Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:2 (2018) ► pp.195–220

Processing of grammatical metaphor

Insights from controlled translation and reading experiments

| RWTH Aachen University
| RWTH Aachen University
| RWTH Aachen University
This paper investigates cognitive effort invested in the translation and reading of grammatical metaphor. It is based on the results of two experiments conducted using the methods of keylogging and eyetracking. To test differences in processing, we devised a number of metaphorical and congruent stimuli integrated into a popular-scientific text. In this paper cognitive effort, operationalized through a number of pause and gaze measures, is examined by means of linear-mixed regression modelling. Our results show no difference in processing effort between congruent and metaphorical stretches of text.
Keywords: grammatical metaphor, psycholinguistic experiments, eyetracking, keylogging
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical metaphor
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Experimental design
    • 3.2Operationalization of cognitive effort
    • 3.3Statistical models
  • 4.Translation experiment
    • 4.1Results
    • 4.2Discussion
  • 5.Reading experiment
    • 5.1Results
    • 5.2Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
References (47)
References
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva. 2014. “Effortful Text Production in Translation: A Study of Grammatical (De)Metaphorization Drawing On Product and Process Data.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 9 (1): 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010. “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-Based Translation Research.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone, 109–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bangalore, Srinivas, Bergljot Behrens, Michael Carl, Maheshwar Ghankot, Arndt Heilmann, Jean Nitzke, Moritz Schaeffer, and Annegret Sturm. 2016. “Syntactic Variance and Priming Effects in Translation.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 211–238. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steven Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using {lme4}.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Martin J. Pickering. 2013. “From Language-Specific to Shared Syntactic Representations: The Influence of Second Language Proficiency on Syntactic Sharing in Bilinguals.” Cognition 127 (3): 287–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boada Navarro, Roger, Rosa Ma. Sánchez Casas, José M. Gavilán Ibáñez, José E. García Albea, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 2000. “Critical Structures in the Evaluation of Translations from Arabic into English as a Second Language.” The Translator 6 (2): 211–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “Translog-II: A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 4108–4112.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Barbara Dragsted, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. 2011. “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal 16 (2). Available at [URL].
Couto Vale, Daniel. 2017. “What Does a Translator Do when Not Writing?” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, and S. Hofman, 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara. 2005. “Segmentation in Translation: Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target 17 (1): 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Uncharted Territory.” In Translation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone, 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation: Correlating Product and Process.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 81–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragsted, Barbara, and Inge Gorm Hansen. 2008. “Comprehension and Production in Translation: A Pilot Study on Segmentation and the Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. M. Mees, 9–29. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung: Stand—Methoden—Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. A. K., and James R. Martin, eds. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2013. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Silvia. 2003. The Nature of Translated Text: An Interdisciplinary Methodology for the Investigation of the Specific Properties of Translations. PhD dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann, and Erich Steiner, eds. 2012. Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, and Erich Steiner. 2012. “Towards a Typology of Translation Properties.” In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra, S. Neumann, and E. Steiner, 255–279. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill-Madsen, Aage. 2015. “The ‘Unpacking’ of Grammatical Metaphor as an Intralingual Translation Strategy: From De-Metaphorization to Clausal Paraphrase.” In Translation and Comprehensibility. Edited by K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth, and S. Hansen-Schirra, 195–226. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2007. “Recent Changes in the Function and Frequency of Standard English Genitive Constructions: A Multivariate Analysis of Tagged Corpora.” English Language and Linguistics 11 (3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Kristian T. H. Jensen. 2008. “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing. Edited by S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen, and I. M. Mees, 103–124. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen, and Per Bruun Brockhoff. 2016. lmertest: Tests for Random and Fixed Effects for Linear Mixed Effect Models (lmer Objects of lme4 Package). R Package Version 2.0-32. [URL].
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loebell, Helga, and Kathryn Bock. 2003. “Structural Priming Across Languages.” Linguistics 41 (5): 791–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1996. “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Translation Processes.” Meta 41 (1): 26–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lothmann, Timo, and Tatiana Serbina. 2017. “On the Overlap of Grammatical Metaphor and Conceptual Metaphor in Political Discourse: A Reconciliatory Approach”. In Challenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Edited by S. Neumann, R. Wegener, J. Fest, P. Niemietz, and N. Hützen, 223–238. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim R. 1993. “Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts.” In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Edited by M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin, 203–220. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella, Adriana Pagano, Fabio Alves, Pirita Pyykkönen, and Igor da Silva. 2010. “Targeting (De-) Metaphorization: Process-Based Insights.” Paper presented at the 22nd ESFCW, Koper, Slovenija, July 2010.
Pavlović, Nataša, and Kristian T. H. Jensen. 2009. “Eye Tracking Translation Directionality.” In Translation Research Projects 2. Edited by A. Pym and A. Perekrestenko, 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Avaliable at [URL].
Rautenberg, Rosa. 2011. (De-)Metaphorization in English-German Translation: A Quantitative Analysis of a Keystroke-Logging Experiment. State Examination Thesis, RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian T. Hvelplund, Laura Winther 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: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Edited by M. Carl, S. Bangalore, and M. Schaeffer, 183–210. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sáenz, Francisco Santibáñez. 2000. “Halliday’s Grammatical Metaphor, Conceptualization and Linguistic Construal.” Epos: Revista de filología 161: 497–511.Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich. 2001. “Translations English-German: Investigating the Relative Importance of Systemic Contrasts and the Text-Type “Translation”.” SPRIKreports: Reports of the Project Languages in Contrast 71: 1–49.Google Scholar
Sušinskienė, Solveiga. 2008. “Grammatical Metaphors as Ideological Micro-Components of Political Discourse.” Filologija 131: 129–138.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2003. “Grammatical Metaphor in SFL: A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Edited by A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, and L. Ravelli, 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, Jukka Mäkisalo, and Sini Immonen. 2008. “The Translation Process: Interplay between Literal Rendering and a Search for Sense.” Across Languages and Cultures 9 (1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha. 2014. “Translation Ambiguity Affects Language Processing, Learning, and Representation.” In Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum. Edited by R. Miller, K. Martin, Ch. Eddington, A. Henery, N. Marcos Miguel, A. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, and D. Walter, 170–180. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Heilmann, Arndt, Jonas Freiwald, Stella Neumann & Zoë Miljanović
2022. Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
De Sutter, Gert & Marie-Aude Lefer
2020. On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: a multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.