Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance

被引:0
作者
Prior, Anat [1 ]
Kroll, Judith F. [2 ]
MacWhinney, Brian [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Haifa, Edmond J Safra Brain Res Ctr Study Learning Disab, IL-31905 Haifa, Israel
[2] Penn State Univ, Dept Psychol, Ctr Language Sci, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[3] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Psychol, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
translation ambiguity; word class; bilingual lexicon; REVISED HIERARCHICAL MODEL; VERBS; NOUNS; ENGLISH; COMPREHENSION; ACTIVATION; SEMANTICS; SELECTION; SPANISH; NUMBER;
D O I
10.1017/S1366728912000272
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
We investigated the influence of word class and translation ambiguity on cross-linguistic representation and processing. Bilingual speakers of English and Spanish performed translation production and translation recognition tasks on nouns and verbs in both languages. Words either had a single translation or more than one translation. Translation probability, as determined by normative data, was the strongest predictor of translation production and translation recognition, after controlling for psycholinguistic variables. Word class did not explain additional variability in translation performance, raising the possibility that previous findings of differences between nouns and verbs might be attributed to the greater translation ambiguity of verbs relative to nouns. Proficiency in the second language was associated with quicker and more successful production of translations for ambiguous words, and with more accurate recognition of translations for ambiguous words. Working memory capacity was related to the speed of recognizing low probability translations for ambiguous words. These results underscore the importance of considering translation ambiguity in research on bilingual lexical and conceptual knowledge.
引用
收藏
页码:458 / 474
页数:17
相关论文
共 69 条
[41]  
Kucera Henry, 1967, Computational analysis of presentday American English
[42]  
La Heij W, 1996, J MEM LANG, V35, P648
[43]  
LaHeij W., 2005, SELECTED PROCESSES M, P289
[44]   The role of semantics in translation recognition: effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations [J].
Laxen, Jannika ;
Lavaur, Jean-Marc .
BILINGUALISM-LANGUAGE AND COGNITION, 2010, 13 (02) :157-183
[45]  
LEVIN B, 1996, LEXICAL SEMANT UNPUB
[46]   On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables [J].
MacCallum, RC ;
Zhang, SB ;
Preacher, KJ ;
Rucker, DD .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2002, 7 (01) :19-40
[47]   Neural differences in the mapping of verb and noun concepts onto novel words [J].
Mestres-Misse, Anna ;
Rodriguez-Fornells, Antoni ;
Muente, Thomas F. .
NEUROIMAGE, 2010, 49 (03) :2826-2835
[48]   SEMANTIC NETWORKS OF ENGLISH [J].
MILLER, GA ;
FELLBAUM, C .
COGNITION, 1991, 41 (1-3) :197-229
[49]   WORKING-MEMORY CONSTRAINTS ON THE RESOLUTION OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY - MAINTAINING MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS IN NEUTRAL CONTEXTS [J].
MIYAKE, A ;
JUST, MA ;
CARPENTER, PA .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1994, 33 (02) :175-202
[50]   When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? [J].
Morford, Jill P. ;
Wilkinson, Erin ;
Villwock, Agnes ;
Pinar, Pilar ;
Kroll, Judith F. .
COGNITION, 2011, 118 (02) :286-292