1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines word order asymmetry as one prominent obstacle in the cognitive process of English–Chinese sight translation. A within-subject experiment was designed for 23 MA translation students who sight translated sentences with different degrees of structural asymmetry from English into Chinese in both single sentence and discourse contexts. To measure cognitive load, participants’ eye movements during translation were recorded using an eye tracker. Three major findings were generated: (1) The effect of word order asymmetry was confirmed on both sentence-based and word-based processing; (2) Contextual information did not contribute to less effortful processing in the discourse context (as indicated by more fixations and longer regressions); (3) Segmentation was used far more frequently than restructuring to address asymmetric structures. We expect these findings will enrich our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms involved in interpreting between languages that are structurally very different and help inform training practices.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
2024-03-22
2024-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agriofolio, Marjorie
    2004 “Sight translation and interpretation: A comparative analysis of constraints and failure.” Meta6(1): 43–67. 10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, In-Kyoung
    2005 “Pedagogical considerations of perspective coherence problems in simultaneous interpreting as a result of linguistic structure, illustrated by German-Korean examples.” Meta50(2): 696–712. 10.7202/011012ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/011012ar [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrens, Barbara
    2017 “Interpretation and cognition.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 445–460. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch24
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balling, Laura, Kristian Hvelplund, and Annette Sjørup
    2014 “Evidence of parallel processing during translation.” Meta59(2): 234–259. 10.7202/1027474ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1027474ar [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartón, Kamil
    2023 “MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference.” R Package version 1.47.5.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Bock, J. Kathryn
    1986 “Syntactic persistence in language production.” Cognitive Psychology18(3): 355–87. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Chappell, Hilary, and Dingxu Shi
    2016 “Major non-canonical clause types: ba and bei.” InA Reference Grammar of Chinese, ed. byChuren Huang and Dingxu Shi, 451–467. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028462.016
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028462.016 [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 Iwona Mazur
    2013 “Eye tracking sight translation performed by trainee interpreters.” InTracks and Treks in Translation Studies, ed. byWay Catherine, Sonia Vandepitte, and Reine Meylaerts, 189–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.108.10chm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.10chm [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Christoffels, Ingrid K., Annette MB 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]
  14. Clifton Jr., Charles, and Adrian Staub
    2011 “Syntactic influences on eye movements in reading.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements, ed. bySimon Liversedge, Iain Gilchrist, and Stefan Everling, 895–909. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0049
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199539789.013.0049 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clifton Jr, Charles, Adrian Staub, and Keith Rayner
    2007 “Eye movements in reading words and sentences.” Eye Movements: 341–371. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50017‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cobb, Tom
    2002 “Web vocabprofile (v. 3 Classic).” www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/
  17. 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]
  18. Čeňková, Ivana
    2015 “Sight translation/interpreting.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed.Franz Pöchhacker, 374–375. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dawrant, Andrew
    1996 Word Order in Chinese-English Simultaneous Interpretation – an Initial Exploration. M.A. Thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. de Groot, Annette M. B., and Ingrid K. Christoffels
    2007 “Processes and mechanisms of bilingual control: Insights from monolingual task performance extended to simultaneous interpretation.” Journal of Translation Studies10(1): 17–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Donato, Valentina
    2003 “Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian language pairs.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter121: 101–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. Gile, Daniel
    2005 “Teaching conference interpreting: a contribution.” InTraining for the New Millennium, ed. byMartha Tennent, 127–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.60.12gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.12gil [Google Scholar]
  25. 2009 Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2011 “Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: preliminary findings from a case study.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research. Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. 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]
  27. Guo, Liangliang
    2011 An Analysis of the Word Order Pattern in the SI Target Language and its Underlying Reasons in the Language Combination of English and Chinese. PhD Diss. Shanghai International Studies University.
  28. Ho, Chen-En
    2017 An Integrated Eye-tracking Study into the Cognitive Process of English-Chinese Sight Translation: Impacts of Training and Experience. PhD Diss. National Taiwan Normal University.
  29. Hveplund, Kristian T.
    2017 “Eye-tracking in translation process research.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 248–264. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas
    1983 Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones, R.
    2014 Conference Interpreting Explained. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760322
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kantola, Leila, and Roger PG 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]
  34. Kintsch, Walter
    2004 “The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction.” Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading51: 1270–1328. 10.1598/0872075028.46
     https://doi.org/10.1598/0872075028.46 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuznetsova, Alexander, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
    2016 “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]
  36. Lederer, Marianne
    1981 La Traduction Simultanée: Expérience et Théorie. Paris: Minard.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, T. H.
    2002 “Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation.” Meta47(4): 596–606. 10.7202/008039ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/008039ar [Google Scholar]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. Liontou, Konstantina
    2011 “Strategies in German-to-Greek simultaneous interpreting: A corpus-based approach.” Gramma191: 37–56. 10.26262/gramma.v19i0.6325
     https://doi.org/10.26262/gramma.v19i0.6325 [Google Scholar]
  41. Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A.
    1981 A Functional Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520352858
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  42. Maier, Robert M., Martin J. Pickering, and Robert J. Hartsuiker
    2017 “Does translation involve structural priming?” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8): 1575–1589. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2022 “Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior5(1): 1–26. 10.1075/tcb.00061.mel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, George. A.
    1956 “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.” Psychological Review631: 81–97. 10.1037/h0043158
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 [Google Scholar]
  45. Paas, Fred, Juhani Tuovinen, Huib Tabbers, and Pascal W. M. Van Gerven
    (2003) “Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory.” Educational Psychologist38(1): 63–71. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 10.4324/9780203504802
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  47. Qin, Yaqin, and Qun He
    2009 English-Chinese Sight Interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2016 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. 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]
  52. 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, ed. byJohn Henderson and Fernanda Ferreira, 59–104. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Riccardi, Alessandra
    1995 “Language-specific strategies in simultaneous interpreting.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting 3, ed. byCay Dollerup, and Vibeke Appel, 213–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.16.30ric
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.16.30ric [Google Scholar]
  54. Rojo, Ana, and Javier Valenzuela
    2013 “Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation. Theoretical and Applied Models, ed. byAna Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 283–310. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.283 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schaeffer, Moritz, and 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]
  56. Schaeffer, Moritz, Barbara Dragsted, Kristian T. Hvelplund, Laura Winther Balling, and Michael Carl
    2016 “Translation entropy: evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation.” InNew Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB, ed. byMichael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore, and Moritz Schaeffer, 183–210. London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20358‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schaeffer, Moritz, Kevin B. Paterson, Victoria A. McGowan, Sarah J. White, and Kirsten Malmkjær
    2017 “Reading for translation.” InTranslation in Transition between Cognition Computing and Technology, ed. byArnt L. Jakobsen and Bartolomé Mesa-Lao, 17–53. 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): 153–71. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schustack, M. W., S. F. Ehrlich, and K. 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. Schultheis, Holger, and Anthony Jameson
    2004 “Assessing cognitive load in adaptive hypermedia systems: Physiological and behavioral methods.” InInternational conference on adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems, 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]
  61. Seeber, Kilian. G.
    2001 “Intonation and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting.” Cahiers de Linguistique Française231: 61–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1978 Interpreting for International Conferences: Problems of Language and Communication. Washington, DC: Pen & Booth.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 1984 “Les anticipations de la compréhension.” InInterpréter pour Traduire, ed. byDanica Seleskovitch and Marianne Lederer, 273–283. Paris: Didier Erudition.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Setton, Robin
    1999 Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  67. Shlesinger, Miriam
    2003 “Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter121: 37–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Shreve, Gregory M., Isabel Lacruz, and Erik Angelone
    2011 “Sight translation and speech disfluency.” InMethods and Strategies of Process Research, ed. 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]
  69. Su, Wenchao, and Defeng Li
    2019 “Identifying translation problems in English-Chinese sight translation.” Translation and Interpreting Studies14(1): 110–134. 10.1075/tis.00033.su
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00033.su [Google Scholar]
  70. Toury, Gideon
    2012 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond: Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  71. Tyler, Andrea
    1994 “The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: signaling logical and prominence relations.” Applied Linguistics15(3): 243–262. 10.1093/applin/15.3.243
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  72. Tyler, Andrea, and Catherine Davies
    1990 “Cross-linguistic communication missteps.” Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse10(4): 385–412. 10.1515/text.1.1990.10.4.385
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1990.10.4.385 [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus, and Walter Kintsch
    1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Van den Broek, Paul, Michael Young, Yuhtsuen Tzeng, and Tracy Linderholm
    1999 “The landscape model of reading: inferences and the online construction of a memory representation.” The Construction of Mental Representations during Reading: 71–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Wan, Hongyu
    2005 A Cognitive Study of Sight Translation: with Implications for Undergraduate Interpreting Training. PhD Dissertation. Shanghai International Studies University.
  76. Wang, Binhua
    2012 “A descriptive study of norms in interpreting: based on the Chinese–English consecutive interpreting corpus of Chinese premier press conferences.” Meta57(1): 198–212. 10.7202/1012749ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1012749ar [Google Scholar]
  77. 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]
  78. Wang, Binhua and Bin Zou
    2018 “Exploring language specificity as a variable in Chinese-English interpreting. A corpus-based investigation.” InMaking Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. 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]
  79. 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. 10.1037/0096.1523.34.1.205
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096.1523.34.1.205 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wilss, Wolfram
    1978 “Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting.” InLanguage Interpretation and Communication, ed. byDavid Gerver and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 343–352. New York: Plenum. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_30
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_30 [Google Scholar]
  81. Xiao, Richard, Tony McEnery, and Yufang Qian
    2006 “Passive constructions in English and Chinese: a corpus-based contrastive study.” Languages in Contrast6(1): 109–149. 10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia [Google Scholar]
  82. Yan, Guoli, Jianping Xiong, Chuanli Zang, Lili Yu, Lei Cui, and Xuejun Bai
    2013 “阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述 [A review of major eye measures in reading research].” 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]
  83. Zanetti, R.
    1999 “Relevance of anticipation and possible strategies in the simultaneous interpretation from English into Italian.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter91: 79–98. hdl.handle.net/10077/2214
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
Loading
Effect of word order asymmetry on the cognitive load of English–Chinese sight translation
Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 19, 105 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19014.ma
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive load; English–Chinese sight translation; eye movement; word order asymmetry

Most Cited

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