References

1. Verifying Literal vs. Figurative Translations: Does Formal Training in Translation Matter? Juliet Y. Z. Tzou1, Hsin-Chin Chen2, and Jyotsna Vaid1 1Texas A&M University and 2National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan Correspondence: juliettzou@hotmail.com 2008 APS, Chicago • Translation Verification of Second Phrase • Translation judgments (accuracy and RT) were analyzed for the second presented phrase. Trials with RTs that were under 200 ms or longer than 7500 ms were excluded from the analysis (1.4% of responses). • RTs to correct verification responses were entered into a 3 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance by Group (untrained bilinguals vs. first year vs. second year translation students), Translation Direction (Into Chinese vs. Into English) and Translation Type (literal-form-based vs. figurative-meaning-based). Abstract Figurative vs. Literal Translation • The present research examined the influence of amount of training in interpretation/translation on translation strategy, using a verification task. • Hypothesis: • We hypothesized that formal training in translation is associated with a shift toward a vertical, meaning-based approach to translation. To explore whether formal training in translation affects translation strategy (meaning-based vs. literal-form-based), 20 Chinese-English interpretation students and 16 untrained bilinguals performed speeded translation verification of idiomatic expressions. Form-based equivalents were verified faster than meaning- based ones, but training facilitated verification of meaning-based equivalents. Method • Participants: 20 Chinese-English proficient bilinguals undergoing professional training in translation and interpretation and 16 untrained Chinese-English bilinguals. Among the trainees, 11 were in their first year and 9 were in their second year of training. • Task: • Translation Verification: Participants were to make speeded translation verification judgments of consecutively presented idiomatic expressions in Chinese and English. • An initial phrase was first presented followed by a second phrase that was either a translation of the first phrase or unrelated. The translation, in turn, was either a literal (or form-based) or a figurative (or meaning-based) one, as in “don’t overestimate your own ability” vs. “don’t bite off more than you can chew,” respectively. • Accuracy: Translation Type was significant, F(1,33) = 24.39, p< .001, showing that literal translation was more accurate that figurative translation. No other effects were significant. • Response Times: • There was a main effect of Translation Direction, F(1,33) = 91.75, p < .001, indicating that participants were faster when translating into Chinese than when translating into English. • Translation Type was also significant as a main effect and in interaction with Group. The interaction, F(1,33) = 3.59, p< .05, indicated that an advantage in verifying literal vs. figurative equivalents was strongest for the untrained bilinguals [Mean Difference = 907 ms, F(1,33) = 38.82, p< .001], next strongest for first-year trainees [Mean Difference = 414 ms, F(1,33) = 5.55, p< .05], and not significant for second-year trainees (Mean Difference = 287 ms). • The results showed that untrained bilinguals were not only the slowest in figurative translation, they exhibited the biggest difference in response time for figurative vs. literal translation. In contrast, the students with the most training in translation were the fastest in making meaning-based, figurative translations. Background • Translation may involve a so-called vertical processing strategy whereby the translator first analyzes the source text for its intended meaning before rendering it into the appropriate form in the target language, and a horizontal process, involving more form-based or “literal” translation of words or phrases, using constructions that are parallel in the source and target language texts (Christoffels & de Groot, 2005). • The horizontal translation is hypothesized to be used more by inexperienced translators and when source language linguistic form is readily available, as in text translation (Seleskovitch, 1976). • However, recent studies with experienced translators found that lexical and syntactic properties in the target language are activated when participants are instructed to read sentences for later translation as compared to when they are simply to repeat the sentences (Macizo & Bajo, 2005; Ruiz, Paredes, Macizo, & Bajo, 2007 ), suggesting that a horizontal translation strategy is also used by professional translators. Conclusion • For all groups, translation into English took longer overall than translation into Chinese. • Verification of literally equivalent phrases was overall faster and more accurate than verification of figurative translation. • The finding that those with more training in translation responded faster to figurative translations than those with less training, who in turn were faster than those with no training in translation lends support to our hypothesis that training enhances a meaning-based processing of the input. References Results • Christoffels, I. K., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive approach. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (454-479). New York: Oxford University Press. • Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2005). Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes? Cognition, 20, 1-34. • Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2007, in press). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, doi:10.1016.actpsy.2007.08.004. • Seleskovitch, D. (1976). Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Application and research (92-116). New York: Gardner. • First Phrase Reading Time • Reading time for the first phrase was analyzed as a function of group and language of presentation. Across all groups, reading times were shorter when the first phrase was in Chinese than when it was in English, indicating that participants were faster in reading in their native language.