On Mean Dependency Distance as a Metric of Translation Quality Assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54392/ijll2143Keywords:
Dependency Grammar, Mean Dependency Distance, Translation Quality Assessment, Quantitative LinguisticsAbstract
This paper has adopted a quantitative approach to carry out a linguistic study, within the theoretical framework of dependency grammar. Translation is a process where source language and target language interact with each other. The present study aims at exploring the feasibility of mean dependency distance as a metric for automated translation quality assessment. The current research hypothesized that different levels of translation are significantly different in the aspect of mean dependency distance. Data of this study were based on the written translation in Parallel Corpus of Chinese EFL Learners which was composed of translations from Chinese EFL learners in various topic. The translations were human-scored to determine the levels of translation, according to which the translations were categorized. Our results indicated that: (1) senior students perform better in translation than junior students, and mean dependency distance of translations from senior group is significantly shorter than the junior; (2) high quality translations yield shorter mean dependency distance than the low quality translations; (3) mean dependency distance of translations is moderately correlated with the human score. The resultant implication suggests the potential for mean dependency distance in differentiating translations of different quality.
References
de Marneffe, M. C., & Nivre, J. (2019). Dependency grammar, Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011842
Fan, L., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Can dependency distance and direction be used to differentiate translational language from native language?, Lingua, 224, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.03.004
Heringer, H. J., Strecker, B., & Wimmer, R. (1980). Syntax: Fragen, Lösungen, Alternativen, Fink.
Hudson, R. (2010). An introduction to word grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781964
Jiang, J., Ouyang, J., & Liu, H. (2019). Interlanguage: A perspective of quantitative linguistic typology, Language Sciences, 74, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.04.004
Lei, L., & Jockers, M. L. (2020). Normalized dependency distance: Proposing a new measure, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27(1), 62-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1504615
Lei, L., & Wen, J. (2020). Is dependency distance experiencing a process of minimization? A diachronic study based on the State of the Union addresses, Lingua, 239, 102762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102762
Liang, J., Fang, Y., Lv, Q., & Liu, H. (2017). Dependency distance differences across interpreting types: Implications for cognitive demand, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02132
Liang, J., Lv, Q., & Liu, Y. (2019). Quantifying interpreting types: Language sequence mirrors cognitive load minimization in interpreting tasks, Frontiers in psychology, 10, 285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00285
Liu, H. T. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty, Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159-191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159
Liu, H. T. (2009). Dependency Grammar: From Theory to Practice, Science Press, Beijing, China.
Liu, H. T. (2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks, Lingua, 120(6), 1567-1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001
Liu, H. T. (2017). An Introduction to Quantitative Linguistics, The Commercial Press, Beijing, China.
Liu, H. T., & Lin, Y. N. (2018). Methodology and trends of linguistic research in the era of big data, Journal of Xinjiang Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 39(1), 72-83.
Liu, H. T., Hudson, R. & Feng, Z. (2009). Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.007
Lu, Q., Xu, C., & Liu, H. (2016). Can chunking reduce syntactic complexity of natural languages?, Complexity, 21(S2), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.21779
Nivre, J. (2006). Inductive dependency parsing, Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4889-0_4
Ouyang, J., & Jiang, J. (2017). Can the Probability Distribution of Dependency Distance Measure Language Proficiency of Second Language Learners?, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2017.1373991
Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax, John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.185
Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2017). The effects of genre on dependency distance and dependency direction, Language Sciences, 59, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.006
Wen, Q. F. & Wang, J. Q. (2008). Parallel Corpus of Chinese EFL Learners, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing, China.
Yngve, V. H. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure, Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 104(5), 444-466.
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort, Addison-Wesley Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Zou, S. (2013). Towards Success in TEM8, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai, China.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Chenliang Zhou (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
