Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/97157
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
Title: Are translation equivalents really equivalent ? Evidence from concreteness effects in translation priming
Authors: Chaouch-Orozco, A 
González Alonso, J
Duñabeitia, JA
Rothman, J
Issue Date: Apr-2024
Source: International journal of bilingualism, Apr. 2024, v. 28, no. 2, p. 149-162
Abstract: Aims and Objectives: Translation equivalents intuitively seem to overlap in meaning. Moreover, the models of the bilingual lexicon often represent the meaning shared between two translations as a holistic node in the semantic network. However, research on semantic representation and processing questions this holistic approach. For instance, abstract words are assumed to be more language-dependent, while concrete words’ meanings are seen as more consistent cross-linguistically. The non-cognate translation priming paradigm offers an ideal methodological setting to study semantic overlap (proxied by concreteness) between translations. Priming effects between non-cognate translation equivalents are assumed to emerge due to spreading activation at the semantic level. Hence, a larger semantic overlap between translation prime-target pairs should lead to larger priming effects. Nevertheless, the evidence from previous translation priming studies investigating concreteness displays a blurry picture, potentially reflecting a shared limitation: their relatively small sample sizes. We overcame this problem by analysing the largest translation priming dataset to date.
Methodology: Two hundred Spanish–English highly proficient bilinguals were tested in a bidirectional translation priming experiment employing 314 non-cognate translation equivalents differing in concreteness.
Data and analysis: We analysed response times and error rates employing conservative (generalized) linear mixed-effects models.
Findings: The results showed that concrete translation pairs elicited larger priming effects than abstract ones, evidencing differences in semantic representation between concrete and abstract words. Importantly, the influence of concreteness appeared only in the forward translation direction, suggesting language experience-related differences in meaning representation.
Originality: The present study analysed the largest dataset in the translation priming literature to date, employing a conservative statistical approach to shed light on the effects of concreteness on translation priming.
Implications: Our study spotlights the complexity and non-holistic nature of the bilingual semantic representation of concrete and abstract words. The present findings call for more research to help the current models of the bilingual lexicon implement more nuanced semantic representations.
Keywords: Concreteness
Translation equivalents
Semantic overlap
Bilingual lexicon
Translation priming
Semantic representation
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Journal: International journal of bilingualism 
ISSN: 1367-0069
EISSN: 1756-6878
DOI: 10.1177/13670069221146641
Rights: © The Author(s) 2023
Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
The following publication Chaouch-Orozco, A., González Alonso, J., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Rothman, J. (2024). Are translation equivalents really equivalent? Evidence from concreteness effects in translation priming. International Journal of Bilingualism, 28(2), 149-162 is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069221146641.
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Chaouch-Orozco_Translation_Equivalents_Really.pdf229.8 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show full item record

Page views

54
Citations as of Apr 28, 2024

Downloads

2
Citations as of Apr 28, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

1
Citations as of Apr 19, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.