Cover not available
Part of
Translation in Transition: Human and machine intelligence
Edited by Isabel Lacruz
[American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XX] 2023
► pp. 236–256

Chapter 11
Early processes in reading for translation

A micro-scale study in the CRITT TPR-DB

| University of California, San Diego
| Kent State University
Synonyms in a target language are a source of ambiguity in translation production. This ambiguity can be quantified by the translation entropy metric and used to assess predictions by different models on the time course of target language activation in the translation process. Aggregated data from several language pairs and translation modalities reveal a correlation between translation entropy and eye tracking metrics, providing evidence of early target language activation during translation tasks. We examine published data from CRITT to investigate whether this correlation remains present in the single Spanish-English language pair. We confirm previous findings when all translation modalities are aggregated, but present evidence that early target language activation may vary across different translation modalities in the Spanish-English language pair.
Keywords: cross-linguistic ambiguity, translation entropy, language activation, translation process research, eye tracking, CRITT TPR-DB, BML12
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Monolingual language processing and ambiguity resolution
    • 1.2Bilingual language processing and ambiguity resolution
      • 1.2.1The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM)
      • 1.2.2The BIA+ model
      • 1.2.3Evidence for non-selectivity in bi/multilingual language processing
    • 1.3Models of translation processes
      • 1.3.1Vertical and horizontal models
      • 1.3.2The monitor and recursive models
      • 1.3.3Early processes in reading for translation
  • 2.The present research
    • 2.1Method
    • 2.2Measures specific to from-scratch translation
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Results
    • 2.5Discussion
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xx.11nev
References (52)
References
Armstrong, Blair, and David Plaut. 2016a. “Semantic Ambiguity Effects in Lexical Processing: A Neural-Network Account Based on Semantic Settling Dynamics.” Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. [URL]
. 2016b. “Disparate Semantic Ambiguity Effects from Semantic Processing Dynamics rather than Qualitative Task Differences.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31 (7): 940–966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Báez, Ma Cristina, Moritz Schaeffer, and Michael Carl. 2017. “Experiments in non-coherent post-editing.” Proceedings from the RANLP 2017: The First Workshop on Human-Informed Translation and Interpreting Technology (HiT-IT), 11–20.Google Scholar
Bangalore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm. 2015. “The Role of Syntactic Variation in Translation and Post-Editing.” Translation Spaces 4 (1): 119–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beauvillain, Cécile, and Jonathan Grainger. 1987. “Accessing Interlexical Homographs: Some Limitations of a Language-Selective Access.” Journal of Memory and Language 26 (6): 658–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boltzmann, Ludwig. 1872. “Weitere Studien über das Wärmegleichgewicht unter Gasmolekülen.” Sitzungsberichte Akademie der Wissenschaften 66: 275–370.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, and Ton Dijkstra. 2006. “Changing Views on Word Recognition in Bilinguals.” In Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by José Moraisand, and Géry Ydewalle. Brussels, Belgium: Royal Academes for Science and the Arts of Belgium.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 2000. “Choice Network Analysis in Translation Research.” In Intercultural Faultlines, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 29–42. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “The CRITT TPR-DB 1.0: A Database for Empirical Human Translation Process Research.” Proceedings from the AMTA 2012: Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice (WPTP 2012), 9–18.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of Default and Challenged Translation Production.” Translation: Computation, Corpora, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz Schaeffer. 2017a. “Why Translation is Difficult: A Corpus-Based Study of Non-Literality in Post-Editing and From-Scratch Translation.” Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 56: 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Models of the Translation Process.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 50–70. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore. 2016. “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 13–54. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches.” In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Joseph Danks, Gregory Shreve, Stephen Fountain, and Michael McBeath, 25–56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
2000. “A Complex-Skill Approach to Translation.” In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 53–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, Ton, and Walter J. B. Van Heuven. 2002. “The Architecture of the Bilingual Word Recognition System: From Identification to Decision.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5: 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dopkins, Stephen, Robin K. Morris, and Keith Rayner. 1992. “Lexical Ambiguity and Eye Fixations in Reading: A Test of Competing Models of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution.” Journal of Memory and Language 31 (4): 461–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation – Correlating Product and Process Data.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffy, Susan A., Robin K. Morris, and Keith Rayner. 1988. “Lexical Ambiguity and Fixation Time in Reading.” Journal of Memory and Language 27: 429–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogaboam, Thomas W., and Charles A. Perfetti. 1975. “Lexical Ambiguity and Sentence Comprehension.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 (3): 265–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Erika Stewart. 1994. “Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections between Bilingual Memory Representations.” Journal of Memory and Language 33 (2): 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., Janet G. van Hell, Natasha Tokowicz, and David W. Green. 2010. “The Revised Hierarchical Model: A Critical Review and Assessment.” Bilingualism 13 (3): 373–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, Maya R., and Debra A. Titone. 2009. “Bilingual Lexical Access in Context: Evidence from Eye Movements during Reading.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 35 (2): 381–390.Google Scholar
Macizo, Pedro and M. Teresa Bajo. 2006. “Reading for Repetition and Reading for Translation: Do They Involve the Same Processes?” Cognition 99 (1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meijer, Paul, and Jean Fox Tree. 2003. “Building Syntactic Structures in Speaking: A Bilingual Exploration.” Experimental Psychology 50 (3):184–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesa-Lao, Bartolomé. 2014. “Gaze Behaviour on Source Texts: An Exploratory Study Comparing Translation and Post-Editing.” In Post-Editing of Machine Translation: Processes and Applications, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, Laura Winther Balling, Michael Carl, Michel Simard, and Lucia Specia, 219–245. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Morris, Robin K. 2006. “Lexical Processing and Sentence Context Effects.” In Handbook of Psycholinguistics ed. by Matthew Traxler, and Morton Ann Gernsbacher, 377–401. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, John. 1969. “Interaction of Information in Word Recognition.” Psychological Review 76 (2): 165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onifer, William, and David A. Swinney. 1981. “Assessing Lexical Ambiguities during Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Frequency of Meaning and Contextual Bias.” Memory & Cognition 9 (3): 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pacht, Jeremy M., and Keith Rayner. 1993. “The Processing of Homophonic Homographs during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movement Studies.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22 (2): 251–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Mary C., and Linda Lombardi. 1998. “Syntactic Priming in Immediate Recall of Sentences.” Journal of Memory and Language 38 (3): 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Jeremy M. Pacht, and Susan A. Duffy. 1994. “Effects of Prior Encounter and Global Discourse Bias on the Processing of Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Fixations.” Journal of Memory and Language 33 (4): 527–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith, and Susan A. Duffy. 1986. “Lexical Complexity and Fixation Times in Reading: Effects of Word Frequency, Verb Complexity, and Lexical Ambiguity.” Memory & Cognition 14 (3): 191–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith, and Lyn Frazier. 1989. “Selection Mechanisms in Reading Lexically Ambiguous Words.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15 (5): 779–790.Google Scholar
Ruiz, Concepción, Natalia Paredes, Pedro Macizo, and M. Teresa Bajo. 2008. “Activation of Lexical and Syntactic Target Language Properties in Translation.” Acta Psychologica 128 (3): 490–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and James L. McClelland. 1982. “An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception: II. The Contextual Enhancement Effect and some Tests and Extensions of the Model.” Psychological Review 89 (1): 60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2013. “Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “A Minimal Cognitive Model for Translating and Post-editing.” Proceedings from Machine Translation Summit XVI, (MT Summit XVI), 144–155.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian Hvelplund, Laura Balling, and Michael Carl. 2016. “Word Translation Entropy – Evidence of Early Target Language Activation During Reading for Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, ed. by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 183–210. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Kevin Paterson, Victoria McGowan, Sarah White, and Kirsten Malmkjær. 2014. “The Berkeley Aligner and the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology Conference, Copenhagen Business School, January 30–31.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Reading for Translation.” In Translation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology, ed. by Arndt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 17–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1976. “Interpretation: A Psychological Approach to Translating.” In Translation: Applications and Research, ed. by R. Bruce, W. Anderson, and Richard W. Brislin, 92–116. New York, NY: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Sereno, Sara C., Jeremy M. Pacht, and Keith Rayner. 1992. “The Effect of Meaning Frequency on Processing Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Fixations.” Psychological Science 3 (5): 296–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell Systems Technical Journal 27 : 379–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. 2006. “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies, 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2004. “Unique Items – Over – or Under-represented in Translated Language?” In Translation Universals, Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Pekka Kujamäki, 177–184. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta: Journal des Traducteurs 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Assche, Eva, Wouter Duyck, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Kevin Diependaele. 2009. “Does Bilingualism Change Native-language Reading? Cognate Effects in a Sentence Context.” Psychological Science 20 (8): 923–927. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2011. “Metonymic Language Use as a Student Translation Problem.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 67–92. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, Janet G., and Ton Dijkstra. 2002. “Foreign Language Knowledge can Influence Native Language Performance in Exclusively Native Contexts.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (4): 780–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar