Author:
Xingcheng Ma
xingcheng.ma@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2178-9082
Xingcheng Ma
School of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, Nanjing , China
Search for other papers by Xingcheng Ma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Xingcheng Ma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This study approaches syntactic complexity from a relative point of view and examines how translation and interpreting students cope with relative clauses and passive constructions, two exemplifications of syntactic complexity in English–Chinese sight translation. A group of students (N = 23) took part in the study. The study consisted of three parts: an English reading span test, a sight translation task, and a baseline reading task. During the sight translation task, the participants sight translated English sentences with different degrees of structural asymmetry into Chinese in the single sentence context and the discourse context. During the baseline reading task, they silently read the English sentences and answered the comprehension questions. The participants' eye movements in the sight translation and baseline reading tasks were recorded as indicators of cognitive load. Three major findings were generated: (1) Syntactic complexity resulted in a significant increase in cognitive load during the sight translation task. The syntactic aspects of the target language were activated during the initial stage of comprehension, which favoured the parallel view of translation. (2) Although sight translation became more time efficient due to wider contexts, a larger amount of contextual information did not make word-based processing less effortful, as indicated by more fixations and the longer regression path duration in the discourse context. (3) No correlations were found between reading span and cognitive load in addressing syntactical complexity.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Agriofolio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpretation: A comparative analysis of constraints and failure. Interpreting, 6(1), 43–67.
-
Balling, L. , Hvelplund, K , & Sjørup, A. (2014). Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta, 59(2), 234–259.
-
Bangalore, S. , Behrens, B. , Carl, M. , Ghankot, M. , Heilmann, A. , Nitzke, J. , & Sturm, A. (2016). Syntactic variance and priming effects in translation. In M. Carl , S. Bangalore , & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research (pp. 211–238). New York: Springer.
-
Bates, D. , Mächler, M. , Bolker, B. , & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using Lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
-
Bernolet, S. , Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 931–949.
-
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.
-
Chao, Y. R. (1965). A grammar of spoken Chinese. California: University of California Press.
-
Chappell, H. , & Shi, D. X. (2016). Major non-canonical clause types: ba and bei. In C. R. Huang , & D. X. Shi (Eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese (pp. 451–467). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Chen, D. Z. (2015a). Contrastive linguistic between Chinese and English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
-
Chen, W. (2015b). Sight translation. In H. Mikkelson , & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 144–153). New York: Routledge.
-
Chen, S. J. (2017). The construct of cognitive load in interpreting and its measurement. Perspectives, 25(4), 640–657.
-
Chmiel, A. , & Lijewska, A. (2019). Syntactic processing in sight translation by professional and trainee interpreters: Professionals are more time-efficient while trainees view the source text less. Target, 31(3), 378–397.
-
Christoffels, I. K. , De Groot, A. M. , & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345.
-
Cobb, T. (2002). Web vocabprofile. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/September 2019.
-
Conway, A. R. , Kane, M. J. , Bunting, M. F. , Hambrick, D. Z. , Wilhelm, O. , & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786.
-
Čeňková, I. (2015). Sight translation/interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 374–375). London & New York: Routledge.
-
Daneman, M. , & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.
-
Dawrant, A. (1996). Word order in Chinese–English simultaneous interpretation—An initial exploration. M.A. Thesis. Taipei: Fu-Jen Catholic University.
-
de Groot, A. M. , & Christoffels, I. K. (2007). Processes and mechanisms of bilingual control: Insights from monolingual task performance extended to simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Translation Studies, 10(1), 17–41.
-
Donato, V (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between the English-Italian and the German-Italian Language-Pairs. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 17, 101–134.
-
Dong, Y. P. , & Lin, J. X. (2013). Parallel processing of the target language during source language comprehension in interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 682–692.
-
Fischler, I. S. , & Bloom, P. A. (1985). Effects of constraint and validity of sentence contexts on lexical decisions. Memory & Cognition, 13(2), 128–139.
-
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165–207). New York: Gardner Press.
-
Gile, D. (2005). Teaching conference interpreting: A contribution. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium (pp. 127–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Hartsuiker, R. J. , Beerts, S. , Loncke, M. , Desmet, T. , & Bernolet, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 14–30.
-
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Hild, A. (2011). Effects of linguistic complexity on expert processing during simultaneous interpreting. In C. Alvstad , A. Hild , & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 249–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Hsieh, Y. (2017). Structural priming during sentence comprehension in Chinese–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 657–678.
-
Hveplund, K. T. (2017). Eye-tracking in translation process research. In J. W. Schwieter , & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 248–264). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
-
Ito, A. , Corley, M. , & Pickering, M. J. (2018). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 251–264.
