Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 11:1 (1999) ► pp.33–63

A Cognitive Approach to Source Text Difficulty in Translation

 | University of Western Sydney Macarthur
The notion of "difficulty" is of practical relevance to many of the stakeholders in the business of training and accrediting translators. This article proposes that difficulty can be tackled in terms of source text, translation task, and translator competence. Focussing on text difficulty, a case study is reported that shows that the source text can be an independent source of translation difficulty and that a substantial proportion of the items can be equally difficult to translate into typologically different languages. The study also highlights possible reasons for text difficulty at the level of lexis, and suggests that difficulty can be interpreted in cognitive terms, with the support of models of working memory and of language comprehension and production.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A General Framework for Considering Translation Difficulty
  • 3.A Cognitive Framework for Considering Translation Text Difficulty
  • 4.The Case Study
    • 4.1.Aims and Assumptions
    • 4.2.Method
    • 4.3.Results
      • 4.3.1.Mean Ranking of Difficulty across the Languages
      • 4.3.2.Similarities across Languages
      • 4.3.3.Reconstituting the Texts
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1.Inherent Difficulty of the Source Text
    • 5.2.Difficulty and Word Class
    • 5.3.Meaningfulness
    • 5.4.Complex Noun Phrases
    • 5.5.Abstractness
    • 5.6. Frequency and Familiarity
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 1999
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.03cam
References (56)
References
Albert, Martin L. and Loraine K. Obler. 1978. The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Altarriba, Jeanette and Katherine M. Mathis. 1997. “Conceptual and Lexical Development in Second Language Acquisition”. Journal of Memory and Language 361. 550–568.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Richard C. and Alice Davison. 1988. “Conceptual and Empirical Bases of Readability Formulas”. Davison and Green 1988 : 23–53.Google Scholar
Bell, Roger T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bereiter, Carl and Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blanken, Gerhard, Jiirgen Dittman, Hannelore Grimm, John C. Marshall and Claus-W. Wallesch. eds. 1993. Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies: An International Hand-book. Berlin: de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Bertram and Andee Rubin. 1988. “Readability Formulas: Matching Tool and Task”. Davison and Green 1988 : 5–22.Google Scholar
Campbell, Stuart. 1998. Translation into the Second Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Charrow, Veda. 1988. “Readability vs. Comprehensibility: A Case Study in Improving a Real Document”. Davison and Green 1988 : 85–114.Google Scholar
Dancette, Jeanne. 1997. “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation: Theoretical and Experimental Issues”. Danks et al. 1997 : 77–103.Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph H., Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain and Michael K. McBeath, eds. 1997. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. [Applied Psychology: Individual, Social and Community Issues, 3.]Google Scholar
Danks, Joseph H. and Jennifer Griffin. 1997. “Reading and Translation: A Psycholinguistic Perspective”. Danks et al. 1997 : 161–175.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice and Georgia M. Green, eds. 1988. Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees and Robert Schreuder. 1993. “Word Production and the Bilingual Lexicon”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 : 191–214.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, Kees. 1997. “Towards a Lexical Processing Model for the Study of Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 191. 309–329.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, Annette M.B. 1993. “Word Production and the Bilingual Lexicon”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 :27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. “The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches”. Danks et al. 1997 : 25–56.Google Scholar
Dollerup, Cay and Anne Loddegaard, eds. 1992. Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Frazier, Lyn. 1988 “The Study of Linguistic Complexity”. Davison and Green 1988 : 193–221.Google Scholar
Garret, Merill. 1993. “Disorders of Lexical Selection”. Levelt 1993 : 143–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, Susan E. and Alan D. Baddeley. 1993. Working Memory and Language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series.]Google Scholar
Gerloff, Pamela. 1987. “Identifying the Unit of Analysis in Translation: Some Uses of Think-Aloud Protocol Data”. Færch and Kasper 1987: 135–158.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 1997. English-Arabic/Arabic-English Translation: A Practical Guide. Lon-don: Saqi Books.Google Scholar
Hewson, Lance and Jacky Martin. 1991. Redefining Translation: The Variational Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
House, Juliane and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, eds. 1986. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hummel, Kirsten M. 1986. “Memory for Bilingual Prose”. Vaid 1986 : 47–64.Google Scholar
Kemper, Susan. 1988. “Inferential Complexity and the Readability of Texts”. Davison and Green 1988 : 141–167.Google Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press. [Translation Studies.]Google Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. “The Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986 : 263–276.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 331. 149–174.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking from Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
, ed., 1993. Lexical Access in Speech Production. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993a. “Language Use in Normal Speakers and Its Disorders”. Blanken et al. 1993 : 1–15.Google Scholar
1993b. “Accessing Words in Speech Production: Stages, Processes and Representations”. Levelt 1993 : 1–22.Google Scholar
Long, Debra, Brian J. Oppy and Mark R. Seely. 1997. “Individual Differences in Readers’ Sentence- and Text-Level Representations”. Journal of Memory and Language 361. 129–145.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1986. “On Analyzing Translation Performance”. House and Blum-Kulka 1986 : 277–292.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1992. “Text Analysis in Translator Training”. Dollerup and Loddegaard 1992 : 39–48.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, Allan, John C. Yuille and Stephen A. Madigan. 1968. “Concreteness, Imagery and Meaningfulness Values for 925 Nouns”. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement 76:1, Part 21. 1–25.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1987. The Assessment of Bilingual Aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1992 “Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching”. Dollerup and Loddegaard 1992 : 279–288.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith and Alexander Pollatsek. 1989. The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robertson, Scott P. 1994. “TSUNAMI: Simultaneous Understanding, Answering and Memory Interaction for Questions”. Cognitive Science 181. 51–85.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Katherine Kipp Harnishfeger and Randall W. Stowe. 1988. “Context Availability and Lexical Decisions for Abstract and Concrete Words”. Journal of Memory and Language 271. 499–520.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, Robert and Bert Weltens, eds. 1993. The Bilingual Lexicon. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace. 1996. “Some Thoughts About Think-Aloud Protocols”. Target 8:1. 75–95.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory. 1997. “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence”. Danks et al. 1997 : 120–136.Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M., Christina Schäffner and Jospeh H. Danks. 1993. “Is There a Special Kind of Reading for Translation?: An Empirical Investigation of Reading in the Translation Process”. Target 5:1. 21–41.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory and Bruce J. Diamond. 1997. “Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting: Critical Issues”. Danks et al. 1997 : 233–251.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1993. “Text Corpora: Lexicographers’ Needs”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 41:1. 5–14 and 41:2. 165–167.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Joan Gay. 1993. “Translating versus Picture Naming”. Schreuder and Weltens 1993 :83–114.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1984. “The Notion of ‘Native Translator’ and Translation Teaching”. Wilss and Thome 1984 : 186–195.Google Scholar
Vaid, Jyotsna, ed. 1986. Language Processing in Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Neuro-psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram and Gisela Thome, eds. 1984. Translation Theory and Its Implementation in the Teaching of Translating and Interpreting. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Cited by (22)

