Cover not available
Part of
Translation in Transition: Human and machine intelligence
Edited by Isabel Lacruz
[American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series XX] 2023
► pp. 183–202

Chapter 9
The translation ambiguity disadvantage in language processing

The influence of proficiency

| University of Pittsburgh
Many words can be translated in more than one way across languages. For example, the German word Kiefer can be translated into English as both pine and jaw. This mis-mapping of translations across languages, known as translation ambiguity, causes difficulty in language processing and language learning. Here, I discuss how translation ambiguity affects language processing in bilinguals of various proficiencies, including individuals who were raised bilingual. I further describe an analysis aimed at understanding how the disadvantage associated with translation ambiguity changes with increased second language proficiency.
Keywords: translation ambiguity, second language proficiency, dominant translation, non-dominant translation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Measuring translation ambiguity
  • Moderately proficient bilinguals
  • Analysis of the translation-ambiguity disadvantage with proficiency
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xx.09tok
References (41)
References
Allen, David, and Kathy Conklin. 2014. “Cross-Linguistic Similarity Norms for Japanese–English Translation Equivalents.” Behavior Research Methods 46 (2):540–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, Jeanette, Lisa M. Bauer, and Claudia Benvenuto. 1999. “Concreteness, Context Availability, and Imageability Ratings and Word Associations for Abstract, Concrete, and Emotion Words.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 31 (4):578–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, Dana M., and Jeanette Altarriba. 2014. “Number of Translation Differences in Spanish and Chinese Bilinguals.” Psychology Serving Humanity: Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of Psychology. Volume 2: Western Psychology.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Multiple Translations in Bilingual Memory: Processing Differences across Concrete, Abstract, and Emotion Words.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 45 (5):1219–1245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, Dana M., Stephanie A. Kazanas, and Jeanette Altarriba. 2020. “Translation Ambiguity in Mandarin-English Bilinguals: Translation Production Differences in Concrete, Abstract, and Emotion Words.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10 (4):559–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boada, Roger, Rosa M. Sánchez-Casas, José M. Gavilán, 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 Cognition 16:183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bracken, Jennifer, Tamar Degani, C. M. Eddington, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2017. “Translation Semantic Variability: How Semantic Relatedness Affects Learning of Translation-Ambiguous Words.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7 (4):783–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carl, Michael, and Moritz Jonas 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 Business 56:43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Annette M. B. 1992. “Bilingual Lexical Representation: A Closer Look at Conceptual Representations.” In Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning, ed. by Ram Frost and Leonard Katz, 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Annette M. B., Susanne Borgwaldt, Mieke Bos, and Ellen van den Eijnden. 2002. “Lexical Decision and Word Naming in Bilinguals: Language Effects and Task Effects.” Journal of Memory and Language 47:91–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Annette M. B., Lucia Dannenburg, and Janet G. van Hell. 1994. “Forward and Backward Word Translation by Bilinguals.” Journal of Memory and Language 33:600–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, Tamar, Anat Prior, C. M. Eddington, Ana B. Arêas da Luz Fontes, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2016. “Determinants of Translation Ambiguity: A Within and Cross-Language Comparison.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6 (3):290–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, Tamar, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2010. “Ambiguous Words are Harder to Learn.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13:299–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, Tamar, Alison M. Tseng, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2014. “Together or Apart? Learning of Ambiguous Words.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17:749–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, Ton, Jonathan Grainger, and Walter J. B. van Heuven. 1999. “Recognition of Cognates and Interlingual Homographs: The Neglected Role of Phonology.” Journal of Memory and Language 41:496–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, C. M., Tamar Degani, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2021. “English and German Translation Norms: The Role of Proficiency in Translation Ambiguity.”Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., and Natasha Tokowicz. 2013. “Examining English-German Translation Ambiguity using Primed Translation Recognition.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16:442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goyal, Diya. 2020. “Number-of-Translation Norms for English-Japanese Translation Pairs.” Honor’s Thesis, Psychology, University of Pittsburgh.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell. 2004. “Itri-04-08 the Sketch Engine.” Information Technology 105:116.Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Lori Rogg. 1994. “Concreteness Effects in Translation.”Google Scholar
