Article published In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 10:4 (2020) ► pp.559–586
Translation ambiguity in Mandarin-English bilinguals
Translation production differences in concrete, abstract, and emotion words
Published online: 13 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17037.bas
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17037.bas
Abstract
Research focused on the cognitive processes surrounding bilingual language representation has revealed the important role that translation ambiguity plays in how languages are stored in memory (Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 727–779. ). In addition, translation of emotionally related information has been shown to be challenging because a direct translation does not always exist (Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2014). Number of translation differences in Spanish and Chinese bilinguals: The difficulty in finding a direct translation for emotion words. In S. Cooper & K. Ratele (Eds.), Psychology serving humanity: Vol. II. (pp. 240–251). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.). The focus of the current study was to explore the processing of ambiguous words for translations that differ in orthography. In Experiment 1, Chinese-English bilinguals translated concrete and abstract words that differed in the number of translations across languages. In Experiment 2, emotion words were introduced into the context, in order to examine differences in emotion translation across languages. The results revealed that words with a single translation were produced faster and more accurately than words that had multiple translations. Finally, translation of emotional stimuli was faster when translating Chinese words as compared to English words.
Keywords: translation, emotion, Chinese
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Implications of translation ambiguity in bilinguals
- 1.2Processing differences in concrete, abstract, and emotion stimuli
- 1.3The role of translation ambiguity and concreteness effects
- 2.Methods
- Participants
- Stimuli
- Procedure
- 3.Results
- 4.Experiment 2 – Methods
- Participants
- Stimuli
- Procedure
- 5.Experiment 2 – Results
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
References
References (40)
Altarriba, J. (2003). Does cariño equal “liking”? A theoretical approach to conceptual nonequivalence between languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 71, 305–322.
(2012). Emotion and mood: Over 120 years of contemplation and exploration. American Journal of Psychology, 1251, 409–422.
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The representation of emotion versus emotion-laden words in English and Spanish in the Affective Simon task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 151, 310–328.
Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology, 1171, 389–410.
Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context-availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 311, 578–602.
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of prepositional information from long term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 451–474.
Bai, L. (2015). Emotion categorization and early bilinguals: A study of Chinese-English bilinguals’ understanding of the shame category. Ph.D. dissertation. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchinson, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al.. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 391, 445–459.
Basnight-Brown, D. M., & Altarriba, J. (2014). Number of translation differences in Spanish and Chinese bilinguals: The difficulty in finding a direct translation for emotion words. In S. Cooper & K. Ratele (Eds.), Psychology serving humanity: Vol. II. (pp. 240–251). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
(2016). Multiple translations in bilingual memory: Processing differences across concrete, abstract, and emotion words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45 (5), 1219–1245.
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, 161, 183–197.
Bracken, J., Degani, T., Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Translation semantic variability: How semantic relatedness affects learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 201, 783–794.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW). Gainesville, FL: The NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 977–990.
Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE 5 (6), e10729.
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 501, 491–511.
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Areas da Luz Fontes, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Determinants of translation ambiguity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6 (3), 29–37.
Degani, T., Prior, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Bidirectional transfer: The effect of sharing a translation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 231, 18–28.
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Ambiguous words are harder to learn. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 131, 299–314.
(2013). Cross-language influences: Translation status affects intraword sense relatedness. Memory and Cognition, 411, 1046–1064.
Degani, T., Tseng, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Together or apart: Learning of translation-ambiguous words. Bilingualism: Learning and Cognition, 171, 749–765.
Degani, T., Prior, A., Eddington, C. M., Areas da Luz Fontes, A. B., & Tokowicz, N. (2016). Determinant of translation ambiguity. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6 (3), 290–307.
Eddington, C., & Tokowicz, N. (2013). Examining English-German translation ambiguity using primed translation recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 442–457.
Kazanas, S., & Altarriba, J. (2015). The automatic activation of emotion and emotion-laden words: Evidence from a masked and unmasked priming paradigm. American Journal of Psychology, 1281, 323–336.
Knickerbocker, H., Johnson, R. L., & Altarriba, J. (2015). Emotion effects during reading: Influence of an emotion target word on eye movements and processing. Cognition & Emotion, 291, 784–806.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 331, 149–174.
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, 131, 157–183.
Lin, J., & Yao, Y. (2016). Encoding emotion in Chinese: A database of Chinese emotion words with information of emotion type, intensity, and valence. Lingua Sinica, 21, 1–22.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Prior, A., Kroll, J. F., & MacWhinney, B. (2012). Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 161, 458–474.
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.
Smith, Y., Walters, J., & Prior, A. (2012). Translation norms for Hebrew and English. Edmond J. Safra Technical Report, 2012–1.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 61, 121–174.
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 727–779.
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, 341, 435–451.
Tseng, A. M., Chang, L.-Y., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity between English and Mandarin Chinese: The role of proficiency. In J. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence: Theories and methodologies from psycholinguistics and cognitive science (pp. 107–165). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 193–211.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Wu, Chenggang, Juan Zhang & Yaxuan Meng
Abdul Razak, Farhan Athirah & Normalis Amzah
Morrison, Louisa, Zoe Given‐Wilson & Amina Memon
Zhao, Quanbei, Jia Li, Wenxin Xiong & Hongbing Xing
Li, Jia & Quanbei Zhao
Tokowicz, Natasha
2023. The translation ambiguity disadvantage in language processing. In Translation in Transition [American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, XX], ► pp. 183 ff.
Tokowicz, Natasha, Caitlin A Rice & Zachary Ekves
Altarriba, Jeanette & Dana Basnight-Brown
Lee, Soon Tat, Walter J. B. van Heuven, Jessica M. Price & Christine Xiang Ru Leong
Huang, Kai & Elena Nicoladis
Schwieter, John W. & Anat Prior
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