-
Jensen, K. T. (2009). Indicators of text complexity. In S. Göpferich , A. L. Jakobsen , & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research (pp. 61–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
-
Juffs, A. , & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166.
-
Kade, O. (1968). Zufall und gesetzmäßigkeit in der übersetzung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.
-
Kane, M. J. , Hambrick, D. Z. , Tuholski, S. W. , Wilhelm, O. , Payne, T. W. , & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217.
-
Kidd, E. , Tennant, E. , & Nitschke, S. (2014). Shared abstract representation of linguistic structure in bilingual sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1062–1067.
-
Kim, S. A. (2010). Development stages in reading Chinese as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
-
Kim, S. A. , Packard, J. , Christianson, K. , Anderson, R. C. , & Shin, J. A. (2016). Orthographic consistency and individual learner differences in second language literacy acquisition. Reading and Writing, 29(7), 1409–1434.
-
Köpke, B. , & Nespoulous, J.-L. (2006). Working memory performance in expert and novice interpreters. Interpreting, 8(1), 1–23.
-
Kusters, W. (2008). Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In M. Miestamo , K. Sinnemäki , & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Kuznetsova, A. , Brockhoff, P. B. , & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
-
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Lederer, M. (1981). La traduction simultanée: Expérience et théorie. Paris: Minard.
-
Li, C. N. , & Thompson, S. A. (1981). A Functional reference grammar of mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-
Lindström, E. (2008). Language complexity and interlinguistic difficulty. In M. Miestamo , K. Sinnemäki , & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 217–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Liu, M. , & Chiu, Y. H. (2009). Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment. Interpreting, 11(2), 244–266.
-
Liu, M. , Schallert, D. L. , & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19–42.
-
Loebell, H. , & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41(5), 791–824.
-
Macizo, P. , & Bajo, M. T. (2006). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 99(1), 1–34.
-
Macnamara, B. N. , & Conway, A. R. (2016). Working memory capacity as a predictor of simultaneous language interpreting performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 434–444.
-
Meuleman, Chris , & Van Besien, Fred Van (2009). Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 11(1), 20–34.
-
Miestamo, M. (2008). Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Miestamo , K. Sinnemäki , & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver , & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 353–368). New York/London: Plenum Press.
-
Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Reading faster. PASAA, 36, 21–35.
-
Otten, M. , & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes, 45, 464–496.
-
Paas, F. G. W. C. , Tuovinen, J. E. , Tabbers, H. , & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.
-
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
-
Qin, Y. Q. , & He, Q. (2009). English–Chinese sight interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
-
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
-
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.
-
Rayner, K. , & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In J. M. Henderson , & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 59–104). New York: Psychology Press.
-
Rayner, K. , & Sereno, S. C. (1994). Regressive eye movements and sentence parsing: On the use of regression-contingent analyses. Memory & Cognition, 22(3), 281–285.
-
Ruiz, C. , & Macizo, P. (2019). Lexical and syntactic target language interactions in translation. Acta Psychologica, 199, 1–10.
-
Ruiz, C. , Paredes, N. , Macizo, P. , & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 490–500.
-
Schaeffer, M. , Dragsted, B. , Hvelplund, K. T. , Balling, L. W. , & Carl, M. (2016). Translation entropy: evidence of early target language activation during reading for translation. In M. Carl , S. Bangalore , & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research – Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 183–210). London: Springer.
-
Schoonbaert, S. , Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 153–171.
-
Schustack, M. W. , Ehrlich, S. F. , & Rayner, K. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(3), 322–340.
-
Seeber, K. G. (2001). Intonation and anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 23, 61–97.
-
Seeber, K. G. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: existing theories—New models. Interpreting, 13(2), 176–204.
-
Seeber, K. G. (2013). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods. Target, 25(1), 18–32.
-
Seeber, K. G. , & Kerzel, D. (2012). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 228–242.
-
Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences: Problems of language and communication. Washington, DC: Pen & Booth.
-
Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Setton, R. , & Motta, M. (2007). Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting, 9(2), 199–230.
-
Shlesinger, M. (2003). Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 12, 37–49.
-
Shreve, G. M. , Lacruz, I. , & Angelone, E. (2010). Cognitive load, syntactic disruption and visual interference in a sight translation task. In G. M. Shreve , & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 63–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Shreve, G. M. , Lacruz, I. , & Angelone, E. (2011). Sight translation and speech disfluency. In C. Alvstad , A. Hild , & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research (pp. 93–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Timarováa, Š , Čeňkováb, I. , Meylaertsa, R. , Hertoga, E. , Szmalecc, A. , & Duyck, W. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16(2), 139–168.
-
Togato, G. , Paredes, N. , Macizo, P. , & Bajo, T. (2017). Syntactic processing in professional interpreters: Understanding ambiguous sentences in reading and translation. Applied Linguistics, 38, 581–598.
-
Tsai, Y. (2015). A Learner corpus study of attributive clauses and passive voice in student translations. In C. Ying (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (pp. 85–101). Hershey: IGI Global.
-
Van Dijk, T. A. , & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic Press.
-
Wang, B. H. , & Gu, Y. K. (2016). An evidence-based exploration into the effect of language-pair specificity in English–Chinese simultaneous interpreting. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 3(2), 146–160.
-
White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 205–223.
-
Williams, J. (1999). Learner‐generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625.
-
Xiao, R. (2010). How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? A corpus-based study of translation universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 5–35.
-
Xiao, Z. H. , & Dai, G. R. (2010). In pursuit of the third code: A study of translation universals based on the ZCTC corpus of translational Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 42(1), 52–58.
-
Xiao, R. , McEnery, T. , & Qian, Y. F. (2006). Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109–149.
-
Yan, G. L. , Xiong, J. P. , Zang, C. L. , Yu, L. L. , Cui, L. , & Bai, X.J. (2013). A review of major eye measures in reading research. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(4), 589–605.
Prof. Kinga Klaudy
Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Translation and Interpreting
Múzeum krt. 4. Bldg. F, I/9-11, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 411 6500/5894
Fax: (+36 1) 485 5217
E-mail:
- WoS Arts & Humanities Citation Index
- Wos Social Sciences Citation Index
- WoS Essential Science Indicators
- Scopus
- Linguistics Abstracts
- Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
- Translation Studies Abstractst
- CABELLS Journalytics
| 2022 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
283 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 0.7 |
| Rank by Impact Factor |
Linguistics (Q3) |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
0.6 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
1.4 |
| Journal Citation Indicator | 0.66 |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator |
Linguistics (Q3) |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
20 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0.796 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Linguistics and Language 67/1103 (Q1) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
1.6 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
Language and Linguistics 208/1001 (79th PCTL) Linguistics and Language 243/1078 (77th PCTL) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0.868 |
| 2021 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
214 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 1,292 |
| Rank by Impact Factor | Linguistics 98/194 |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
1,208 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
1,210 |
| Journal Citation Indicator | 0,85 |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator | Language & Linguistics 108/370 Linguistics 122/274 |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
19 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,994 |
| Scimago Quartile Score | Linguistics and Language 67/1103 (Q1) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
2,5 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
Language and Linguistics 121/968 (Q1, D2) Linguistics and Language 128/1032 (Q1, D2) |
| Scopus SNIP |
1,576 |
| 2020 | |
|---|---|
| Total Cites WoS |
169 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 1,160 |
| Rank by Impact Factor |
Linguistics 99/193 (Q3) |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
1,040 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
1,095 |
| Journal Citation Indicator | 1,01 |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator |
Linguistics 107/259 (Q2) |
| Citable Items |
12 |
| Total Articles |
12 |
| Total Reviews |
0 |
| Scimago H-index |
14 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
1,257 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Language and Linguistics Q1 |
| Scopus Cite Score |
93/50=1,9 |
|
Scopus |
Language and Linguistics 130/879 (Q1) Linguistics and Language 147/935 (Q1) |
| Scopus SNIP |
1,670 |
| 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Total Cites WoS |
91 |
| Impact Factor | 0,360 |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
0,320 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
0,500 |
| Immediacy Index |
0,083 |
| Citable Items |
12 |
| Total Articles |
12 |
| Total Reviews |
0 |
| Cited Half-Life |
n/a |
| Citing Half-Life |
12,7 |
| Eigenfactor Score |
0,00018 |
| Article Influence Score |
0,234 |
| % Articles in Citable Items |
100,00 |
| Normalized Eigenfactor |
0,02306 |
| Average IF Percentile |
20,053 (Q1) |
| Scimago H-index |
13 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,648 |
| Scopus Scite Score |
94/51=1,8 |
| Scopus Scite Score Rank |
Language and Linguistics 120/830 (Q1) Linguistics and Language 135/884 (Q1) |
| Scopus SNIP |
1.357 |
| Across Languages and Cultures | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Hybrid |
| Submission Fee |
none |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2023 | Online subsscription: 318 EUR / 384 USD Print + online subscription: 372 EUR / 452 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles are sold on the displayed price. |
| Across Languages and Cultures | |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
1999 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
2 |
| Founder | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Founder's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 1585-1923 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1588-2519 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2023 | 39 | 4 | 6 |
| Jul 2023 | 43 | 1 | 3 |
| Aug 2023 | 34 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 50 | 4 | 6 |
| Oct 2023 | 67 | 6 | 2 |
| Nov 2023 | 45 | 6 | 3 |
| Dec 2023 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
Author:
Author:
Authors:
, , , , , , , , , and
Author:
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory