Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 10:4 (2020) ► pp.559–586

Translation ambiguity in Mandarin-English bilinguals

Translation production differences in concrete, abstract, and emotion words

 | United States International University – Africa
 | Tennessee Technological University
 | University at Albany, State University of New York
Research focused on the cognitive processes surrounding bilingual language representation has revealed the important role that translation ambiguity plays in how languages are stored in memory (Tokowicz & Kroll, 2007). In addition, translation of emotionally related information has been shown to be challenging because a direct translation does not always exist (Basnight-Brown & Altarriba, 2014). The focus of the current study was to explore the processing of ambiguous words for translations that differ in orthography. In Experiment 1, Chinese-English bilinguals translated concrete and abstract words that differed in the number of translations across languages. In Experiment 2, emotion words were introduced into the context, in order to examine differences in emotion translation across languages. The results revealed that words with a single translation were produced faster and more accurately than words that had multiple translations. Finally, translation of emotional stimuli was faster when translating Chinese words as compared to English words.
Keywords: translation, emotion, Chinese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Implications of translation ambiguity in bilinguals
    • 1.2Processing differences in concrete, abstract, and emotion stimuli
    • 1.3The role of translation ambiguity and concreteness effects
  • 2.Methods
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
    • Procedure
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Experiment 2 – Methods
    • Participants
    • Stimuli
    • Procedure
  • 5.Experiment 2 – Results
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17037.bas
References (40)
References
Altarriba, J. (2003). Does cariño equal “liking”? A theoretical approach to conceptual nonequivalence between languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 71, 305–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Emotion and mood: Over 120 years of contemplation and exploration. American Journal of Psychology, 1251, 409–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The representation of emotion versus emotion-laden words in English and Spanish in the Affective Simon task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 151, 310–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology, 1171, 389–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context-availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 311, 578–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of prepositional information from long term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 451–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bai, L. (2015). Emotion categorization and early bilinguals: A study of Chinese-English bilinguals’ understanding of the shame category. Ph.D. dissertation. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchinson, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al.. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 391, 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2014). Number of translation differences in Spanish and Chinese bilinguals: The difficulty in finding a direct translation for emotion words. In S. Cooper & K. Ratele (Eds.), Psychology serving humanity: Vol. II. (pp. 240–251). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.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
Boada, R., Sánchez-Casas, R. M., Gavilán, J. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bracken, J., Degani, T., Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Translation semantic variability: How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 201, 783–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW). Gainesville, FL: The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE 5 (6), e10729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 501, 491–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Areas da Luz Fontes, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Determinants of translation ambiguity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6 (3), 29–37.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 231, 18–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 131, 299–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Cross-language influences: Translation status affects intraword sense relatedness. Memory and Cognition, 411, 1046–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., Tseng, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Learning and Cognition, 171, 749–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Areas da Luz Fontes, A. B., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Determinant of translation ambiguity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6 (3), 290–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 442–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazanas, S., & Altarriba, J. (2015). The automatic activation of emotion and emotion-laden words: Evidence from a masked and unmasked priming paradigm. American Journal of Psychology, 1281, 323–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knickerbocker, H., Johnson, R. L., & Altarriba, J. (2015). Emotion effects during reading: Influence of an emotion target word on eye movements and processing. Cognition & Emotion, 291, 784–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laxén, J., & Lavaur, J.-M. (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, 131, 157–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, J., & Yao, Y. (2016). Encoding emotion in Chinese: A database of Chinese emotion words with information of emotion type, intensity, and valence. Lingua Sinica, 21, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A., Kroll, J. F., & MacWhinney, B. (2012). Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 458–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (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
Smith, Y., Walters, J., & Prior, A. (2012). Translation norms for Hebrew and English. Edmond J. Safra Technical Report, 2012–1.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 61, 121–174.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 727–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Kroll, J. F., de Groot, A. M. B., & van Hell, J. G. (2002). Number of translation norms for Dutch-English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 341, 435–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, A. M., Chang, L.-Y., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity between English and Mandarin Chinese: The role of proficiency. In J. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 107–165). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wen, Y., & van Heuven, W. J. (2017). Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 491, 1006–1019. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, Z., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2017). Norms of valence, arousal, concreteness, familiarity, imageability, and context availability for 1,100 Chinese words. Behavior Research Methods, 491, 1374–1385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Morrison, Louisa, Zoe Given‐Wilson & Amina Memon
2024. The impact of emotionally evocative information on interpreting accuracy in a mock asylum interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology 38:2 DOI logo
Li, Jia & Quanbei Zhao
2023. 2023 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP), ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Tokowicz, Natasha
2023. Chapter 9. The translation ambiguity disadvantage in language processing. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Tokowicz, Natasha, Caitlin A Rice & Zachary Ekves
2023. Learning the two translations of translation-ambiguous words: Simultaneous vs. consecutive presentation. Second Language Research 39:3 ► pp. 811 ff. DOI logo
Altarriba, Jeanette & Dana Basnight-Brown
2022. The Psychology of Communication: The Interplay Between Language and Culture Through Time. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 53:7-8 ► pp. 860 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Soon Tat, Walter J. B. van Heuven, Jessica M. Price & Christine Xiang Ru Leong
2022. Translation norms for Malay and English words: The effects of word class, semantic variability, lexical characteristics, and language proficiency on translation. Behavior Research Methods 55:7 ► pp. 3585 ff. DOI logo
Schwieter, John W. & Anat Prior
2020. Translation Ambiguity. In Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Guowei, Yao Chen, Yin Feng & Rong Zhou
2019. Processing of Translation-Ambiguous Words by Chinese–English Bilinguals in Sentence Context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48:5 ► pp. 1133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.