Abstract

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.

Keywords

Dependency Grammar Mean Dependency Distance Translation Quality Assessment Quantitative Linguistics.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Heringer, H. J., Strecker, B., & Wimmer, R. (1980). Syntax: Fragen, Lösungen, Alternativen, Fink.
  4. Hudson, R. (2010). An introduction to word grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781964
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Liu, H. T. (2009). Dependency Grammar: From Theory to Practice, Science Press, Beijing, China.
  12. 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
  13. Liu, H. T. (2017). An Introduction to Quantitative Linguistics, The Commercial Press, Beijing, China.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Nivre, J. (2006). Inductive dependency parsing, Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4889-0_4
  18. 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
  19. Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax, John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.185
  20. 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
  21. Wen, Q. F. & Wang, J. Q. (2008). Parallel Corpus of Chinese EFL Learners, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing, China.
  22. Yngve, V. H. (1960). A model and an hypothesis for language structure, Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 104(5), 444-466.
  23. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort, Addison-Wesley Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  24. Zou, S. (2013). Towards Success in TEM8, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai, China.