Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 5:1 (2022) ► pp.110–143

Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation

 | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
ORCID logo | RWTH Aachen University
This study analyzes translation behaviour with respect to the salience of two grammatical constructions that differ in frequency. We assumed that a more frequent construction is also more entrenched in the translator’s mind and that as a result different translation solutions are more readily available. For this reason, we expected that a more frequent construction is translated more quickly than a less frequent construction, resulting in lower reading and typing-related measures of cognitive effort during the translation process. A translation experiment was designed to test this assumption. We triangulated keystroke logging and eye tracking data from 11 professional translators and tested the results using linear mixed regression modelling, controlling for, among others, lexically-based effects of salience. While we did not find statistically significant evidence of a facilitation effect regarding the entrenchment of (partially) abstract grammatical structures (of-NPs), we did find salience effects from lexical sources such as cross-linguistic structural priming and words with typical translation solutions. Lexical effects of salience on the translation process were shown to be more reliable indicators of facilitation in translation than the salience of more abstract linguistic structures – at least if the effect is a result of salience that stems from entrenchment. Since one limitation of our study is its necessarily small sample size, we draw methodological conclusions for improving experimental designs that will be useful for researchers in empirical translation studies.
Keywords: entrenchment, translation experiment, automaticity, default translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants and procedure
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Recording equipment
    • 2.4Eye tracking and keystroke logging recording validity
    • 2.5Statistical analysis
      • Predictor variables
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Product-based results
    • 3.2Process-based results
      • 3.2.1Pause analysis
      • 3.2.2Translation duration
      • 3.2.3Self-revision behaviour
      • 3.2.4Total reading time
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00062.hei
References (75)
References
Baayen, Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, and Douglas M. Bates. 2008. “Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items.” Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4): 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The challenges that lie ahead”. In Terminology, LSP and Translation, edited by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: 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, edited by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 211–238. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, Kamil. 2009. Mu-MIn: Multi-model inference. R Package Version 0.12.2/r18. [URL]
Berg, Thomas. 2017. “Compounding in English and German: A quantitative translation study.” Languages in Contrast 17 (1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNC Consortium. 2007. The British National Corpus, XML Edition. Oxford Text Archive. [URL]
Brysbaert, Marc. 2021. “Power Considerations in Bilingualism Research: Time to step up our game.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24 (5): 813–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael. 2012. “Translog–II: A Program for Recording User Activity Data for Empirical Reading and Writing Research.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Istanbul, Turkey: pp. 4108–4112.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Information and Entropy Measures of Rendered Literal Translation.” In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited by Michael Carl, 113–140. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Barbara Dragsted. 2012. “Inside the Monitor Model: Processes of default and challenged translation production.” Translation: Corpora, Computation, Cognition 2 (1): 127–145.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz Schaeffer. 2017a. “Sketch of a Noisy Channel Model for the Translation Process.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 71–117. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Why Translation Is Difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation.” Hermes 561: 43–57.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. 2016a. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, Moritz Schaeffer, and Srinivas Bangalore. 2016b. “The CRITT Translation Process Research Database.” In New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 13–54. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan D., David Servan-Schreiber, and James L. McClelland. 1992. “A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Automaticity.” The American Journal of Psychology 105 (2): 239–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couto-Vale, Daniel. 2017. “What Does a Translator Do When Not Writing?” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 209–237. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
De Groot, Annette M. B. 1992. “Determinants of Word Translation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18 (5): 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Diependaele, Kevin, Kristin Lemhöfer, and Marc Brysbaert. 2013. “The Word Frequency Effect in First and Second-Language Word Recognition: A lexical entrenchment account.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66 (5): 843–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, and Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris. 2019. “Frequency and Entrenchment.” In Cognitive Linguistics – Foundations of Language, edited by Ewa Dabrowska, and Dagmar Divjak, 61–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 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
Evert, Stefan, and Andrew Hardie. 2011. “Twenty-first Century Corpus Workbench: Updating a query architecture for the new millennium.” In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2011 Conference. University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina, Alfonso Nieto-Castanõn, and Nancy Kanwisher. 2012. “Lexical and Syntactic Representations in the Brain: An fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses.” Neuropsychologia 50 (4): 499–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Aline, Stefan Th. Gries, and John W. Schwieter. 2021. “Assessing Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Professional Translators: A study on language dominance and directionality.” In Translation, Interpreting, Cognition: The Way out of the Box, edited by Tra&Co Group, 115–143. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Austin. 2014. Diagnosing Collinearity in Mixed Models from Lme4, Vif.mer Function. [URL]
Freiwald, Jonas, Arndt Heilmann, Tatiana Serbina, and Stella Neumann. 2020. “Automatization in Translation Behavior: Evidence from a translation experiment for the language pair German-English.” In New Empirical Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting, edited by Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, and Bart Defrancq, 179–212. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Green, Peter, and Catriona J. MacLeod. 2016. “SIMR: An R Package for Power Analysis of Generalized Linear Mixed Models by Simulation.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7 (4): 493–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L. 2015. “Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms: The case of ‘literal translation’.” Translation Spaces 4 (2): 310–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Gravitational Pull in Translation: Testing a revised model.” In Empirical Translation Studies, edited by Gert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, 9–45. Berlin, Boston: DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. “‘Default’ Translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 2 (2): 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. “Translation, Linguistic Commitment and Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 36–50. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia. 2017. “EEG and Universal Language Processing in Translation.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 232–247. Hoboken: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle 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
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Agnes Moors. 2017. “On the Automaticity of Language Processing.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 201–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebb, Donald O. 1949. The Organization of Behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt. 2021. Profiling Effects of Syntactic Complexity in Translation: A multi-method approach. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University.
Heilmann, Arndt, and Carme Llorca-Bofí. 2021. “Analysing the Effects of Lexical Cognates on Translation Properties: A multi-variate product and process based approach.” In Recent Advances in Empirical Translation Process Research, edited by Michael Carl, 203–220. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, and Stella Neumann. 2018. “Processing of Grammatical Metaphor: Insights from Controlled Translation and Reading Experiments.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1 (2): 195–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Daniel Couto-Vale, and Stella Neumann. 2019. “Shorter Than a Text, Longer Than a Sentence: source text length for ecologically valid translation experiments.” Target 11: 98–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Arndt, Tatiana Serbina, Jonas Freiwald, and Stella Neumann. 2021. “Animacy and Agentivity of Subject Themes in English-German Translation.” Lingua 2611: 102813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard. 2011. Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An eye tracking and key-logging study. PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School.
Jolsvai, Hajnal, Stewart M. McCauley, and Morten H. Christiansen. 2020. “Meaningfulness Beats Frequency in Multiword Chunk Processing.” Cognitive Science 44 (10): e12885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jost, Ethan, and Morten H. Christiansen. 2017. “Statistical Learning as a Domain-General Mechanism of Entrenchment.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komsta, Lukasz, and Frederick Novomestky. 2015. Moments: Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. [URL]
Königs, Frank G. 1987. “Was beim Übersetzen passiert. Theoretische Aspekte, empirische Befunde und praktische Konsequenzen.” [What Happens When Translating. Theoretical aspects, empirical findings and practical consequences] Die Neueren Sprachen 86 (2): 162–185.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2015. Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. [URL]
Lacruz, Isabel, Gregory M. Shreve, and Erik Angelone. 2012. “Average Pause Ratio as an Indicator of Cognitive Effort in Post-Editing: A case study.” In Workshop on Post-Editing Technology and Practice. San Diego, California, USA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. [URL]
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma. 2012. “Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of english.” Behavior Research Methods 441: 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monsell, Stephen, Michael C. Doyle, and Patrick N. Haggard. 1989. “Effects of Frequency on Visual Word Recognition Tasks: Where are they?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118 (1): 43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2012. “Just a Matter of Scope.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 169–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and José M. Cardona Guerra. 2018. “Translating in Fits and Starts: Pause thresholds and roles in the research of translation processes.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27 (4): 525–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo, and Celia Martín de Leon. 2018. “Fascinatin’ Rhythm – and Pauses in Translators’ Cognitive Processes.” Hermes 571: 29–47.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1994. “Neurolinguistic Aspects of Implicit and Explicit Memory: Implication for bilingualism and second language acquisition.” In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, edited by Nick Ellis, 393–419. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rayner, Keith. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 years of research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Richard N. Aslin, and Elissa L. Newport. 1996. “Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants.” Science 274 (5294): 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian Tangsgaard 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, edited by Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 183–210. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed. 2017a. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Linguistic Entrenchment and Its Psychological Foundations.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 435–452. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönthal, David. 2016. On the Multifaceted Nature of English Of-NPs. A theoretical, corpus, cotextual and cognitive approach. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.
Schoonbaert, Sofie, Wouter Duyck, Marc Brysbaert, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2009. “Semantic and Translation Priming from a First Language to a Second and Back: Making sense of the findings.” Memory & Cognition 37 (5): 569–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Susanne Flach. 2017. “The Corpus-Based Perspective on Entrenchment.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, edited by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 101–127. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 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
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. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanroy, Bram, Moritz Schaeffer, and Lieve Macken. 2021. “Comparing the Effect of Product-Based Metrics on the Translation Process.” Frontiers in Psychology 121. [URL]. DOI logo
Verhagen, Véronique, Maria Mos, Ad Backus, and Joost Schilperoord. 2018. “Predictive Language Processing Revealing Usage-based Variation.” Language and Cognition 101: 329–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voga, Madeleine, and Jonathan Grainger. 2007. “Cognate Status and Cross-Script Translation Priming.” Memory and Cognition 35 (5): 938–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wicherts, Jelte M., Coosje L. S. Veldkamp, Hilde E. M. Augusteijn, Marjan Bakker, Robbie C. M. van Aert, and Marcel A. L. M. van Assen. 2016. “Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking.” Frontiers in Psychology 71: 1832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Freiwald, Jonas, Zoë Miljanović, Arndt Heilmann & Stella Neumann
2024. Ecological validity in corpus-based and experimental translation research. Ampersand 12 ► pp. 100155 ff. DOI logo
Deilen, Silvana, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Michael Carl
2023. Cognitive aspects of compound translation: Insights into the relation between implicitation and cognitive effort from a translation process perspective. Ampersand 11 ► pp. 100156 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.