Education. Journal of Language And Literature, 6, 3.
  3. Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Eye Movements (pp. 341-371). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3
  4. Cooper, R.M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90005-X
  5. Doherty, S., O’Brien, S., & Carl, M. (2010). Eye tracking as an MT evaluation technique. Machine translation, 24(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-010-9070-9
  6. Duchowski, A.T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology. Theory and practice, 328.
  7. Hertzum, M., Borlund, P., &Kristoffersen, K.B. (2015). What do thinking-aloud participants say? A comparison of moderated and unmoderated usability sessions. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(9), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1065691
  8. Komissarov, V.N. (1990). Teoriya perevoda. (Translation theory). VN Komissarov, M.: Vysshayashkola, 253.
  9. Krings, H. P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). Interlingual and intercultural communication, 272, 263.
  10. Krings, H. P. (1986). Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern (Vol. 291). GNV.
  11. Kussmaul, P., &Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1995). Think-aloud protocol analysis in translation studies. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 8(1), 177-199. https://doi.org/10.7202/037201ar
  12. Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
  13. Mukhametshina, E. E., Solovyova, E. G., & Pomortseva, N. P. (2017). Integrative Approach to Enhancing Linguists’ Background Knowledge in Culture and Art. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(4), 538-545. https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1145
  14. O'Brien, S. (2009). Eye tracking in translation process research: methodological challenges and solutions. Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, 38, 251-266.
  15. Olvera-Lobo, M. D., Castro-Prieto, M. R., Quero-Gervilla, E., Muñoz-Martín, R., Muñoz-Raya, E., Murillo-Melero, M., ... & Domínguez-López, C. (2005). Translator training and modern market demands. Perspectives: Studies in translatology, 13(2), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668982
  16. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
  17. Göpferich, S., & Jääskeläinen, R. (2009). Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go?. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1
  18. Alves, F., & Vale, D. (2009). Probing the unit of translation in time: Aspects of the design and development of a web application for storing, annotating, and querying translation process data. Across languages and cultures, 10(2), 251-273. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.5
  19. Alabau, V., González-Rubio, J., Ortiz-Martínez, D., Sanchis-Trilles, G., Casacuberta, F., García-Martínez, M., ... & Carl, M. (2014). Integrating online and active learning in a computer-assisted translation workbench. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Interactive and Adaptive Statistical Machine Translation, page to appear (pp. 1-8).
  20. Da Silva, I. A. L. (2015). On a more robust approach to triangulating retrospective protocols and key logging in translation process research. Psycholinguistics and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.08sil
  21. Albir, A. H., Alves, F., Dimitrova, B. E., & Lacruz, I. (2015). A retrospective and prospective view of translation research from an empirical, experimental, and cognitive perspective: the TREC network. Translation & Interpreting, 7(1), 5-25.
  22. Dragsted, B. (2012). Indicators of difficulty in translation—Correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5
  23. Vieira, L. N. (2016). Cognitive effort in post-editing of machine translation: evidence from eye movements, subjective ratings, and think-aloud protocols (Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University).