1887
image of Workload and cognitive architecture
in translation
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article endeavours to sketch out a consistent merger of models of language production and bilingualism that are currently used in the fields of Translation and Interpreting and of psycholinguistics. The workload resource of Cognitive Verbal Processing and the processing components that it serves are found to be of particular interest in this interdisciplinary perspective. Known psycholinguistic effects that involve workload (i.e., a function of activation energy) are outlined with particular emphasis on their possible relevance in translation processing. This suggests a number of potential lines of research for both fields.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00066.mai
2022-09-06
2022-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abutalebi, Jubin & David W. Green
    2007 “Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control”. Cognition20 (3): 242–275. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernolet, Sarah, Robert J. Hartsuiker & Martin J. Pickering
    2007 “Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition33 (5): 931–949. 10.1037/0278‑7393.33.5.931
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.931 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bock, Kathryn J.
    1986 “Syntactic persistence in language production.” Cognitive Psychology18: 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. de Bot, Kees
    1992 “A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted.” Applied Linguistics13 (1): 1–24. 10.1093/applin/13.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Branigan, Holly P.
    2007 “Structural Priming.” Language and Linguistics Compass1 (1–2): 1–16. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2006.00001.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2006.00001.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Brysbaert, Marc & Wouter Duyck
    2010 “Is it time to leave behind the revised hierarchical model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service?” Bilingualism: Language and cognition13 (3): 359–371. 10.1017/S1366728909990344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990344 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caramazza, Alfonso & Michele Miozzo
    1998 “More is not always better: A response to Roelofs, Meyer, and Levelt.” Cognition69 (2): 231–241. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00057‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00057-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carl, Michael & Moritz J. Schaeffer
    2017 “Why translation is difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation.” HERMES—Journal of Language and Communication in Business56: 43–57. 10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97201
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v0i56.97201 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carroll, Patrick & Maria L. Slowiaczek
    1986 “Constraints on semantic priming in reading: A fixation time analysis.” Memory & Cognition14 (6): 509–522. 10.3758/BF03202522
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202522 [Google Scholar]
  10. Castagnoli, Sara
    2020 “Translation choices compared: Investigating variation in a learner translation corpus.” InTranslating and Comparing Languages: Corpus-based insights. Edited bySylviane Granger & Marie-Aude Lefer, 25–44. Louvain-la-Neuve: PU.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang, Franklin, Kathryn J. Bock & Adele Goldberg
    2003 “Can thematic roles leave traces of their places?” Cognition96 (1): 29–49. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00123‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Corley, Martin & Christoph Scheepers
    2002 “Syntactic Priming in English sentence production: Categorical and latency evidence.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9 (1): 126–131. 10.3758/BF03196267
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196267 [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa, Albert, & Mikel Santesteban
    2004 “Lexical access in bilingual speech production. Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners.” Journal of Memory and Language50: 491–511. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dell, Gary S.
    1986 “A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in Sentence Production.” Psychological Review93 (3): 283–321. 10.1037/0033‑295X.93.3.283
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dijkstra, Ton, Jonathan Grainger & Walter J. B. van Heuven
    1999 “Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology.” Journal of Memory and Language41: 496–518. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dole, Janice A., Jeffery D. Noke, & Dina Drits
    2009 “Cognitive Strategy Instruction.” InHandbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. Edited bySusan E. Israel & Gerald G. Duffy, 347–372. New York: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duyck, Wouter, Dieter Vanderelst, Timothy Desmet & Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2008 “The frequency effect in second-language visual word recognition.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review15 (4): 850–855. 10.3758/PBR.15.4.850
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.850 [Google Scholar]
  18. eng_news_2020. (English news corpus based on material from 2020.)
    eng_news_2020. (English news corpus based on material from 2020.)Leipzig Corpora Collection. Accessed25 February 2022. https://corpora.uni-leipzig.de?corpusId=eng_news_2020
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eskola, Sari
    2002 Syntetisoivat rakenteet kaannossuomessa. Suomennetun kaunokirjallisuuden ominaispiirteiden tarkastelua korpusmenetelmilla. [Synthesising structures in translated Finnish. A corpus-based analysis of the special features of Finnish literary translations]. PhD dissertation, University of Joensuu.
