Cover not available
Part of
Translation in Transition: Between cognition, computing and technology
Edited by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao
[Benjamins Translation Library 133] 2017
► pp. 81–105

Chapter 3
Measuring translation literality

| CRITT, Copenhagen Business School/Renmin University of China
| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Tirkkonen-Condit (2005: 407–408) argues that “It looks as if literal translation is [the result of] a default rendering procedure”. As a corollary, more literal translations should be easier to process, and less literal ones should be associated with more cognitive effort. In order to assess this hypothesis, we operationalize translation literality as 1. the word-order similarity of the source and the target text and 2. the number of possible different translation renderings. We develop a literality metric and apply it on a set of manually word and sentence aligned alternative translations. Drawing on the monitor hypothesis (Tirkkonen-Condit 2005) and a model of shared syntax (Hartsuiker et al. 2004) we develop a model of translation effort based on priming strength: shared combinatorial nodes and meaning representations are activated through automatized bilingual priming processes where more strongly activated nodes lead to less effortful translation production. The theoretical framework explains the observed production- and reading times and justifies our literality metric.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining translation literality
    • 2.1Crossing alignments
    • 2.2Translation perplexity
  • 3.Experimental material
  • 4.Word translation perplexity and translation priming
    • 4.1Translation priming and translation choices
    • 4.2Gaze durations and translation perplexity
    • 4.3Combinatorial nodes and shared representations
  • 5.Crossing alignments and the translation process
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.133.03car
References (42)
Balling, Laura Winther, Kristian Tangsgaard Hvelplund, and Annette Camilla Sjørup
2014 “Evidence of Parallel Processing during Translation.” Meta 59 (2): 234–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boada, Roger, Rosa Sánchez-Casas, José M. Gavilán, José E. García-Aleba, and Natasha Tokowicz
2013 “Effect of Multiple Translations and Cognate Status on Translation Recognition Performance of Balanced Bilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (1): 183–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchweitz, Augusto, and Chantel Prat
2013 “The Bilingual BraIn Flexibility and Control in the Human Cortex.” Physics of Life Reviews 10: 428–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Schaeffer Moritz, Bangalore Srinivas
2016 “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, ed. by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 13–54. Cham: Springer. (New Frontiers in Translation Studies). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Aizawa A., and Yamada M
2016 “English-to-Japanese Translation vs. Dictation vs. Post-editing: Comparing Translation Modes in a Multilingual Setting.” In The LREC 2016 Proceedings: Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, ed. by N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, and J. Odijk, 4024–4031. Piperidis S Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Catford, John C
1965 A linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2011 “Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 23–35. (Benjamins Translation Library Volume 94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette.M.B
1992 “Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations.” In Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, ed. by R. Frost, and L. Katz, 390–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong Yan Ping, Gui Shi Chun, MacWhinney Brian
2005 “Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon.” Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 8, 221–238. 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
Eddington, Chelsea M., and Natasha Tokowicz
2013 “Examining English–German Translation Ambiguity Using Primed Translation Recognition.” Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 16 (2): 442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Germann, Ulrich
2008 “Yawat. Yet Another Word Alignment Tool.” Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume), 20–23. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp
2004 “Is Syntax Separate or Shared between Languages? Cross-linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals.” Psychological Science 15 (6): 409–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inhoff, Albrecht W, and Keith Rayner
1986 “Parafoveal Word Processing during Eye Fixations in Reading: Effects of Word Frequency.” Perception and Psychophysics 40 (6): 431–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir
1981 “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” Poetics Today 2 (4): 51–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Formal/contrastive correspondence and translation equivalence. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 42, 167–180.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1996 “Hard Work Will Bear Beautiful Fruit. A Comparison of Two Think-Aloud Protocol Studies.” Meta: journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, vol. 41 (1): 60–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
2011 “Tracking Translators' Keystrokes and Eye Movements with Translog.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies. ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, Elisabeth Tiselius, 37–55. (Benjamins Translation Library Volume 94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Frederick, R.L. Mercer, L.R. Bahl, and J.K. Baker
1977 “Perplexity – a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62: S63 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Kristian T.H., Annette C. Sjørup, and Laura W. Balling
2010 “Effects of L1 Syntax on L2 Translation.” In Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, ed. by Fabio Alves, Susanne Göpferich, and Inger M. Mees, 319–336. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Stewart, Erica
1994 Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laxén, Jannika, and Jean-Marc Lavaur
2010 “The Role of Semantics in Translation Recognition: Effects of Number of Translations, Dominance of Translations and Semantic Relatedness of Multiple Translations.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (02): 157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
2005 “The Translation Process: Methods and Problems of its Investigation.” Meta: journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal. 50 (2), 597–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten
2011 Translation Universals. In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær,Kevin Windle and , 83–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta
2009 “Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning.” In The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches, ed. by Aneta Pavlenko, 125–160. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Holly P. Branigan
1999 “Syntactic Priming in Language Production.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (4): 138–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Victor S. Ferreira
2007 “Structural Priming: A Critical Review.” Psychological Bulletin, 134 (3): 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Płońska, Dagmara
2016 “Problems of Literality in French-Polish Translations of a Newspaper Article.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, ed. by M. Carl, S. Bangalore and M. Schaeffer. Cham: Springer, 279–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popel, Martin and David Mareček
2010 “Perplexity of n-Gram and Dependency Language Models.” In Text, Speech and Dialogue, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6231: 173–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Anat, Shuly Wintner, Brian MacWhinney and Alon Lavie
2011 “Translation Ambiguity in and out of Context.” Applied Psycholinguistics 32 (1): 93–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Anat, Judith F. Kroll, and Brian Macwhinney
2013 “Translation Ambiguity but not Word Class Predicts Translation Performance.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (02): 458–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sennrich, Rico
2012 “Perplexity Minimization for Translation Model Domain Adaptation in Statistical Machine Translation.” In EACL '12 Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 539–549.
Sharmin, Selina, Oleg Spakov, Kari-Jouko Räihä, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
2008 “Effects of Time Pressure and Text Complexity on Translators' Fixations.” In Eye Tracking Research & Application Archive: Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on Eye Tracking & Applications, ed. by Georgia Savannah, 26-29 March 2008, 123–126. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Carl, Michael
2013 “Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8, 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
2014 “Measuring the Cognitive Effort of Literal Translation Processes.” Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation, 29–37. Gothenburg Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sjørup, Annette Camilla
2013  Cognitive effort in metaphor translation An eye-tracking and key-logging study . PhD theses, Copenhagen Business School.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha, and Judith F. Kroll
2007 “Number of Meanings and Concreteness: Consequences of Ambiguity Within and Across Languages.” Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (5), 727–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Cavey, Joris, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
2015 “Is there a domain-general cognitive structuring system? Evidence from structural priming across music, math, action descriptions, and language.” Cognition 146 (2016) 172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasserstein, Abraham and David J. Wasserstein
2009 The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today, Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by 5 other publications

Castagnoli, Sara
2023. Exploring variation in student translation. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
HRYTSIV, Nataliia & Oksana MELNYCHUK
2022. COGNITIVE EFFORT AS A COMPONENT OF TRANSLATOR’S STRATEGY. Folia Philologica :3 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Carl, Michael
2021. Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Joseph V. Casillas
2021. Literal is not always easier. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2019. ‘Default’ translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. 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.