7. Discussion
A statistical analysis of our corpus data involving English and five target languages from different families has shown that all three features of translation or interpretation identified as indicators of difficulty are closely associated with structural difference in the language pair. In the sentences in our corpus, the highest rates for each indicator were in English-Turkish and English-Japanese, the language pairs with the greatest structural difference of those considered. Reordering and nesting changes were much more frequent in legal translation than in the other two modes. Changes in semantic relations were especially characteristic of simultaneous interpretation.
Based on the corpus data, the models chosen for our statistical analysis predicted a number of associations which may be generalized to similar texts, talks and speeches. The rates for each indicator of difficulty were predicted to increase greatly with increasing structural difference of the language pair and increasing sentence complexity. In legal translation, this was especially true for reordering and nesting changes, and in simultaneous interpretation for changes in semantic relations.
The associations found between structural difference in the language pair of translation or interpretation and the three indicators of difficulty have general implications which apply to all three modes of language transfer considered in this study. Those associations suggest that, the more a language pair differs in structure: (a) the more the linear order of propositions is likely to change in translation or interpretation of a complex sentence in that pair, (b) the more nested structures are likely to be created or eliminated in translation or interpretation of a complex sentence in that pair, and (c) the more the semantic relations between propositions are likely to be changed in translation or interpretation of a complex sentence in that pair. Taken together, these findings suggest that, across all three modes of transfer, the more a language pair differs in structure, the more difficult it’s likely to be to translate or interpret a complex sentence in that pair, and the more the original meaning is likely to be changed.
Determining the precise causes for these associations is beyond the scope of this study. Below are some speculative explanations as to why structural difference in a language pair may make it more difficult to translate or interpret complex sentences in that pair, along with some related observations.
7.1 Structural difference and reordering
It’s been shown (Hawkins 2014) that having to keep several logical windows open at a time – as a translator or interpreter needs to do if juggling propositions around in different order – is more difficult than processing one logical window at a time, closing it and moving on to the next one – as a translator or interpreter can do if transferring propositions in parallel order. It’s also been shown (Donolato, Giofrè and Mammarella 2017) that recalling verbal information in reverse order is harder than recalling it in the order it was received.
Moreover, reordering is worth recording to quantify it in its own right. It’s informative to see, for each language pair, how far away the average proposition needs to be shifted in different modes of transfer. In legal translation of a complex sentence in language pairs with very different structure, like English-Turkish and English-Japanese, the total number of place shifts recorded in this study sometimes reached triple digits for a given sentence, while the same sentence had been translated with little or no reordering between structurally similar languages.
7.2 Structural difference and nesting changes
The findings of this study suggest that translation or interpretation of a complex sentence from a right-branching language like English into a left-branching language like Turkish, Japanese or (to some extent) Mandarin is likely to lead to many more nestings than in the original version, and therefore to be more difficult to produce and to process. This may be partly due to a basic asymmetry between the two directions in which a subordinate proposition can branch from its parent.
Left-branching languages tend to be “head-final,” with a phrase head typically coming at the end of its phrase in most phrase types. So a phrase expressing a proposition in such a language will generally have its predicate at the end of the phrase, preceded by any other constituents. One of those constituents is likely to be the subject of the predicate, which, even in a left-branching language, tends to be near the beginning of the phrase. This can make for lots of long‑distance attachments, with several constituents sandwiched between the subject and predicate of a long proposition. One or more of those intervening constituents can themselves be propositions. And any of those nested propositions can in turn be split, leading to multiple layers of nesting.
In my experience, a long, complex sentence in a left‑branching language tends to have many more nestings than a comparable sentence in a right‑branching language. A Turkish or Japanese legal text, for example, is likely to have sentences with many more nestings and long‑distance attachments than a comparable text drafted in English, German or Russian. This makes the phrasal combination domains (PCDs) in those sentences more difficult to establish and to process.
