1887
image of Exploring the impact of word order asymmetry on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of word order asymmetry between source language and target language on cognitive load during Chinese–English sight translation. Twenty-five MA students of translation from a Hong Kong university were asked to sight translate sentences with different degrees of between-language structural asymmetry from Chinese into English, in both single-sentence and discourse context conditions. Their eye movements were recorded to examine cognitive load during sight translation. The results show: (1) There was a significant effect of word order asymmetry on overall cognitive load as indicated by the considerably longer dwell times and more frequent fixations for the asymmetric sentences, but it was only during the later-processing stage that structural asymmetry exerted a strong influence on local processing in terms of first fixation duration and regression path duration; (2) the role of context in offsetting the asymmetry effect was very limited; and (3) although reordering may place a greater burden on working memory, most participants preferred reordering over segmentation to cope with the asymmetric structures. The empirical data point to the need to consider word order asymmetry as a variable in theoretical accounts of the interpreting process, especially for interpreting between languages that are structurally very different.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.19052.ma
2020-12-17
2021-02-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agrifoglio, Marjorie
    2004 “Sight Translation and Interpretation: A Comparative Analysis of Constraints and Failure.” Interpreting6 (1): 43–67. 10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, Barbara
    2017 “Interpretation and Cognition.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 445–460. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altarriba, Jeanette, Judith F. Kroll, Alexandra Sholl, and Keith Rayner
    1996 “The Influence of Lexical and Conceptual Constraints on Reading Mixed-language Sentences: Evidence from Eye Fixations and Naming Times.” Memory & Cognition24 (4): 477–492. 10.3758/BF03200936
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200936 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67 (1):1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bock, Kathryn
    1986 “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production.” Cognitive Psychology18 (3): 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bock, Kathryn, Gary S. Dell, Franklin Chang, and Kristine H. Onishi
    2007 “Persistent Structural Priming from Language Comprehension to Language Production.” Cognition104 (3): 437–58. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bóna, Judit, and Mária Bakti
    2020 “The Effect of Cognitive Load on Temporal and Disfluency Patterns of Speech: Evidence from Consecutive Interpreting and Sight Translation.” Target32 (3): 126–150. 10.1075/target.19041.bon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19041.bon [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, Wallace, and Jane Danielewicz
    1987 “Properties of Spoken and Written Language.” InComprehending Oral and Written Language, edited byRosalind Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels, 83–113. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chalhoub-Deville, Micheline, and Carolyn E. Turner
    2000 “What to Look for in ESL Admission Tests: Cambridge Certificate Exams, IELTS, and TOEFL.” System28: 523–539. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(00)00036‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00036-1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Sijia
    2017 “The Construct of Cognitive Load in Interpreting and its Measurement.” Perspectives25 (4): 640–657. 10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1278026 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Agnieszka Lijewska
    2019 “Syntactic Processing in Sight Translation by Professional and Trainee Interpreters: Professionals are More Time-efficient While Trainees View the Source Text Less.” Target31 (3): 378–397. 10.1075/target.18091.chm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18091.chm [Google Scholar]
  12. Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette M. B. de Groot, and Judith F. Kroll
    2006 “Memory and Language Skills in Simultaneous Interpreters: The Role of Expertise and Language Proficiency.” Journal of Memory and Language54 (3): 324–345. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Conklin, Kathy, and Ana Pellicer-Sánchez
    2016 “Using Eye-tracking in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Research.” Second Language Research32 (3): 453–467. 10.1177/0267658316637401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316637401 [Google Scholar]
  14. Čeňková, Ivana
    2015 “Sight Interpreting/Translation.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited byFranz Pöchhacker, 374–375. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dawrant, Andrew
    1996Word Order in Chinese–English Simultaneous Interpretation: An Initial Exploration. MA diss.Fu-Jen Catholic University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Donato, Valentina
    2003 “Strategies Adopted by Student Interpreters in SI: A Comparison between the English–Italian and the German–Italian Language-Pairs.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 101–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Donovan, Clare
    2005 “Teaching Simultaneous Interpretation into B: A Challenge for Responsible Interpreter Training.” Communication & Cognition: Monographies38 (1–2): 147–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Drieghe, Denis, Alexander Pollatsek, Adrian Staub, and Keith Rayner
    2008 “The Word Grouping Hypothesis and Eye Movements During Reading.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34 (6): 1552–1560.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dussias, Paola E.
    2010 “Uses of Eye-tracking Data in Second Language Sentence Processing Research.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics30: 149–166. 10.1017/S026719051000005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051000005X [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Eyelink Data Viewer 3.1.97 [Computer Software]
    Eyelink Data Viewer 3.1.97 [Computer Software] 2017Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fischler, Ira S., and Paul A. Bloom
    1985 “Effects of Constraint and Validity of Sentence Contexts on Lexical Decisions.” Memory & Cognition13 (2): 128–139. 10.3758/BF03197005
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gile, Daniel
    1990 “The Processing Capacity Issue in Conference Interpretation.” Babel37 (1): 15–27. 10.1075/babel.37.1.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.37.1.04gil [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002 “Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem.” InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, edited byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 162–177. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005 “Teaching Conference Interpreting: A Contribution.” InTraining for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting, edited byMartha Tennent, 127–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.60.12gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.12gil [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011aBasic Concepts and Models of Interpreter and Translator Training. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2011b “Errors, Omissions and Infelicities in Broadcast Interpreting: Preliminary Findings from a Case Study.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, edited byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
  28. Guo, Liangliang
    2011An Analysis of the Word Order Pattern in the SI Target Language and its Underlying Reasons in the Language Combination of English and Chinese (中英文同传语序处理方式的选择与原因研究—基于职业译员体现语序差异的名词性片段译语表现的实证研究). PhD diss.Shanghai International Studies University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Henderson, John M., and Fernanda Ferreira
    1990 “Effects of Foveal Processing Difficulty on the Perceptual Span in Reading: Implications for Attention and Eye Movement Control.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16 (3): 417–429.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ho, Chen-En
    2017An Integrated Eye-tracking Study into the Cognitive Process of English-Chinese Sight Translation: Impacts of Training and Experience. PhD diss.National Taiwan Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hvelplund, Kristian T.
    2011Allocation of Cognitive Resources in Translation: An Eye-tracking and Key-logging Study. PhD diss.Copenhagen Business School.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 “Eye Tracking and the Translation Process: Reflections on the Analysis and Interpretation of Eye-tracking Data.” InMinding Translation / With Translation in Mind, edited byRicardo Muñoz Martín, special issue ofMonTI: Monographs in Translation and Interpreting1: 201–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017 “Eye-tracking in Translation Process Research.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 248–264. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  34. Inhoff, Albrecht Werner, and Weimin Liu
    1998 “The Perceptual Span and Oculomotor Activity during the Reading of Chinese Sentences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24 (1): 20–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ito, Aine, Martin Corley, and Martin J. Pickering
    2018 “A Cognitive Load Delays Predictive Eye Movements Similarly during L1 and L2 Comprehension.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition21 (2): 251–264. 10.1017/S1366728917000050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000050 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jin, Yan, and Jinsong Fan
    2011 “Test for English Majors (TEM) in China.” Language Testing28 (4): 589–596. 10.1177/0265532211414852
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211414852 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas
    1983Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jones, Roderick
    2014Conference Interpreting Explained. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760322
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  39. Just, Marcel Adam, and Patricia Ann Carpenter
    1987The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kantola, Leila, and Roger P. G. van Gompel
    2011 “Between-and Within-language Priming is the Same: Evidence for Shared Bilingual Syntactic Representations.” Memory & Cognition39 (2): 276–290. 10.3758/s13421‑010‑0016‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0016-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuznetsova, Alexander, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
    2017 “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software82 (13): 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lederer, Marianne
    1998 “The Interpretive Theory of Translation: A Brief Survey.” El Lenguaraz: Revista Académica del Colegio de Traductores Públicos de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires [Academic Journal of the College of Sworn Translators of the City of Buenos Aires] 1: 35–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, Jieun
    2012 “What Skills do Student Interpreters Need to Learn in Sight Translation?” Meta57 (3): 695–714.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Levy, Roger
    2008 “Expectation-based Syntactic Comprehension.” Cognition106 (3): 1126–1177. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, Xiangdong
    2015 “Putting Interpreting Strategies in their Place: Justifications for Teaching Strategies in Interpreter Training.” Babel61 (2): 170–192. 10.1075/babel.61.2.02li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.2.02li [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu, Lianli
    2000HSK A Dictionary of Chinese Usage: 8000 Words (汉语8000词词典). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ma, Xingcheng
    2019Effect of Word Order Asymmetry on Cognitive Process of English–Chinese Sight Translation by Interpreting Trainees: Evidence from Eye-tracking. PhD diss.The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Miller, George. A.
    1956 “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review63 (2): 81–97. 10.1037/h0043158
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Brien, Sharon
    2009 “Eye Tracking in Translation Process Research: Methodological Challenges and Solutions.” InMethodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research: A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, edited byInger M. Mees, Fabio Alves, and Susanne Göpferich, 251–266. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pavlović, Nataša, and Kristian T. H. Jensen
    2009 “Eye Tracking Translation Directionality.” InTranslation Research Projects 2, edited byAnthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko, 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2016R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. 2009 “Eye Movements and Attention in Reading, Scene Perception, and Visual Search.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology62 (8):1457–1506. 10.1080/17470210902816461
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rayner, Keith, and Sara C. Sereno
    1994 “Regressive Eye Movements and Sentence Parsing: On the Use of Regression-Contingent Analyses.” Memory & Cognition22 (3): 281–285. 10.3758/BF03200855
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200855 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rayner, Keith, and Simon P. Liversedge
    2004 “Visual and Linguistic Processing during Eye Fixations in Reading.” InThe Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World, edited byJohn M. Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira, 59–104. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schaeffer, Moritz J., Kevin B. Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kirsten Malmkjær
    2017 “Reading for Translation.” InTranslation in Transition: Between Cognition, Computing and Technology, edited byArnt Lykke Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 18–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.133.01sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.133.01sch [Google Scholar]
  58. Schoonbaert, Sofie, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Martin J. Pickering
    2007 “The Representation of Lexical and Syntactic Information in Bilinguals: Evidence from Syntactic Priming.” Journal of Memory and Language56 (2): 153–171. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schustack, Miriam W., Susan F. Ehrlich, and Keith Rayner
    1987 “Local and Global Sources of Contextual Facilitation in Reading.” Journal of Memory and Language26 (3): 322–340. 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90117‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90117-3 [Google Scholar]
  60. Seeber, Kilian G.
    2011 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Existing Theories – New Models.” Interpreting13 (2): 176–204. 10.1075/intp.13.2.02see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.13.2.02see [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Measures and Methods.” Target25 (1): 18–32. 10.1075/target.25.1.03see
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.03see [Google Scholar]
  62. Seeber, Kilian G., and Dirk Kerzel
    2012 “Cognitive Load in Simultaneous Interpreting: Model Meets Data.” International Journal of Bilingualism16 (2): 228–242. 10.1177/1367006911402982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911402982 [Google Scholar]
  63. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1978Interpreting for International Conferences: Problems of Language and Communication. Washington, DC: Pen & Booth.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
    2011 “Sight Translation and Speech Disfluency: Performance Analysis as a Window to Cognitive Translation Processes.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research, edited byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.09shr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.09shr [Google Scholar]
  66. SR Research Experiment Builder 2.1.140 [Computer Software]
    SR Research Experiment Builder 2.1.140 [Computer Software] 2017Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: SR Research Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Staub, Adrian
    2010 “Eye Movements and Processing Difficulty in Object Relative Clauses.” Cognition116 (1): 71–86. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  68. Staub, Adrian, Keith Rayner, Alexander Pollatsek, Jukka Hyönä, and Helen Majewski
    2007 “The Time Course of Plausibility Effects on Eye Movements in Reading: Evidence from Noun-noun Compounds.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition33 (6): 1162–1169.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sung, Yao-Ting, Jung-Yueh Tu, Jih-Ho Cha, and Ming-Da Wu
    2016 “Processing Preference Toward Object-extracted Relative Clauses in Mandarin Chinese by L1 and L2 Speakers: An Eye-tracking Study.” Frontiers in Psychology7 (4): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Ullman, Michael T.
    2001 “The Neural Basis of Lexicon and Grammar in First and Second Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition4 (2): 105–122. 10.1017/S1366728901000220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000220 [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus, and Walter Kintsch
    1983Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Viaggio, Sergio
    1995 “The Praise of Sight Translation (and Squeezing the Last Drop Thereout of).” The Interpreters’ Newsletter6: 33–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang, Binhua, and Yukui Gu
    2016 “An Evidence-based Exploration into the Effect of Language-pair Specificity in English–Chinese Simultaneous Interpreting.” Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies3 (2): 146–160. 10.1080/23306343.2016.1182238
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2016.1182238 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, Binhua, and Bing Zou
    2018 “Exploring Language Specificity as a Variable in Chinese–English Interpreting: A Corpus-Based Investigation.” InMaking Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, edited byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 65–82. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  75. Warren, Tessa, White, Sarah J., and Erik D. Reichle
    2009 “Investigating the Causes of Wrap-up Effects: Evidence from Eye Movements and E–Z Reader.” Cognition111: 132–137. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.011 [Google Scholar]
  76. White, Sarah J.
    2008 “Eye Movement Control during Reading: Effects of Word Frequency and Orthographic Familiarity.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance34 (1): 205–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wu, Yinyin, and Posen Liao
    2018 “Re-conceptualising Interpreting Strategies for Teaching Interpretation into a B Language.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer12 (2): 188–206. 10.1080/1750399X.2018.1451952
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1451952 [Google Scholar]
  78. Yan, Guoli, Jianping Xiong, Chuanli Zang, Lili Yu, Lei Cui, and Xuejun Bai
    2013 “Review of Eye-Movement Measures in Reading Research (阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述).” Advances in Psychological Science21 (4): 589–605. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589
    https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.19052.ma
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.19052.ma
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: eye movements; word order asymmetry; cognitive load; sight translation
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