  20. 2004 “Untypical frequencies in translated language. A corpus-based study on a literary corpus of translated and non-translated Finnish.” InTranslation Universals: Do they Exist?Edited byAnna Mauranen & Pekka Kujamäki, 83–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.08esk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.08esk [Google Scholar]
  21. Gile, Daniel
    1995Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8(1st) [Google Scholar]
  22. 1997 “Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Edited byJoseph H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain & Michael K. McBeath, 196–214. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1999 “Testing the Effort Models’ Tightrope Hypothesis in Simultaneous Interpreting—A contribution.” HERMES—Journal of Language and Communication in Business23: 153–172. 10.7146/hjlcb.v12i23.25553
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v12i23.25553 [Google Scholar]
  24. van Gompel, Roger P. G., Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson & Gunnar Jacob
    2006 “The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming.” Journal of Memory and Language55 (3): 335–362. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Green, David W.
    1986 “Control, activation, and resource. A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals.” Brain and Language27: 210–223. 10.1016/0093‑934X(86)90016‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(86)90016-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Harris, Brian & Bianca Sherwood
    1978 “Translating as an innate skill.” InLanguage Interpreting and Communication. Edited byDavid Gerver & H. Wallace Sinaiko, 155–170. New York: Plenum. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_15 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Martin J. Pickering
    2008 “Language integration in bilingual sentence production.” Acta Psychologica128 (3): 479–489. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering & Eline Veltkamp
    2004 “Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals.” Psychological Science15 (6): 409–414. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00693.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x [Google Scholar]
  29. van Hell, Janet G. & Darren Tanner
    2012 “Second Language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation.” Language Learning62 (s2): 148–171. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00710.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00710.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Isham, William P.
    1994 “Memory for sentence form after Simultaneous Interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization.” InBridging The Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Edited bySylvie Lambert & Barbara Moser Mercer, 191–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.3.15ish
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.15ish [Google Scholar]
  31. Ivanova, Iva & Albert Costa
    2008 “Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production?” Acta Psychologica127: 277–288. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacob, Gunnar, Kalliopi Katsika, Neiloufar Family & Shanley E. M. Allen
    2017 “The role of constituent order and level of embedding in cross-linguistic Structural Priming. Bilingualism: Language and cognition20 (2): 269–282. 10.1017/S1366728916000717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000717 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jacob, Gunnar, Moritz Schaeffer, Katharina Oster, Silvia Hansen-Schirra & Shanley Allen
    2021 “Towards a methodological toolset for the psycholinguistics of translation. The case of priming paradigms.” Cognitive Linguistic Studies8 (2): 440–461. 10.1075/cogls.00085.jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00085.jac [Google Scholar]
  34. 2021 “Cross-linguistic structural priming in translation students.” Presentation, ICTIC3—Third International Conference on Translation, Interpreting and Cognition, Forlì, 02–05 November 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kahneman, Daniel
    1973Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kroll, Judith F. & Erika Stewart
    1994 “Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.” Journal of Memory and Language33: 149–174. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kroll, Judith F., Janet G. van Hell, Natasha Tokowicz & David Green
    2010 “The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition13 (3): 373–381. 10.1017/S136672891000009X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000009X [Google Scholar]
  38. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1989Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Meyer
    1999 “A theory of lexical access in Speech Production.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences22 (1): 1–75. 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  40. Loebell, Helga & Kathryn J. Bock
    2003 “Structural priming across languages.” Linguistics41 (5): 791–824. 10.1515/ling.2003.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.026 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering & Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2017 “Does translation involve structural priming?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology70 (8): 1575–1589. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439 [Google Scholar]
  42. Malakoff, Marguerite & Kenji Hakuta
    1991 “Translation skill and and metalinguistic awareness in Bilinguals.” InLanguage Processing in Bilingual Children. Edited byEllen Bialystok, 141–166. Cambridge: UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620652.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620652.009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Marslen-Wilson, William D.
    2001 “Access to lexical representations: Cross-linguistic issues.” Language and Cognitive Processes16 (5/6): 699–708. 10.1080/01690960143000164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000164 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mauranen, Anna
    2006 “Translation universals.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol.17). Edited byKeith Brown, 93–100. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00492‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00492-2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Meara, Paul
    2005 “Lexical Frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis.” Applied Linguistics26 (1): 32–47. 10.1093/applin/amh037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh037 [Google Scholar]
  46. Paradis, Michel
    1987 “Neurolinguistic perspectives on bilingualism.” InThe Assessment of Bilingual Aphasia. Edited byMichel Paradis & George Libben, 1–17. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 “Toward a Neurolinguistic Theory of Simultaneous Translation: The Framework.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics10 (3): 319–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pavlenko, Aneta & Barbara C. Malt
    2011 “Kitchen Russian: Cross-linguistic differences and first-language object naming by Russian-English bilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and cognition14 (1): 19–45. 10.1017/S136672891000026X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891000026X [Google Scholar]
  49. Pickering, Martin J. & Holly P. Branigan
    1998 “The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in Language Production.” Journal of Memory and Language39: 633–651. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 [Google Scholar]
  50. Robert, Isabelle S.
    2021 “Sight Translation into L2 French: An action research study into source language interferences.” Presentation, ICTIC3—Third International Conference on Translation, Interpreting and Cognition. Forlì, 02–05 November 2021.
  51. Roelofs, Ardi
    1997 “The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production.” Cognition64 (3): 249–284. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(97)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  52. Roelofs, Ardi; Antje S. Meyer & Willem J. M. Levelt
    1998 “A case for the lemma/lexeme distinction in models of speaking: Comment on Caramazza and Miozzo (1997).” Cognition69 (2): 219–230. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00056‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00056-0 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schaeffer, Moritz & Michael Carl
    2013 “Shared representations and the translation process. A recursive model.” Translation and Interpreting Studies8 (2): 169–190. 10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  54. Schoonbaert, Sofie, Robert J. Hartsuiker & 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]
  55. 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]
  56. Seeber, Kilian G. & Dirk Kerzel
    2011 “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]
  57. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1976 “Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating.” InTranslation. Applications and Research. Edited byRichard W. Brislin, 92–116. New York: Gardner.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Slowiaczek, Louisa M., Howard C. Nusbaum & David B. Pisoni
    1987 “Phonological priming in auditory word recognition.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition13 (1): 64–75. 10.1037/0278‑7393.13.1.64
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.64 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stemberger, Joseph P. & Brian MacWhinney
    1986 “Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms.” Memory & Cognition14 (1): 17–26. 10.3758/BF03209225
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209225 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stewart, Oliver W. T.
    2014 The influence of limiting working memory resources on contextual facilitation in language processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
  61. Tokowicz, Natasha, Judith F. Kroll, Annette M. B. de Groot & Janet G. van Hell
    2002 “Number-of-translation norms for Dutch-English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers34 (3): 435–451. 10.3758/BF03195472
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195472 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ullman, Michael
    2001 “The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research30 (1): 37–69. 10.1023/A:1005204207369
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005204207369 [Google Scholar]
  63. Whyatt, Bogusława & Mateusz Marczyk
    2021 “The same, similar, or different? Syntactic priming and the order of information in L1 and L2 translation.” Presentation, ICTIC3—Third International Conference on Translation, Interpreting and Cognition. Forlì, 02–05 November 2021.
  64. Wickens, Christopher D.
    1984 “Processing resources in attention.” InVarieties of Attention. Edited byRaja Parasuraman & David R. Davies, 63–102. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2002 “Multiple resources and performance mediation.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science3 (2): 159–177. 10.1080/14639220210123806
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2008 “Multiple resources and mental workload.” Human Factors50: 449–455. 10.1518/001872008X288394
    https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wingfield, Arthur
    1968 “Effects of frequency on identification and naming of objects.” The American Journal of Psychology81 (2): 226–34. 10.2307/1421267
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1421267 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00066.mai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00066.mai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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