Affiliation:
1. Universidad de Granada ( Spain )
2. Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC) ( Spain )
Abstract
Abstract
The goal of our research was to explore the possible online co-activation of both the target language (TL) syntactic structure representation and TL attachment strategies in translation, and to look over a possible interaction between both syntactic properties. To this purpose, Spanish (L1) – English (L2) bilinguals were instructed to read complex noun phrases with an ambiguous relative clause in Spanish to either repeat them in Spanish or translate them into English. The final word of the sentences and the syntactic congruency between the source language (SL) and TL syntactic structure were manipulated. The results revealed co-activation of both TL syntactic properties: participants interpreted sentences more accordingly to the TL preferred strategy (low attachment) in the reading for translation task, read congruent sentences faster, and used the TL preferred interpretation strategy in the congruent condition of the sentences more. These results indicated TL activation at different syntactic levels during comprehension of the SL in translation.
Subject
Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Statistics and Probability
Reference93 articles.
1. Aguilar, M., & Grillo, N. (2016). Testing the effect of pseudo relatives on relative clause attachment in Spanish. Poster presented at 22nd Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing Conference (AMLaP), Bilbao, Spain.
2. Alameda, J. R., & Cuetos, F. (Eds.). (1995). Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano. [Frequency dictionary of Spanish linguistic units]. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo.
3. Arancibia, B., Bizama, M., & Sáez, K. (2015). Syntactic attachment preferences of relative clauses in school children. Estudios Filológicos, 55(55), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0071-17132015000100001
4. Balling, L. W., Hvelplund, K. T., & Sjørup, A. C. (2014). Evidence of parallel processing during translation. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 59(2), 234-259. https://doi.org/10.7202/1027474ar
5. Bates, E., Devescovi, A., & D’Amico, S. (1999). Processing complex sentences: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(1), 69-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386383