{"id":67,"date":"2024-03-13T19:38:12","date_gmt":"2024-03-13T18:38:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ow73919-readme.web.amu.edu.pl\/?page_id=67"},"modified":"2026-03-27T11:35:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T10:35:38","slug":"publications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/publications\/","title":{"rendered":"Publications"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

2025<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n Read here \u2197<\/a>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Tomczak-\u0141ukaszewska, E. (2025). Spotlight on the reader: methodological challenges in combining translation process, product, and translation reception<\/strong>. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics<\/em>, 61<\/em>(4), 623-652. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/psicl-2025-0074<\/a> [click here for abstract]<\/strong><\/summary>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This contribution addresses methodological challenges in integrating translation process, product, and reception data, and explores intricate relationships between translator\u2019s cognitive effort, translation quality, and the readers\u2019 cognitive effort. The interplay is examined with an eyetracking experiment in which participants read professional L2\u2192L1 translations (whole texts) of varying quality (high vs. low). The analysis focuses on meaning integration and re-processing during L1 reading, operationalised through three eyetracking measures: dwell time, number of runs, and re-reading dwell time. The texts read are either high-quality translations (an end-product of a translator with many years of professional experience) or low-quality translations (delivered by a less experienced professional translator). Each L2\u2192L1 translation consists of eight sentences. Each sentence in the text thus has a record of each reader\u2019s cognitive effort (eyetracking measures), and a record of translator\u2019s cognitive effort operationalised as the time taken by the translator to deliver a translation of a target sentence. Results reveal a significant interaction effect: readers exert more cognitive effort when reading low-quality translations, particularly when the translator\u2019s effort is lower, whereas high-quality translations elicit increased reader\u2019s effort when the translator\u2019s effort is higher. Moderated mediation analyses further show that readers\u2019 proficiency in the source text language (L2) mediates the relationship between the number of years they use their L2 and cognitive effort invested in reading L1 translations, but only in the case of low-quality translations. These findings underscore the complex dynamics between translation production and reception, highlighting the role of individual differences in shaping cognitive processing. The study contributes to the growing body of research in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies by bridging process- and reception-oriented approaches, and by offering insights into how translator\u2019s effort and decisions impact reading processes.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

2024<\/h2>\n\n
\n Read here \u2197<\/a>\n OSF: Our data \u2197<\/a>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Whyatt, B., Tomczak-\u0141ukaszewska, E., Witczak, O., & Lehka-Paul, O. (2025). Readers have to work harder to understand a badly translated text: An eye-tracking study into the effects of translation errors. <\/strong>Perspectives<\/em>, 33<\/em>(5), 1085\u20131105. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/0907676X.2024.2418016 [click here for abstract]<\/strong><\/summary>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Texts are translated to be read and provide access to otherwise inaccessible information or experiences. Scant empirical interest in how translations are read and received by readers is surprising in the context of our knowledge about the features of translations, and the systematic ways in which they differ from originally written texts. In this paper, we explore the impact of translation quality on the reading experience by analysing the cognitive effort involved in reading and text comprehension. Two groups of participants (n\u2009<\/em>=\u200964) were eye-tracked as they read either a low-quality translation (with errors) or a high-quality translation (without errors) of the same source text. Overall, the errors contributed to longer dwell time when reading the entire text but did not significantly affect the participants\u2019 comprehension scores. A more in-depth analysis of the impact of translation errors on the reading experience shows that it depends on the amount of confusion errors cause to the reader when building a coherent model of the entire text.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n

2023<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n Read here \u2197<\/a>\n OSF: Our data \u2197<\/a>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Whyatt, B., Witczak, O., Tomczak-\u0141ukaszewska, E., & Lehka-Paul, O. (2023). The proof of the translation process is in the reading of the target text: An eyetracking reception study<\/strong>. Ampersand<\/em>, 11<\/em>, 100149. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.amper.2023.100149 [click here for abstract]<\/strong><\/summary>\n
\n
\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This article is an attempt to bridge the divide between translation process research (TPR) which has investigated how translators as specialised bilingual professionals use their expertise to translate texts and translation reception which explores how the texts are read and received by the target language readers. Over the last thirty years, TPR has provided empirically grounded findings to demonstrate the complexity of the cognitive processes in the translator’s mind but much less empirical interest has been paid to how translated texts are read and processed by the readers. To redress this imbalance, we hypothesise that the cognitive effort invested in reading a translated text can be taken as proof of how successful the translation process has been. We report on an exploratory study in which two groups of participants read a high-quality and a low-quality translation of the same text while their eye movements were recorded by an eyetracker. We compare the readers’ cognitive effort indexed by character-adjusted dwell time, number of runs and re-reading in the second and third run with the translators’ character-adjusted cognitive effort invested in producing the target texts. The results show that the relationship between the translation process and the reading experience is not straightforward and depends on the quality of the target text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2025 Read here \u2197 2024 Read here \u2197 OSF: Our data \u2197 2023 Read here \u2197 OSF: Our data \u2197<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-67","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/67","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/67\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":314,"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/67\/revisions\/314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/readmeproject.web.amu.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}