Measuring the difficulty of text translation: The combination of text-focused and translator-oriented approaches
Yanmei Liu,Binghan Zheng and Hao Zhou
Shandong University of Finance and Economics | Durham University
This paper explores the impact of text complexity on translators’ subjective perception of translation difficulty
and on their cognitive load. Twenty-six MA translation students from a UK university were asked to translate three English texts
with different complexity into Chinese. Their eye movements were recorded by an eye-tracker, and their cognitive load was
self-assessed with a Likert scale before translation and NASA-TLX scales after translation. The results show that: (i) the
intrinsic complexity measured by readability, word frequency and non-literalness was in line with the results received from
informants’ subjective assessment of translation difficulty; (ii) moderate and positive correlations existed between most items in
the self-assessments and the indicator (fixation and saccade durations) obtained by the eye-tracking measurements; and (iii) the
informants’ cognitive load as indicated by fixation and saccade durations (but not for pupil size) increased significantly in two
of the three texts along with the increase in source text complexity.
The significance of measuring the difficulty of a source text for translation pedagogy and research has received some attention in the past two decades (e.g., Hale and Campbell 2002; Jensen 2009; Mishra, Bhattacharyya, and Carl 2013; Sun and Shreve 2014). To investigate the degree of translation difficulty caused by the variable text complexity, researchers have based their examinations either on readability alone (Pavlović and Jensen 2009), or on a combination of readability and other indicators, such as word frequency, sentence structure and non-literalness (Sharmin, Spakov, Räihä, and Jakobsen 2008; Jensen 2009). Measurement has generally been centred around the level of text complexity – for instance, character length, syllable length and sentence length – while ignoring other important factors, such as conceptual complexity, text organisation, or reader’s background knowledge (Liu and Chiu 2011, 149). Nevertheless, the textual factors can account only partially for the text’s level of translation difficulty (Sun and Shreve 2014, 98), since the construct of translation difficulty originates from the interaction between task and its translator. Therefore, translation difficulty should be measured in both texts and the profiles of translators working with the texts.
Akbari, Alireza, and Winibert Segers
2017 “Translation Difficulty: How to Measure and What to Measure.” Lebende Sprachen 62 (1): 3–29.
1989 “The Role of Working Memory in Language Comprehension.” In Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon, edited by David Klahr and Kenneth Kotovsk, 31–68. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Chaffin, Roger, Robin K. Morris, and Rachel E. Seely
2001 “Learning New Word Meanings from Context: A Study of Eye Movements.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27 (1): 225–235.
1981 “Contextual Effects on Word Perception and Eye Movements during Reading.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20 (6): 641–655.
Evans, James D.
1996Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Gibbs Jr, Raymond W.
1990 “Comprehending Figurative Referential Descriptions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 16 (1): 56–66.
Hale, Sandra, and Stuart Campbell
2002 “The Interaction between Text Difficulty and Translation Accuracy.” Babel 8 (1): 14–33.
Hart, Sandra G., and Lowell E. Staveland
1988 “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research.” In Human Mental Workload, edited by Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, 139–183. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hess, Eckhard H., and James M. Polt
1964 “Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving.” Science 143 (3611): 1190–1192.
2011Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. PhD diss. Copenhagen Business School.
Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
2014 “Eye Tracking and the Translation Process: Reflections on the Analysis and Interpretation of Eye-tracking Data.” In Minding Translation / Con la traducción en mente, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, 201–224. San Vicente del Raspeig: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
Hyönä, Jukka, Jorma Tommola, and Anna-Mari Alaja
1995 “Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48 (3): 598–612.
Iqbal, Shamsi T., Xianjun Sam Zheng, and Brian P. Bailey
2004 “Task-evoked Pupillary Response to Mental Workload in Human-Computer Interaction.” In CHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, edited by Elizabeth Dykstra-Erickson and Manfred Tscheligi, 1477–1480. Vienna.
Irwin, David E.
2004 “Fixation Location and Fixation Duration as Indices of Cognitive Processing.” In The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and Visual World, edited by John Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira, 105–134. New York: Psychology Press.
2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, edited by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 61–80. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
2003 “Pupil Dilation as an Indicator of Cognitive Workload in Human-Computer Interaction.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on HCI (Vol. 3), 542–546. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3): 372–422.
1996 “Eye Movement Control in Reading: A Comparison of Two Types of Models.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22 (5): 1188–1200.
Schotter, Elizabeth R., and Keith Rayner
2012 “Eye Movements in Reading: Implications for Reading Subtitles.” In Eye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation, edited by Elisa Perego, 83–104. Roma: Aracne Editrice.
Schultheis, Holger, and Anthony Jameson
2004 “Assessing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Hypermedia Systems: Physiological and Behavioural Methods.” In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems, edited by Wolfgang Nejdl and Paul De Bra, 225–234. Berlin: Springer.
Sereno, Sara C., Patrick J. O’Donnell, and Keith Rayner
2006 “Eye Movements and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Investigating the Subordinate-Bias Effect.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32 (2): 335–350.
Sharmin, Selina, Oleg Spakov, Kari-Jouko Räihä, and Arnt L. Jakobsen
2008 “Where on the Screen Do Translation Students Look While Translating, and for How Long?” In Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited by Arnt L. Jakobsen, Susanne Göpferich, and Inger M. Mees, 31–51. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.