What do rendering options tell us about the translating mind? Testing the choice network analysis hypothesis

Frame. Assessing the difficulty of source texts and parts thereof is important in CTIS, whether for research comparability, for didactic purposes or setting price differences in the market. In order to empirically measure it, Campbell & Hale (1999) and Campbell (2000) developed the Choice Network Analysis (CNA) framework. Basically, the CNA’s main hypothesis is that the more translation options (a group of) translators have to render a given source text stretch, the higher the difficulty of that text stretch will be. We will call this the CNA hypothesis. In a nutshell, this research project puts the CNA hypothesis to the test and studies whether it does actually measure difficulty. Data collection. Two groups of participants (n=29) of different profiles and from two universities in different countries had three translation tasks keylogged with Inputlog, and filled pre- and post-translation questionnaires. Participants translated from English (L2) into their L1s (Spanish or Italian), and worked—first in class and then at home—using their own computers, on texts ca. 800–1000 words long. Each text was translated in approximately equal halves in two 1-hour sessions, in three consecutive weeks. Only the parts translated at home were considered in the study. Results. A very different picture emerged from data than that which the CNA hypothesis might predict: there was no prevalence of disfluent task segments when there were many translation options, nor was a prevalence of fluent task segments associated to fewer translation options. Indeed, there was no correlation between the number of translation options (many and few) and behavioral fluency. Additionally, there was no correlation between pauses and both behavioral fluency and typing speed. The discussed theoretical flaws and the empirical evidence lead to the conclusion that the CNA framework does not and cannot measure text and translation difficulty.