Also in my experience, this nesting tendency of left-branching languages can be compounded in translation from a right-branching language. A sentence in a European language can be long and complex, but have few or no nestings, consisting of a series of unbroken propositions, with each subordinate proposition linked to the end of its parent. But transferred with structural accuracy into a language like Turkish or Japanese, that same sentence can often end up with multiple nestings. This typically happens in written translation, in a genre characterized by long, complex sentences – unless the translator makes a special effort to change the hierarchical structure of the original so as to avoid nested structures in translation. They may be reluctant to do that, especially in a text which has legal consequences, or even in an article they wish to translate faithfully. Changing the hierarchical structure of an original sentence in translation also risks distorting its meaning.
7.3 Structural difference and changes in semantic relations
A change in semantic relations in a written translation compared to the original version presumably means that the translator has: (a) had trouble understanding the structure of the source language, (b) had trouble reproducing that structure in the target language, or (c) chosen to depart from the original structure for some reason. Such a change can also be the result of any combination of the above factors.
A translator working between languages with parallel structure, like two European languages, can generally reformulate the propositions of a complex sentence one by one and in order. This includes the subordinating links between propositions – like subordinating conjunctions, relative pronouns and prepositions – which they can transfer directly from one language to the other, without having to take apart and reconstruct the logical relation established by each one.
On the other hand, if a translator working in a language pair with opposite structure chooses or needs to change the hierarchical relations between propositions in the translation of a complex sentence compared to the original version, that may be because faithfully reproducing those relations would result in a translation that’s hard to process or that sounds awkward. Such restructuring is likely to involve extra effort. Changing the relations between propositions also creates a greater risk of distorting the original meaning.
In simultaneous interpretation between structurally different languages, a change in semantic relations compared to the original can be due to any of the reasons described above for written translation. It’s also likely to be due to the fact that too great a burden has been placed on the interpreter’s working memory.
7.4 Differences between modes
This study has established preliminary associations between structural difference of a language pair and indicators of difficulty in translating or interpreting complex sentences in that pair, with some differences according to the mode of language transfer. The higher rates observed and predicted for reordering and nesting changes in structurally different language pairs appear to be especially characteristic of legal translation. This may be due to the greater sentence complexity typical of legal texts, and to the fact that standard written translation is free from the time, space or working memory constraints inherent to the other two modes. On the other hand, higher rates for changes in semantic relations appear to be especially characteristic of simultaneous interpretation.
Among the language pairs considered, the observed and predicted rates for reordering and for nesting changes in structurally different language pairs are relatively low in subtitle translation and simultaneous interpretation, and appear less strongly associated with structural difference in those modes than in legal translation. For subtitle translation, this more parallel order with respect to the original may be partly due to the need or desire for subtitle segments to run parallel to the video image. For simultaneous interpretation, it may be partly due to the constraint on interpreters’ working memory.
On the other hand, the observed and predicted rates for changes in semantic relations in structurally different language pairs are particularly high in subtitle translation and in simultaneous interpretation, and appear more strongly associated with structural difference in those modes than in legal translation. This may be for similar reasons to those suggested for reordering and nesting changes. In subtitle translation, the timing constraint can lead a translator to prefer a more parallel order to the original than would be the case in a standard written translation, distorting the relations between propositions. In simultaneous interpretation, the working memory constraint can have a similar effect.
These findings suggest that there may be a trade-off between ease of production and preservation of meaning in translation or interpretation of complex sentences between structurally different languages. Subtitle translation and simultaneous interpretation in such pairs seem to be characterized by more parallel order to the original and more manageable structure than legal translation. But that relative production ease may come at the price of greater changes to the hierarchical relations between propositions, meaning greater potential distortion of the original message.
8. Conclusion
Is structural difference in a language pair associated with difficulty in translating or interpreting complex sentences in that pair? The preliminary answer given here to that question is: Yes. This study has established preliminary associations between structural difference in a language pair and measured rates for indicators of difficulty of translation or interpretation in that pair, with some differences according to the mode of language transfer.
Can anything be done to reduce that difficulty? In my opinion, the short answer is: Sadly, not much. Various strategies – like sentence division, anticipation and changing syntactic structure – can be practiced and applied for coping with the working memory constraint in simultaneous interpretation. But the main take-away from this study is that translating or interpreting complex sentences can be much more difficult between structurally different languages than between structurally similar ones – so much so, particularly in interpretation, that the challenge can seem insurmountable. Even if not much can be done about it, it can still be useful to be aware of the difficulty – its nature, its causes, how intractable it can be, as well as its potential effects.
When we say “structurally different languages,” what languages are we talking about besides the ones considered here? Based on typological classifications by Dryer (2013) and Schmidtke-Bode and Diessel (2017), languages with the same complex sentence structure as English (relative and complement clauses which both typically branch to the right) include most Indo-European languages, as well as languages like Arabic, Hebrew, Indonesian, Swahili, Thai and Vietnamese. Languages with somewhat different structure from English (relative clauses which typically branch either way and complement clauses which typically branch to the right) include Finnish, Hungarian and Armenian. Languages with moderately different structure from English (relative clauses which typically branch to the left and complement clauses which typically branch to the right) include Sino-Tibetan languages, Basque and Georgian. Languages with opposite structure from English (relative and complement clauses which both typically branch to the left) include Turkish, Japanese and Korean.
The findings of this study may help confirm the impressions of many professionals, who feel from experience that translation or interpretation can be much more difficult between structurally different languages than between structurally similar ones. The findings also confirm that structural difficulties manifest themselves differently in different modes of language transfer. Because of space and time constraints in subtitle translation and the working memory constraint in simultaneous interpretation, those two modes appear to be associated with more parallel transfer and easier-to-process structure of the product (less reordering and fewer nesting changes) than legal translation. But that greater ease in production and processing seems to come at the price of more changes in hierarchical structure and therefore potentially in meaning.
Impressions of relative difficulty can seem obvious to professional translators or interpreters with relevant experience. Still, stating such impressions explicitly can be somewhat taboo. This is true for a number of reasons, including good ones like professional solidarity. This study hopes to go some way towards dispelling that taboo, by helping to highlight structural difference in a language pair as a major potential factor of difficulty – in addition to other linguistic and cultural factors which can complicate the task of translating or interpreting between languages from different families and different parts of the world.
Particularly for simultaneous interpretation, the natural constraint on working memory can make it nearly impossible to interpret complex sentences between structurally very different languages with anything approaching the completeness, accuracy, emphasis and style of a good written translation.
To draw an analogy, a translator is like a swimmer in a pool. They first survey a sentence, then dive in and start swimming forward. The greater their expertise, the more skillful they are in technique, elegance and speed. And they’re in control, as the water of the text is still, allowing them to proceed as quickly or as slowly as they like.
A simultaneous interpreter is like a swimmer in a river with a current. They have less control as they swim than the translator does in the pool. Where the current isn’t too fast, they have time to maneuver around obstacles. They can speed up or slow down relative to the flow. But ultimately it’s the speed of the current which determines their pace. And if they’re swimming downstream, the direction of flow helps immensely by propelling them in the right direction.
This propelling effect is so essential and so constant that interpreters take it for granted when swimming downstream – working between languages where propositions follow each other in similar order. It’s only if an interpreter has to swim upstream – working between languages where propositions come at them in reverse order – that they realize how tough it can be to fight the flow. If the current isn’t too strong, they can manage, though with considerably more effort than swimming downstream, and less gracefully. But if the speaker’s propositions come rushing at the interpreter in a very different order from an order in which they can process and reformulate them coherently, the task can become overwhelming.
When professional simultaneous interpretation was first developing, some experts claimed that interpretation between languages with very different structure was simply not possible: “Some languages, such as Japanese, do not permit simultaneous interpreting, due to the complexity of their grammatical structure” (Bower 1959, cited in Davidson 1992: 1). “That’s impossible,” said Sen Nishiyama, one of the pioneer consecutive interpreters in Japan, in 1945. “The word order of English and Japanese is exactly opposite. It just can’t be done” (Torikai 2009: 92).
This study suggests that there may be some truth to those early impressions. Major structural difference in some language pairs (like between a European language and Turkish, Mandarin or Japanese) may well mean that it simply isn’t possible to interpret complex sentences in such a pair with the same degree of accuracy, detail and coherence as between two European languages. For different reasons and perhaps to a different extent, the same may also apply to subtitle translation in a structurally different pair. As for legal translation between structurally different languages, the difficulty may be felt mostly by the translator and reflected less in the product than for the other two modes – although that product may also be harder to read than the product of translation in a structurally similar pair.
I hope the findings of this study will prove interesting and useful to linguists, students, teachers, and professional translators and interpreters. It may help confirm impressions from experience, inform individual or policy decisions, or provide a basis for targeted training or future research. If so, it will have achieved its aim.
Acknowledgements
I’m very grateful to Sergey Kochetkov, Chief of the UN Interpretation Service, for his kind permission to use the recordings of his interpretation of President Obama’s speech in Russian and of the interpretation of the speech into Mandarin, from the UN Audiovisual Library; to European Commission staff interpreter Noémi Nagy and EU and AIIC freelance interpreter Aksel Vannus for generously recording their interpretation of the speech in Hungarian and Turkish; to expert freelance interpreter Tsugumi Kozuma for very generously recording and transcribing her interpretation of the speech in Japanese; and to Oleg Dogon and Marina Riapalova, interpretation trainers at the University of Louvain, and Xinjia Zu and Philip Yubang He, expert freelance interpreters, for their generous time and effort in transcribing the Russian and Mandarin recordings of the speech.
This project would not have been possible without the expert analysis and advice of Aurélie Bertrand at the Statistical Methodology and Computing Service of the University of Louvain.
References
Ahn, In-Kyoung (2005): Pedagogical considerations of perspective coherence problems in simultaneous interpreting as a result of linguistic structure, illustrated by German-Korean examples. Meta. 50(2):696‑712.
Anders, Terry R. and Lilliquist, Timothy D. (2013): Retrieval time in forward and backward recall. Psychonomic Science. 22:205‑206.
Bangalore, Srinivas, Behrens, Bergljot, Carl, Michael, Gankhot, Maheshwar, Heilmann, Arndt, Nitzke, Jean, Schaeffer, Moritz and Sturm, Annegret (2015): The role of syntactic variation in translation and post-editing. Translation Spaces. 4(1):119-144.
Bangalore, Srinivas, Behrens, Bergljot, Carl, Michael, Ghankot, Maheshwar, Heilmann, Arndt, Nitzke, Jean, Schaeffer, Moritz and Sturm, Annegret (2016): Syntactic variance and priming effects in translation. In: Michael Carl, Srinivas Bangalore and Moritz Schaeffer, eds. New directions in empirical translation process research. Cham: Springer International, 211-238.
Birch, Alexandra, Osborne, Miles and Koehn, Philipp (2008): Predicting success in machine translation. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Honolulu: Association for Computational Linguistics, 745-754.
Brown, Brené (2010): The power of vulnerability [video file]. The most popular TED Talks of all time. Consulted on 29 June 2023. Subtitles translated by Irina Loginova (Russian), Thomas Burgon (Hungarian), Serap Çakıl (Turkish), Adrienne Lin (Mandarin) and Rinako Uenishi (Japanese).
Carl, Michael and Schaeffer, Moritz (2017): Why translation is difficult: A corpus-based study of non-literality in post-editing and from-scratch translation. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business. 56:43-57.
Choi, Hye-Won (2007): Length and order: A corpus study of (the) Korean dative-accusative construction. Discourse and Cognition. 14:207-227.
Chomsky, Noam (2003): Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cuddy, Amy (2012): Your body language may shape who you are [video file]. The most popular TED Talks of all time. Consulted on 29 June 2023. Subtitles translated by Olga Dmitrochenkova (Russian), Orsolya Szemere (Hungarian), İbrahim Ferhat Güzelbaba (Turkish), Anna Dung (Mandarin), Yasushi Aoki (Japanese).
Davidson, Peter M. (1992): Segmentation of Japanese source language discourse in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, Special Issue. 1:2‑11.
Diessel, Holger (2001): The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language. 77(3):433‑455.
Donolato, Enrica, Giofrè, David and Mammarella, Irene C. (2017): Differences in verbal and visuospatial forward and backward order recall: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology. 8:663.
Dryer, Matthew S. (1992): The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language. 68:81-138.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2007): Clause types. In: Timothy Shopen, ed. Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 224‑275.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2013): Order of Relative Clause and Noun. In: Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Consulted on 29 June 2023, <https://wals.info/>.
Gast, Volker and Diessel, Holger (2012): The typology of clause linkage: status quo, challenges, prospects. In: Volker Gast and Holger Diessel, eds. Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1-36.
Gile, Daniel (2009): Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gile, Daniel (2011): Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study. In: Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild and Elisabet Tiselius, eds. Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 201‑218.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963): Some universals of language, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73‑113.
Gumul, Ewa and Łyda, Andrzej (2007): The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language. 5:165-183.
Hawkins, John A. (1994): A performance theory of word order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, John A. (2000): The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change. 11:231-266.
Hawkins, John A. (2014): Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Hill, Andrew. “Managers push back against the certainties of big data.” Financial Times. November 21, 2016. Consulted on 29 June 2023, <https://www.ft.com/content/ac04817c-abf9-11e6-ba7d-76378e4fef24>.
Isham, William P. (1994): Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization. In: Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, eds. Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191-212.
Karlsson, Fred (2006): Constraints on multiple center-embedding of clauses. Journal of Linguistics. 43(2):365‑392.
Larson, Mildred L. (1984): Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Matthews, Stephen and Yeung, Louisa Y.Y. (2001): Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese. In: Kaoru Horie and Shigeru Sato, eds. Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, 81-102.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1989): A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Robinson, Sir Ken (2006): Do schools kill creativity? [video file]. The most popular TED Talks of all time. Consulted on 29 June 2023. Subtitles translated by Dima Neiaglov (Russian), Daniel Molnár (Hungarian), Tuğba Gezginiş (Turkish), Dxm Online (Mandarin), Naho Iguchi (Japanese).
Schaeffer, Moritz and Carl, Michael (2014): Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Humans and Computer-assisted Translation. Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 29-37.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten and Diessel, Holger (2017): Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function, and position of (object) complement clauses. Linguistics. 55(1):1-38.
Seleskovitch, Danica and Lederer, Marianne (1989) : Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier Erudition.
Shlesinger, Miriam (2014): Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting. The Translator. 1(2):193-214.
Sinek, Simon (2010): How great leaders inspire action [video file]. The most popular TED Talks of all time. Consulted on 29 June 2023. Subtitles translated by Inna Ponomarenko (Russian), Gábor Tóth (Hungarian), Alim Baytekin (Turkish), Jean Chen (Mandarin), Natsuhiko Mizutani (Japanese).
Thomas, John G., Milner, Haley R. and Haberlandt, Karl F. (2003): Forward and backward recall: Different response time patterns, same retrieval order. Psychological Science. 14(2):169–174.
Tomlin, Russell S. (1986): Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
Torikai, Kumiko (2009): Voices of the invisible presence: Diplomatic interpreters in post-World War II Japan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Urban, Tim (2016): Inside the mind of a master procrastinator [video file]. The most popular TED Talks of all time. Consulted on 29 June 2023. Subtitles translated by Anna Kotova (Russian), Rudolf Panka (Hungarian), Reşat Bir (Turkish), Adrienne Lin (Mandarin), Yasushi Aoki (Japanese).
Vanroy, Bram (2021): Syntactic difficulties in translation. PhD thesis: Ghent University.
Wong, Laurence (2006): Syntax and translatability. Babel. 52:124-132.
Yamashita, Hiroko and Chang, Franklin (2001): Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition. 81:B45-B55.
Yamashita, Hiroko and Chang, Franklin (2006): Sentence production in Japanese. In: Mineharu Nakayama, Reiko Mazuka, Yasuhiro Shirai and Ping Li, eds. Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, Vol. 2: Japanese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291-297.
Zou, J. (2016). On the translation of long and complex English sentences. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 4(6): 190-197.