LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY AND SIMPLIFICATION IN TRANSLATION: COGNITIVELY-GROUNDED PHONOLOGICAL METRICS
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Translated text (TT) is characteristically simpler than non-translated (NTT) authentic text in terms of its lexicon, syntax, and style. It is still not clear what causes this phenomenon, and scholars continue to debate the issue. The traditional lexical metrics that are implemented in the simplification literature are often criticised as unreliable and lacking cognitive grounding. Moreover, being predominantly product-oriented, they cannot tell us how (or why) simplification happens. This paper addresses this limitation in the literature and proposes a paradigm that uses complexity-based measures adopted from Phonology and Cognitive Psychology. Calculations are run on a corpus of 100 translated and non-translated article abstracts drawn from five academic disciplines. Statistical analyses reveal significant differences between TTs and NTTs. The paper discusses the implications of these results and concludes that a cognition-informed approach is a key to demystifying simplification.
Keywords: linguistic complexity; simplification; phonological complexity; neighbourhood density, phonotactic probability
References
Allen, R., & Hulme, C. (2006). Speech and language processing mechanisms in verbal serial
recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 64-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.002
Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random
effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Baddeley, A., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of
short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 575-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80045-4
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications.
In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour
of John Sinclair (pp. 233-252). John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In H.
Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering,
in honour of Juan Sager (pp. 175-186). John Benjamins.
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for
confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and
Language, 68(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models
using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-51.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bazan, A., Kushwaha, R., Winer, E., Snodgrass, J., Brakel, L., & Shevrin, H. (2019).
Phonological ambiguity detection outside of consciousness and its defensive
avoidance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13(1), 1-14.
https://frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00077
Bisiada, M. (2017). Universals of editing and translation. Language Science Press.
http://hdl.handle.net/10230/33522
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S.
Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication discourse and
cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 17-35).
Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
Bradlow, A., & Pisoni, D. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native
listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 106(4), 2074-2085. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.427952
Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., Marchman, V., & Frank, M. (2019). Consistency and variability
in children’s word learning across languages. Open Mind, 3, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00026
Chen, T.-Y., & Sie, Y.-S. (2019). A reassessment of the effects of neighborhood density and
phonotactic probability on L2 English word learning. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mental Lexicon, 1, 104. https://doi.org/10. 7939/r3-
sb0h-jj73
de Groot, A., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and
word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory
and Language, 47(1), 91-124. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2840
De Sutter, G., & Lefer, M. (2020). On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based
translation studies: A multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary
approach. Perspectives, 28(1), 1-23.
Dewey, M. (1876). A classification and subject index for cataloguing and arranging the
books and pamphlets of a library. Lockwood & Brainard Company.
Dirix, N., Cop, U., Drieghe, D., & Duyck, W. (2017). Cross-lingual neighborhood effects in
generalized lexical decision and natural reading. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(6), 887-915.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000352
Edwards, J., Beckman, M. & Munson, B. (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size
and phonotactic probability effects on children’s production accuracy and fluency
in non-word repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(2),
-436. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/034)
Edwards, J., Munson, B., & Beckman, M. (2011). Lexicon-phonology relationships and
dynamics of early language development. Journal of Child Language, 38(1), 35-40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000450
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Petrović, M., & Lefer, M. (2019). Simplified or not simplified?
The different guises of mediated English at the European parliament. Meta, 63(3),
-738. https://doi.org/10.7202/1060170ar
Forker, D. (2021). Complexity and its relation to variation. Frontiers in Communication,
(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/632468
Freedman, S., & Barlow, J. (2012). Using whole-word production measures to determine
the influence of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on bilingual
speech production. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 369-387.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911425815
Garson, G. (2013). Fundamentals of hierarchical linear and multilevel modeling. In G.
Garson (Ed.), Hierarchical linear modeling: Guide and applications (pp. 3-26).
SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384450.n1
Garson, G. (2020). Multilevel modeling: Applications in STATA, IBM SPSS, SAS, R, & HLM.
SAGE. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/multilevel-modeling/book260705
Gendler-Shalev, H., Ben-David, A., & Novogrodsky, R. (2021). The effect of phonological
complexity on the order in which words are acquired in early childhood. First
Language, 41(6), 779-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237211042997
Goldinger, S., & Papesh, M. (2012). Pupil dilation reflects the creation and retrieval of
memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 90-95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412436811
Hall, K., Allen, B., Coates, E., Fry, M., Huang, S., Johnson, K., Lo, R., Mackie, S., Nam, S., &
McAuliffe, M. (2022). Phonological CorpusTools Version 1.5.1.
https://corpustools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/about.html
Halverson, S. (2015). Cognitive translation studies and the merging of empirical paradigms:
The case of “literal translation”. Translation Spaces, 4(2), 310-340.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.4.2.07hal
Hoover, J., Storkel, H., & Hogan, T. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of
phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool
children. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 100-116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.003
Hu, K. (2016). Introducing corpus-based translation studies. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48218-6
Jones, S. (2018). Adult word learning as a function of neighborhood density. Languages,
(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages3010005
Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2012). Register and the features of translated language. Across
Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 33-65. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear
mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Laeng, B., Sirois, S., & Gredebäck, G. (2012). Pupillometry: A window to the preconscious?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 18-27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427305
Laviosa, S. (1998). The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in translation studies.
Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 43, 474-479. https://doi.org/10.7202/003424ar
Laviosa, S. (2002). Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative
prose. Meta, 43(4), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.7202/003425ar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (2001). Universals of translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 288-291). Routledge.
Lee, S.-Y. (2011). Parallel activation in bilingual phonological processing [Doctoral thesis,
University of Kansas]. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8157
Liu, K., Afzaal, M. (2021). Syntactic complexity in translated and non-translated texts: A
corpus-based study of simplification. PLOS ONE 16(6), e0253454.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253454
Longoni, A., Richardson, J., & Aiello, A. (1993). Articulatory rehearsal and phonological
storage in working memory. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 11-22.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211160
Luce, P., & Large, N. (2001). Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word
recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5-6), 565-581.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000137
Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation
model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1-36.
Marian, V., & Blumenfeld, H. (2006). Phonological neighbourhood density guides lexical
access in native and non-native language production. Journal of Social and
Ecological Boundaries, 2, 3-35.
Messer, M., Verhagen, J., Boom, J., Mayo, A., & Leseman, P. (2015). Growth of verbal
short-term memory of non-words varying in phonotactic probability: A
longitudinal study with monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Memory
and Language, 84(1), 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.05.001
Mueller, S., Seymour, T., Kieras, D., & Meyer, D. (2003). Theoretical implications of
articulatory duration, phonological similarity, and phonological complexity in
verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 29(6), 1353-1380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1353
Mu-Sonic Ltd. (2013). ToPhonetics. https://tophonetics.com/
Nair, V., Biedermann, B., & Nickels, L. (2017). Understanding bilingual word learning: The
role of phonotactic probability and phonological neighborhood density. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(12), 3551-3560.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-15-0376
Olohan, M., & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for
subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2),
-158. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
Rabinovich, E., Nisioi, S., Ordan, N., & Wintner, S. (2016). On the similarities between
native, non-native and translated texts. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1870-1881.
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1176
Rabinovich, E., & Wintner, S. (2015). Unsupervised identification of translationese.
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3(3), 419-432.
https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00148
Rescher, N. (1989). Cognitive economy: The economic dimension of the theory of
knowledge. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/Complexity-A-Philosophical-Overview/Rescher
/p/book/ 9781138508378
Robin, E. (2017). Translation universals revisited. FORUM, 15(1), 51-66.
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.15.1.03rob
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2015). Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning: A usage-based
perspective. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.
-138). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.06roe
Rojo López, A. (2015). Translation meets cognitive science: The imprint of translation on
cognitive processing. Multilingua, 34(6), 721-746. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-
-0066
Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Lethbridge, A., Hinton, M., & Nimmo, L. (2002). Word-frequency
and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1019-1034.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.6.1019
Sandrelli, A., & Bendazzoli, C. (2005). Lexical patterns in simultaneous interpreting: A
preliminary investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).
Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series 1. University of
Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/corpus/
publications/conference-archives/2005-conf-e-journal.aspx
Satterthwaite, F. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance
components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110–114.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3002019
Schmidtke, J. (2014). Second language experience modulates word retrieval effort in
bilinguals: Evidence from pupillometry. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1), 1-16.
Stamer, M., & Vitevitch, M. (2012). Phonological similarity influences word learning in
adults learning Spanish as a foreign language. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 15(3), 490-502. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000216
Storkel, H. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical, and
semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language, 36(2),
-321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090800891X
Storkel, H., Armbrüster, J., & Hogan, T. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and
neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 49(6), 1175-1192. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-
(2006/085)
Tehan, G., & Tolan, G. (2007). Word length effects in long-term memory. Journal of
Memory and Language, 56(1), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.015
The International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic
Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge
University Press.
Thorn, A., & Frankish, C. (2005). Long-term knowledge effects on serial recall of nonwords
are not exclusively lexical. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 729-735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-
31.4.729
Titz, J. (2020). mimosa: A modern graphical user interface for 2-level mixed models.
Journal of Open Source Software, 5(49), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02116
Vitevitch, M. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech
production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 28, 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735
Vitevitch, M., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in
speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 514-529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.514
Vitevitch, M., & Luce, P. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception
of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9(4), 325–329.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00064
Vitevitch, M., Luce, P., Pisoni, D., & Auer, E. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation,
and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68(1–2), 306-311.
https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2116
Wang, F. (2020). Translation process is a psychological and introspective process, as well
as a process of problem solving and decision-making. Revista Argentina de Clínica
Psicológica, 29(1), 1413-1424.
Williams, D. (2005). Recurrent features of translation in Canada: A corpus-based study
[Doctoral thesis, University of Ottawa]. Canada. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-
Xiao, R., & Dai, G. (2014). Lexical and grammatical properties of Translational Chinese:
Translation universal hypotheses reevaluated from the Chinese perspective.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 11-55.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0016
Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.
Copyright (c) 2023 UNIMAS Publisher
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Transfer Statement for Journal
1) In signing this statement, the author(s) grant UNIMAS Publisher an exclusive license to publish their original research papers. The author(s) also grant UNIMAS Publisher permission to reproduce, recreate, translate, extract or summarize, and to distribute and display in any forms, formats, and media. The author(s) can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from UNIMAS Publisher, provided that the author(s) acknowledge and reference publication in the Journal.
2) For open access articles, the author(s) agree that their articles published under UNIMAS Publisher are distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work of the author(s) is properly cited.
3) For subscription articles, the author(s) agree that UNIMAS Publisher holds copyright, or an exclusive license to publish. Readers or users may view, download, print, and copy the content, for academic purposes, subject to the following conditions of use: (a) any reuse of materials is subject to permission from UNIMAS Publisher; (b) archived materials may only be used for academic research; (c) archived materials may not be used for commercial purposes, which include but not limited to monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, license, transfer of copyright, loan, etc.; and (d) archived materials may not be re-published in any part, either in print or online.
4) The author(s) is/are responsible to ensure his or her or their submitted work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others. Corresponding author(s) has (have) obtained permission from all co-authors prior to submission to the journal. Upon submission of the manuscript, the author(s) agree that no similar work has been or will be submitted or published elsewhere in any language. If submitted manuscript includes materials from others, the authors have obtained the permission from the copyright owners.
5) In signing this statement, the author(s) declare(s) that the researches in which they have conducted are in compliance with the current laws of the respective country and UNIMAS Journal Publication Ethics Policy. Any experimentation or research involving human or the use of animal samples must obtain approval from Human or Animal Ethics Committee in their respective institutions. The author(s) agree and understand that UNIMAS Publisher is not responsible for any compensational claims or failure caused by the author(s) in fulfilling the above-mentioned requirements. The author(s) must accept the responsibility for releasing their materials upon request by Chief Editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
6) The author(s) should have participated sufficiently in the work and ensured the appropriateness of the content of the article. The author(s) should also agree that he or she has no commercial attachments (e.g. patent or license arrangement, equity interest, consultancies, etc.) that might pose any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. The author(s) also agree to make any relevant materials and data available upon request by the editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