Cited by 22 other publications

Naranjo Ruiz, Mónica & Diana Lorena Giraldo Ospina
2023. Units of Translation and the Limited Capacity of Working Memory. In Translatology, Translation and Interpretation - Toward a New Scientific Endeavor, DOI logo
Liu, Yanmei & Binghan Zheng
2022. Comparability of difficulty levels of translation tasks in CET-6 parallel test forms: evidence from product and process-based data. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 16:4 ► pp. 428 ff. DOI logo
Läubli, Samuel, Patrick Simianer, Joern Wuebker, Geza Kovacs, Rico Sennrich & Spence Green
2022. The impact of text presentation on translator performance. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:2 ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Fuxiang
2022. Impact of translation difficulty and working memory capacity on processing of translation units: evidence from Chinese-to-English translation. Perspectives 30:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Prieto Ramos, Fernando & Giorgina Cerutti
2021. Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: an empirical cross-genre study. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Vanroy, Bram, Orphée De Clercq, Arda Tezcan, Joke Daems & Lieve Macken
2021. Metrics of Syntactic Equivalence to Assess Translation Difficulty. In Explorations in Empirical Translation Process Research [Machine Translation: Technologies and Applications, 3], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Xinlei & Yue Jiang
2020. Effect of dependency distance of source text on disfluencies in interpreting. Lingua 243 ► pp. 102873 ff. DOI logo
Li, Xiangdong
2019. Material development principles in undergraduate translator and interpreter training: balancing between professional realism and classroom realism. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13:1 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yanmei, Binghan Zheng & Hao Zhou
2019. Measuring the difficulty of text translation. Target 31:1 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Sanjun
2019. Measuring Difficulty in Translation and Post-editing: A Review. In Researching Cognitive Processes of Translation [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Vanroy, Bram, Orphée De Clercq & Lieve Macken
2019. Correlating process and product data to get an insight into translation difficulty. Perspectives 27:6 ► pp. 924 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Zhiwei
2019. Text characteristics, perceived difficulty and task performance in sight translation. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:2 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2015. Cognitive Translation Studies and the merging of empirical paradigms. Translation Spaces 4:2 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
최문선
2015. Assessing Source Text Difficulty from Student Interpreters’ Perspective. The Journal of Translation Studies 16:5 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Green, Spence, Jeffrey Heer & Christopher D. Manning
2013. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
O'Brien, Sharon
2006. Pauses as Indicators of Cognitive Effort in Post-editing Machine Translation Output. Across Languages and Cultures 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Dragsted, Barbara
2005. Segmentation in translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 17:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Dragsted, Barbara
2012. Indicators of difficulty in translation — Correlating product and process data. Across Languages and Cultures 13:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
O’Brien, Sharon
2005. Methodologies for Measuring the Correlations between Post-Editing Effort and Machine Translatability. Machine Translation 19:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Shlesinger, Miriam & Brenda Malkiel
2005. Comparing Modalities: Cognates as a Case in Point. Across Languages and Cultures 6:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Malkiel, Brenda
2004. Directionality and translational difficulty. Perspectives 12:3 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
Malkiel, Brenda
2006. The effect of translator training on interference and difficulty. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 18:2 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.