Kroll, Judith F., and Erika Stewart. 1994. “Category Interference In Translation And Picture Naming: Evidence For Asymmetric Connections Between Bilingual Memory Representations.” Journal of Memory and Language 33:149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laxén, J. 2007. “La Mémoire Sémantique Bilingue: Étude des Liens entre Équivalents de Traduction [Bilingual Semantic Memory: Study of the Links between Translation Equivalents].” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Montpellier, France.
Laxén, Jannika, and Jean-Marc Lavaur. 2010. “The Role of Semantics in Translation Recognition: Effects of Number of Translations, Dominance of Translations and Semantic Relatedness of Multiple Translations.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (2):157–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemhöfer, Kristin, and Mirjam Broersma. 2012. “Introducing LexTALE: A Quick and Valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (2):325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishimoto, Takehiko, Kaori Miyawaki, Takashi Ueda, Yuko Une, and Masaru Takahashi. 2005. “Japanese Normative Set of 359 Pictures.” Behavior Research Methods 37 (3):398–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Anat, Judith F. Kroll, and Brian Macwhinney. 2013. “Translation Ambiguity but Not Word Class Predicts Translation Performance.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (2):458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Anat, Brian MacWhinney, and Judith F. Kroll. 2007. “Translation Norms for English and Spanish: The Role of Lexical Variables, Word Class, and L2 Proficiency in Negotiating Translation Ambiguity.” Behavior Research Methods 39 (4):1029–1038. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Anat, Shuly Wintner, Brian MacWhinney, and Alon Lavie. 2011. “Translation Ambiguity In and Out of Context.” Applied Psycholinguistics 32:93–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Caitlin A., Natasha Tokowicz, Scott H. Fraundorf, and Teljur L. Liburd. 2019. “The Complex Interactions of Context Availability, Polysemy, Word Frequency, and Orthographic Variables During Lexical Processing.” Memory and Cognition 47 (7):1297–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönpflug, Ute. 1997. “Bilingualism and Memory.” The First International Symposium on Bilingualism, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Smith, Yisrael, Joel Walters, and Anat Prior. 2012. “Translation Norms for Hebrew and English.” In Edmond J. Safra Technical Report, 2012–1.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha. 1997. “Reevaluating Concreteness Effects in Bilingual Translation.” Master of Science, Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Translation Ambiguity Affects Language Processing, Learning, and Representation.” 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building Bridges Between Disciplines Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha, Tamar Degani, Alba Tuninetti, and Leida C. Tolentino. 2019. “The Effects of Translation Ambiguity in Bilingual Language Production and Recognition: The Role of Context.” The Twelfth International Symposium on Bilingualism, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha, and Judith F. Kroll. 2007. “Number of Meanings and Concreteness: Consequences of Ambiguity Within and Across Languages.” Language and Cognitive Processes 22:727–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, Natasha, Judith F. Kroll, Annette M. B. de Groot, and 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, and Computers 34:435–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Alison M., Li-Yun Chang, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2014. “Translation Ambiguity Between English and Mandarin Chinese: The Role of Proficiency.” In The Development of Translation Competence: Theories and Methodologies from Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Science, 107–165.Google Scholar
van Hell, Janet G., and Annette M. B. de Groot. 1998a. “Conceptual Representation in Bilingual Memory: Effects of Concreteness and Cognate Status in Word Association.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1 (3):193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. “Disentangling Context Availability and Concreteness in Lexical Decision and Word Translation.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 51A (1):41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wen, Yun, and Walter J. B. van Heuven. 2017. “Chinese Translation Norms for 1,429 English Words.” Behavior Research Methods 49 (3):1006–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Guowei, Yao Chen, Yin Feng, and Rong Zhou. 2019. “Processing of Translation-Ambiguous Words by Chinese–English Bilinguals in Sentence Context.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48 (5):1133–1161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar