Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-n5rmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T06:17:34.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translation semantic variability: How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

JENNIFER BRACKEN ,
TAMAR DEGANI ,
CHELSEA EDDINGTON  and
NATASHA TOKOWICZ
JENNIFER BRACKEN
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
TAMAR DEGANI
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israel
CHELSEA EDDINGTON
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
NATASHA TOKOWICZ*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
Address for correspondence: Natasha Tokowicz, Learning Research & Development Center, 3939 O'Hara St., Room 634, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260USATokowicz@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Translations often do not align directly across languages, and indirect mappings reduce the accuracy of language learning. To facilitate examination of this issue, we developed a new continuous measure for quantifying the semantic relatedness of words with more than one translation (hereafter translation-ambiguous words). Participants rated the similarity of each translation to every other translation, yielding a Translation Semantic Variability (TSV) score, ranging from 1.00 (unrelated) to 7.00 (related). Then, we determined how relatedness between translations affects translation-ambiguous word learning from German to English. German words with low TSV scores were recognized as translations more slowly and less accurately than German words with high TSV scores. TSV explains unique variance beyond the previously-used dichotomous classification of words as form vs. meaning ambiguous. We propose that the relatedness of the translation alternatives influences learning because it affects the ease with which a one-to-one mapping can be established between form and meaning.

Keywords

Translation ambiguityTranslation Semantic Variabilitymeaning similaritytranslation recognition

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 783 - 794
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Study 2 formed the basis of JB's Honors thesis; we thank Timothy Nokes-Malach and Tessa Warren for their comments on this work. We thank the Office of Experiential Learning at the University of Pittsburgh for providing funding for Study 2. We thank the PLUM Lab members for research assistance. During the writing of this manuscript, TD was supported by EU-FP7 grant CIG-322016 and NT was supported by NIH R01 HD075800.

References

Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24 (1), 57–65.Google 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, 16, 183–197.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18 (5), 1001–1018.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Arêas da Luz Fontes, A., & Tokowicz, N. (in press). Determinants of translation ambiguity: A within and cross-language comparison. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 299–314.Google Scholar
Degani, T., Tseng, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Together or apart? Learning of ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 749–765.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M. (2015). Effects of within- and cross-language semantic ambiguity in learning and processing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). English and German translation norms: The role of proficiency in translation ambiguity. Manuscript in revision.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 442–457.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2015). How context and meaning similarity influence ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 13–37.Google Scholar
Inkpen, D., & Hirst, G. (2006). Building and using a lexical knowledge base of near-synonym differences. Computational Linguistics, 32 (2), 223–262.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 88, 416–432.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. (2007). Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 103, 148–149.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534–1543.Google 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, 13 (2), 157–183.Google Scholar
Maechler, M. (2015), Hartigan's dip test statistic for unimodality-corrected code. R package version 0.75-6.Google Scholar
Prior, A., Kroll, J. F., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (Special Issue 02), 458–474. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000272 CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Berriman, R., Landau, M., Lee, T., Ho, C., Gaskell, M. G., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Learning new meanings for old words: Effects of semantic relatedness. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245–266.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18 (6), 643–661.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2014a). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. (2014b). Translation ambiguity affects language processing, learning, and representation. In Miller, R. T., Martin, K. I., Eddington, C. M., Henery, A., Marcos Miguel, N., Tseng, A. M., Tuninetti, A. & Walter, D. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building bridges between disciplines (pp. 170–180). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Degani, T. (2010). Translation ambiguity: Consequences for learning and processing. In Van Patten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Research on second language processing and parsing (pp. 281–293). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Degani, T. (2015). Learning second language vocabulary: Insights from laboratory studies. In Schwieter, J. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Processing (pp. 216–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779.Google 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, 34, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2004). The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (3), 255–272.Google Scholar
Tseng, A. M., Chang, L.-Y., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity between English and Mandarin Chinese: The role of proficiency. In Schwieter, J. & Ferreira, A. (Eds.), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 107–165). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bracken supplementary material

Table

Download Bracken supplementary material(File)
File 103.4 KB