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
Critical reviews on methodology

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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The basic rationale behind psycholinguistic experiments
  • 3.Priming paradigms in psycholinguistic research on bilingualism
  • 4.Priming paradigms in psycholinguistic research on translation
  • 5.Structural priming and equivalence in translation
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 22 November 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00085.jac
References
Bosch, S. & Leminen, A.
(2018) ERP priming studies of bilingual language processing. Bilingualism, 211, 462–470. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, M.
(Ed.) (2021) Explorations in empirical translation process research. Berlin: Springer International. DOI logoGoogle 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, 291, 375–389. DOI logoGoogle 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, 11, 21–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coughlin, C. E. & Tremblay, A.
(2015) Morphological decomposition in native and non-native French speakers. Bilingualism, 181, 524–542. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, T. & Declercq, M.
(2006) Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 610–632. DOI logoGoogle 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, 13591, 142–154. DOI logoGoogle 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, 131, 119–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Festman, J. & Clahsen, H.
(2016) How Germans prepare for the English past tense: Silent production of inflected words during EEG. Applied Psycholinguistics, 371, 487–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A. M.
(2015) Psycholinguistic explorations of lexical translation equivalents Thirty years of research and their implications for Cognitive Translatology. Translation Spaces, 41, 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Neurocognition of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D.
(1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gor, K.
(2018) Phonological priming and the role of phonology in nonnative word recognition. Bilingualism, 211, 437–442. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 151, 409–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacob, G.
(2018) Morphological priming in bilingualism research. Bilingualism, 211, 443–447. DOI logoGoogle 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, 201, 269–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1959) On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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, 411, 791–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., Kostić, A., Feldman, L. B., & Turvey, M. T.
(1983) Grammatical priming of inflected nouns. Memory & Cognition, 111, 59–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macizo, P. & Bajo, M. T.
(2006) Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 991, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
(2017) Does translation involve structural priming? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 701, 1575–1589. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P.
(2004) Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, 391, 1029–1038. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salamoura, A. & Williams, J. N.
(2006) Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. Bilingualism, 91, 299–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, M. J. & Carl, M.
(2013) Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 81, 169–190. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 1121, 175–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, R. & Clahsen, H.
(2008) Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism, 111, 245–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanners, R. F., Neiser, J. J., & Painton, S.
(1979) Memory representation for prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 733–743. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G.
(2012 [1995]) Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond, 2. expanded ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, 551, 335–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, K. & Indefrey, P.
(2009) Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 461, 1164–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y. & van Heuven, W. J. B.
(2017a) Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 491, 1006–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24 (3), 879–886. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B.
(1956) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar