Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akbari, Alireza, and Winibert Segers
    2017 “Translation Difficulty: How to Measure and What to Measure.” Lebende Sprachen62 (1): 3–29. 10.1515/les‑2017‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2017-0002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashby, Jane, Keith Rayner, and Charles Clifton
    2005 “Eye Movements of Highly Skilled and Average Readers: Differential Effects of Frequency and Predictability.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A58 (6): 1065–1086. 10.1080/02724980443000476
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000476 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cain, Brad
    2007A Review of the Mental Workload Literature. Technical Report, Defence Research and Development Canada Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell, Stuart
    1999 “A Cognitive Approach to Source Text Difficulty in Translation.” Target11 (1): 33–63. 10.1075/target.11.1.03cam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.03cam [Google Scholar]
  5. Carpenter, Patricia A., and Marcel A. Just
    1989 “The Role of Working Memory in Language Comprehension.” InComplex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon, edited byDavid Klahr and Kenneth Kotovsk, 31–68. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Cognition27 (1): 225–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ehrlich, Susan F., and Keith Rayner
    1981 “Contextual Effects on Word Perception and Eye Movements during Reading.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20 (6): 641–655. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90220‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Evans, James D.
    1996Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbs Jr, Raymond W.
    1990 “Comprehending Figurative Referential Descriptions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition16 (1): 56–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hale, Sandra, and Stuart Campbell
    2002 “The Interaction between Text Difficulty and Translation Accuracy.” Babel8 (1): 14–33. 10.1075/babel.48.1.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.1.02hal [Google Scholar]
  11. Hart, Sandra G., and Lowell E. Staveland
    1988 “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research.” InHuman Mental Workload, edited byPeter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati, 139–183. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62386‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hess, Eckhard H., and James M. Polt
    1964 “Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving.” Science143 (3611): 1190–1192. 10.1126/science.143.3611.1190
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3611.1190 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard
    2011Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. PhD diss. Copenhagen Business School.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014 “Eye Tracking and the Translation Process: Reflections on the Analysis and Interpretation of Eye-tracking Data.” InMinding Translation / Con la traducción en mente, edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín, 201–224. San Vicente del Raspeig: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 Psychology48 (3): 598–612. 10.1080/14640749508401407
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401407 [Google Scholar]
  16. Inhoff, Albrecht Werner
    1984 “Two Stages of Word Processing during Eye Fixations in the Reading of Prose.” Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior23 (5): 612–624. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(84)90382‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90382-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Iqbal, Shamsi T., Xianjun Sam Zheng, and Brian P. Bailey
    2004 “Task-evoked Pupillary Response to Mental Workload in Human-Computer Interaction.” InCHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, edited byElizabeth Dykstra-Erickson and Manfred Tscheligi, 1477–1480. Vienna.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Irwin, David E.
    2004 “Fixation Location and Fixation Duration as Indices of Cognitive Processing.” InThe Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and Visual World, edited byJohn Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira, 105–134. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jensen, Kristian T. H.
    2009 “Indicators of Text Complexity.” InBehind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, edited bySusanne Göpferich, Arnt L. Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 61–80. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Johannsen, Gunnar
    1979 “Workload and Workload Measurement.” InMental Workload: Its Theory and Measurement, edited byNeville Moray, 3–11. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑0884‑4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0884-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Just, Marcel A., and Patricia A. Carpenter
    1980 “A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension.” Psychological Review87 (4): 329–354. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1993 “The Intensity Dimension of Thought: Pupillometric Indices of Sentence Processing.” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology47 (2): 310–339. 10.1037/h0078820
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078820 [Google Scholar]
  23. LeBreton, James M., and Jenell L. Senter
    2008 “Answers to 20 Questions about Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement.” Organizational Research Methods11 (4): 815–852. 10.1177/1094428106296642
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642 [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, Minhua, and Yu-Hsien Chiu
    2011 “Assessing Source Material Difficulty for Consecutive Interpreting.” InInterpreting Chinese, Interpreting China, edited byRobin Setton, 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.29.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.29.08liu [Google Scholar]
  25. Mishra, Abhijit, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Michael Carl
    2013 “Automatically Predicting Sentence Translation Difficulty.” InProceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 346–351. Sofia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. O’Brien, Sharon
    2006 “Eye-tracking and Translation Memory Matches.” Perspectives14 (3): 185–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Paas, Fred G. W. C.
    1992 “Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-Load Approach.” Journal of Educational Psychology84 (4): 429–434. 10.1037/0022‑0663.84.4.429
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 [Google Scholar]
  28. Paas, Fred G. W. C., and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
    1994a “Instructional Control of Cognitive Load in the Training of Complex Cognitive Tasks.” Educational Psychology Review6 (4): 351–371. 10.1007/BF02213420
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1994b “Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach.” Journal of Educational Psychology86 (1): 122–133. 10.1037/0022‑0663.86.1.122
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pavlović, Nataša, and Kristian Jensen
    2009 “Eye Tracking Translation Directionality.” InTranslation Research Projects2, edited byAnthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko, 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pomplun, Marc, and Sindhura Sunkara
    2003 “Pupil Dilation as an Indicator of Cognitive Workload in Human-Computer Interaction.” InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on HCI (Vol.3), 542–546. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rayner, Keith
    1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin124 (3): 372–422. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rayner, Keith, and Arnold D. Well
    1996 “Effects of Contextual Constraint on Eye Movements in Reading: A Further Examination.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review3 (4): 504–509. 10.3758/BF03214555
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214555 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rayner, Keith, and Susan A. Duffy
    1986 “Lexical Complexity and Fixation Times in Reading: Effects of Word Frequency, Verb Complexity, and Lexical Ambiguity.” Memory & Cognition14 (3):191–201. 10.3758/BF03197692
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rayner, Keith, and Martin H. Fischer
    1996 “Mindless Reading Revisited: Eye Movements during Reading and Scanning Are Different.” Perception & Psychophysics58 (5): 734–747. 10.3758/BF03213106
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213106 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rayner, Keith, and Gary E. Raney
    1996 “Eye Movement Control in Reading and Visual Search: Effects of Word Frequency.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review3 (2): 245–248. 10.3758/BF03212426
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212426 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rayner, Keith, Sara C. Sereno, and Gary E. Raney
    1996 “Eye Movement Control in Reading: A Comparison of Two Types of Models.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22 (5): 1188–1200.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schotter, Elizabeth R., and Keith Rayner
    2012 “Eye Movements in Reading: Implications for Reading Subtitles.” InEye Tracking in Audiovisual Translation, edited byElisa Perego, 83–104. Roma: Aracne Editrice.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schultheis, Holger, and Anthony Jameson
    2004 “Assessing Cognitive Load in Adaptive Hypermedia Systems: Physiological and Behavioural Methods.” InAdaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems, edited byWolfgang Nejdl and Paul De Bra, 225–234. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑27780‑4_26
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27780-4_26 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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 Performance32 (2): 335–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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?” InLooking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing, edited byArnt L. Jakobsen, Susanne Göpferich, and Inger M. Mees, 31–51. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Staub, Adrian, and Keith Rayner
    2007 “Eye Movements and On-Line Comprehension Processes.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, edited byM. Gareth Gaskell and Gerry Altmann, 327–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sun, Sanjun
    2015 “Measuring Translation Difficulty: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” Across Languages and Cultures16 (1): 29–54. 10.1556/084.2015.16.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sun, Sanjun, and Gregory M. Shreve
    2014 “Measuring Translation Difficulty: An Empirical Study.” Target26 (1): 98–127. 10.1075/target.26.1.04sun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.1.04sun [Google Scholar]
  45. Sweller, John
    2010 “Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load.” Educational Psychology Review22 (2): 123–138. 10.1007/s10648‑010‑9128‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sweller, John, Jeroen J. G. Van Merrienboer, and Fred G. W. C. Paas
    1998 “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design.” Educational Psychology Review10 (3): 251–296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vauras, Marja, Jukka Hyönä, and Pekka Niemi
    1992 “Comprehending Coherent and Incoherent Texts: Evidence from Eye Movement Patterns and Recall Performance.” Journal of Research in Reading15 (1): 39–54. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.1992.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1992.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Williams, Rihana, and Robin Morris
    2004 “Eye Movements, Word Familiarity, and Vocabulary Acquisition.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16 (1–2): 312–339. 10.1080/09541440340000196
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000196 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zola, David
    1984 “Redundancy and Word Perception during Reading.” Perception & Psychophysics36 (3): 277–284. 10.3758/BF03206369
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206369 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive load; eye-tracking; self-assessment; text complexity; translation difficulty
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error