Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:58:03.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translation ambiguity in and out of context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

ANAT PRIOR ,
SHULY WINTNER ,
BRIAN MACWHINNEY  and
ALON LAVIE
ANAT PRIOR*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
SHULY WINTNER
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
ALON LAVIE
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Anat Prior, Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Room 276, Faculty of Education, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare translations of single words, made by bilingual speakers in a laboratory setting, with contextualized translation choices of the same items, made by professional translators and extracted from parallel language corpora. The translation choices in both cases show moderate convergence, demonstrating that decontextualized translation probabilities partially reflect bilinguals’ life experience regarding the conditional distributions of alternative translations. Lexical attributes of the target word differ in their ability to predict translation probability: form similarity is a stronger predictor in decontextualized translation choice, whereas word frequency and semantic salience are stronger predictors for context-embedded translation choice. These findings establish the utility of parallel language corpora as important tools in psycholinguistic investigations of bilingual language processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 93 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Altarriba, J., & Gianico, J. L. (2003). Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theoretical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology, 50, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 33, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. F., Cocke, J., Della Pietra, S. A., Della Pietra, V. J., Jelinek, F., Lafferty, J. D., et al. (1990). A statistical approach to machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 16, 79–85.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. (1998). From simple associations to the building blocks of language: Modeling meaning in memory with the HAL model. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 30, 188–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (Eds.). (1994). Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). MRC psycholinguistic database user manual: Version 1. London: Birkbeck College.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish, Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2009). Bidirectional semantic transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Gale, W., & Church, K. (1993). A program for aligning sentences in bilingual corpora. Computational Linguistics, 19, 75–102.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The costs and benefits of meaning. In Gorfein, D. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp 119–137). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979)Google Scholar
Gorfien, D. S. (Ed.). (2002) On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Graff, D. (1994). UN parallel text (complete). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 684–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kambe, G., Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Memory & Cognition, 29, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 601–609.Google ScholarPubMed
Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Paper presented at the Machine Translation Summit, Phuket, Thailand.Google Scholar
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, A., Sagae, K., & Jayaraman, S. (2004). The significance of recall in automatic metrics for MT evaluation. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-2004), Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 883–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Och, F. J., & Ney, H. (2000). Improved statistical alignment models. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W. J. (2001). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, M. A., Alameda, J. R., & Cuetos, F. (2003). Frecuencia, longitud y vecinidad ortografica de las palabras de 3 a 16 letras del diccionario de la lengua Española (RAE, 1992). Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Prior, A., Kroll, J. F. & MacWhinney, B. (2006). The role of translation probability and word class in two translation tasks. Poster presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of The Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX.Google 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, 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, D. L. T, Gonnerman, L. M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). An improved method for deriving word meaning from lexical co-occurrence. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://dlt4.mit.edu/~dr/COALS/Coals.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, A., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (2000). LEXESP: Léxico informatizado del español. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.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.CrossRefGoogle 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, and Computers, 34, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., Prior, A., & Kroll, J. F. (2009). Bilingual speech production depends on translation ambiguity. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Turvey, M. T., & Shaw, R. E. (1979). The primacy of perceiving: An ecological reformulation of perception for understanding memory. In Nilsson, L. G. (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (1988), The MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 20, 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar