1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
2018-09-27
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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 Studies9 (1): 25–51. doi: 10.1075/tis.9.1.02alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.02alv [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone , 109–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xv.07alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.07alv [Google Scholar]
  3. 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.” InNew 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: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas , Martin Maechler , Ben Bolker , and Steven Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using {lme4}.” Journal of Statistical Software67 (1): 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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.” Cognition127 (3): 287–306. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Cognition16 (1): 183–197. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000223
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000223 [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, Stuart
    2000 “Critical Structures in the Evaluation of Translations from Arabic into English as a Second Language.” The Translator6 (2): 211–229. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2000.10799066
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799066 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Carl, Michael , Barbara Dragsted , and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen
    2011 “A Taxonomy of Human Translation Styles.” Translation Journal16 (2). Available attranslationjournal.net/journal/56taxonomy.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couto Vale, Daniel
    2017 “What Does a Translator Do when Not Writing?” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting. Edited by S. Hansen-Schirra , O. Czulo , and S. Hofman , 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dragsted, Barbara
    2005 “Segmentation in Translation: Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty.” Target17 (1): 49–70. doi: 10.1075/target.17.1.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.1.04dra [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010 “Coordination of Reading and Writing Processes in Translation: An Eye on Uncharted Territory.” InTranslation and Cognition. Edited by G. Shreve and E. Angelone , 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ata.xv.04dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012 “Indicators of Difficulty in Translation: Correlating Product and Process.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 81–98. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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.” InLooking 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]
  15. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Göpferich, Susanne
    2008Translationsprozessforschung: Stand—Methoden—Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael. A. K.
    1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael. A. K. , and James R. Martin
    eds. 1993Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1999Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2013An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203431269
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen, Silvia
    2003The Nature of Translated Text: An Interdisciplinary Methodology for the Investigation of the Specific Properties of Translations. PhD dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Stella Neumann , and Erich Steiner
    eds. 2012Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , and Erich Steiner
    2012 “Towards a Typology of Translation Properties.” InCross-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: 10.1515/9783110260328.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.255 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 Science15 (6): 409–414. doi: 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00693.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill-Madsen, Aage
    2015 “The ‘Unpacking’ of Grammatical Metaphor as an Intralingual Translation Strategy: From De-Metaphorization to Clausal Paraphrase.” InTranslation and Comprehensibility. Edited by K. Maksymski , S. Gutermuth , and S. Hansen-Schirra , 195–226. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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 Linguistics11 (3): 437–474. doi: 10.1017/S1360674307002341
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002341 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke , and Kristian T. H. Jensen
    2008 “Eye Movement Behaviour across Four Different Types of Reading Task.” InLooking 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]
  28. Kuznetsova, Alexandra , Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen , and Per Bruun Brockhoff
    2016lmertest: Tests for Random and Fixed Effects for Linear Mixed Effect Models (lmer Objects of lme4 Package). R Package Version 2.0-32. www.cran.rproject.org/package=lmerTest/.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Loebell, Helga , and Kathryn Bock
    2003 “Structural Priming Across Languages.” Linguistics41 (5): 791–824. doi: 10.1515/ling.2003.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.026 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lörscher, Wolfgang
    1996 “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Translation Processes.” Meta41 (1): 26–32. doi: 10.7202/003518ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003518ar [Google Scholar]
  33. Lothmann, Timo , and Tatiana Serbina
    2017 “On the Overlap of Grammatical Metaphor and Conceptual Metaphor in Political Discourse: A Reconciliatory Approach”. InChallenging 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]
  34. Martin, Jim R.
    1993 “Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts.” InWriting Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Edited by M. A. K. Halliday and J. R. Martin , 203–220. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Neumann, Stella , Adriana Pagano , Fabio Alves , Pirita Pyykkönen , and Igor da Silva
    2010 “Targeting (De-) Metaphorization: Process-Based Insights.” Paper presented at the22nd ESFCW, Koper, Slovenija, July 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pavlović, Nataša , and Kristian T. H. Jensen
    2009 “Eye Tracking Translation Directionality.” InTranslation Research Projects 2. Edited by A. Pym and A. Perekrestenko , 93–109. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Avaliable atwww.R-project.org/.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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]
  39. 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.” InNew 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: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sáenz, Francisco Santibáñez
    2000 “Halliday’s Grammatical Metaphor, Conceptualization and Linguistic Construal.” Epos: Revista de filología16: 497–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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 Contrast7: 1–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sušinskienė, Solveiga
    2008 “Grammatical Metaphors as Ideological Micro-Components of Political Discourse.” Filologija13: 129–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Taverniers, Miriam
    2003 “Grammatical Metaphor in SFL: A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” InGrammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Edited by A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen , M. Taverniers , and L. Ravelli , 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.236.02tav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.02tav [Google Scholar]
  44. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta50 (2): 405–414. doi: 10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  46. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja , Jukka Mäkisalo , and Sini Immonen
    2008 “The Translation Process: Interplay between Literal Rendering and a Search for Sense.” Across Languages and Cultures9 (1): 1–15. doi: 10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tokowicz, Natasha
    2014 “Translation Ambiguity Affects Language Processing, Learning, and Representation.” InSelected 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): eyetracking , grammatical metaphor , keylogging and psycholinguistic experiments
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