Article published in:
Developments in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Kairong Xiao and Sandra L. Halverson
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2] 2021
► pp. 440–461

Towards a methodological toolset for the psycholinguistics of translation

The case of priming paradigms

| Technische Universität Kaiserslautern | Universität Mannheim
| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
| Technische Universität Kaiserslautern
The manuscript provides readers with a basic methodological toolset for experimental psycholinguistic studies on translation. Following a description of key methodological concepts and the rationale behind experimental designs in psycholinguistics, we discuss experimental paradigms adopted from bilingualism research, which potentially constitute a methodological foundation for studies investigating the psycholinguistics of translation. Specifically, we show that priming paradigms possess several inherent advantages which make them particularly suitable for research on translation. The manuscript critically discusses key methodological problems associated with such paradigms and illustrates the opportunities they may offer for translation research, concludes with a review of past and current translation process research highlighting ways in which these can contribute to the issues raised by cross-linguistic priming studies.
Keywords: priming, psycholinguistics, methodology, translation process research, equivalence
Published online: 22 November 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00085.jac
References

References

Bosch, S. & Leminen, A.
(2018) ERP priming studies of bilingual language processing. Bilingualism, 21, 462–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, M. & Schaeffer, M. J.
(2017) Models of the translation process. In J. Schwieter & A. Ferreira, (Eds.), The handbook of translation studies and cognition (pp. 50–70). MA/Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carl, M.
(Ed.) (2021) Explorations in empirical translation process research. Berlin: Springer International. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C.
(1965) A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Jia, Y., Wang, Z., Dunlap, S., & Shin, J.-A.
(2013) Is word-order similarity necessary for cross-linguistic structural priming? Second Language Research, 29, 375–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A.
(2018) Meaning and words in the conference interpreter’s mind. Effects of interpreter training and experience in a semantic priming study. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1, 21–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, C. E. & Tremblay, A.
(2015) Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism, 18, 524–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Čulo, O., Hansen-Schirra, S., Maksymski, K., & Neumann, S.
(2017) Empty links and crossing lines. In S. Hansen-Schirra, S. Neumann, & O. Čulo (Eds.), Annotation, exploitation and evaluation of parallel corpora (pp. 53–88). Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., Willems, R. M., & Schriefers, H.
(2014) L2 speakers decompose morphologically complex verbs: fMRI evidence from priming of transparent derived verbs. Front. Hum. Neurosci, 8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, T. & Declercq, M.
(2006) Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 610–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Dimitropoulou, M., Uribe-Etxebarria, O., Laka, I., & Carreiras, M.
(2010) Electrophysiological correlates of the masked translation priming effect with highly proficient simultaneous bilinguals. Brain Research, 1359, 142–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Basnight-Brown, D. M., Đurđević, D. F., & Pastizzo, M. J.
(2010) Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and non-native speakers: Little evidence for two distinct mechanisms. Bilingualism, 13, 119–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Festman, J. & Clahsen, H.
(2016) How Germans prepare for the English past tense: Silent production of inflected words during EEG. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 487–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A. M.
(2015) Psycholinguistic explorations of lexical translation equivalents Thirty years of research and their implications for Cognitive Translatology. Translation Spaces, 4, 9–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Neurocognition of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, D.
(1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gor, K.
(2018) Phonological priming and the role of phonology in nonnative word recognition. Bilingualism, 21, 437–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S. L.
(2017) Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies (pp. 9–46). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E.
(2004) Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15, 409–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G.
(2018) Morphological priming in bilingualism research. Bilingualism, 21, 443–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G., Katsika, K., Family, N., & Allen, S. E. M.
(2017) The role of constituent order and level of embedding in cross-linguistic structural priming. Bilingualism, 20, 269–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1959) On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K. T. H., Sjørup, A. C., & Winther Balling, L.
(2009) Effects of L1 Syntax on L2 Translation. In F. Alves, S. Göpferich, & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research: A tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen (pp. 319–336). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Loebell, H. & Bock, K.
(2003) Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41, 791–824. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., Kostić, A., Feldman, L. B., & Turvey, M. T.
(1983) Grammatical priming of inflected nouns. Memory & Cognition, 11, 59–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P. & Bajo, M. T.
(2006) Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
(2017) Does translation involve structural priming? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1575–1589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maier, R. M.
(2011) Towards a psycholinguistic model of translation processes: Directionality in natural translation. In M. J. Blasco Mayor & M. A. Jimenez Ivars (Eds.), Interpreting naturally, A tribute to Brian Harris (pp.67–102). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
(2007) Morphological processes in language comprehension. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 174–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P.
(2004) Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., Macwhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F.
(2007) Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029–1038. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salamoura, A. & Williams, J. N.
(2006) Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism, 9, 299–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J. & Carl, M.
(2013) Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8, 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In U. Germann, M. Carl, P. Koehn, G. Sanchis-Trilles, F. Casacuberta, R. Hill, & S. O’Brien, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation (HaCaT). Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 29–37). Stroudsburg, PA: The Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J., Dragsted, B., Hvelplund, K. T., Winther Balling, L., & Carl, M.
(2016) Word translation entropy: Evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. J. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 183–210). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J., Paterson, K. B., McGowan, V. A., White, S. J., & Malmkjær, K.
(2017) Reading for translation. In A. L. Jakobsen & B. Mesa-Lao (Eds.), Translation in transition (pp. 18–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, C.
(2014) Between-group matching of confounding variables: Why covariates remain important for analysis. Presented at the Conference: Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP). Crossref
Schwieter, J. W. & Prior, A.
(2020) Translation ambiguity. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 96–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. and Lederer, M.
(1984) Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Erudition.Google Scholar
Shin, J.-A. & Christianson, K.
(2009) Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition, 112, 175–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H.
(2008) Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism, 11, 245–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., & Painton, S.
(1979) Memory representation for prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 733–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teich, E.
(2003) Cross-linguistic variation in system and text. A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, G.
(2012 [1995]) Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, 2. expanded ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G.
(2006) The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, K. & Indefrey, P.
(2009) Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46, 1164–1172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y. & van Heuven, W. J. B.
(2017a) Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1006–1019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24 (3), 879–886. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B.
(1956) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar