1. Jean-Marc Lavaur & Jannika Laxén
University of Montpellier III, FRANCE
International Congress of psychology.
Berlin, Germany. July 2008.

2. Language proficiency
Context of use
Translation situations
Language proximity
Word characteristics

3. Words characteristics
Intralingual factorsIntralingual factors
word frequency, concreteness, homography
Interlingual factorsInterlingual factors
number-of-translations, dominance of the translations

4. Words with one translationWords with one translation
Words with one meaning and one translation
For example: ARBRE TREETREE
Words with many meanings but only one translation
For example: DRÔLE FUNNYFUNNY
Words with more than one translationWords with more than one translation
Words with one meaning but many translations
For example: BATEAU BOAT SHIPBOAT SHIP
Words with many meanings and many translations
For example: FEMME WOMAN WIFEWOMAN WIFE

5. Lexical level
Semantic level
Father Père
Concrete wordsConcrete words

6. Lexical level
Semantic level
Love Amour
Abstract wordsAbstract words

7.  Detect semantic factors that influence relations
between translation equivalents and thus, in part,
determine the performance in out-of-context
translation.
Impact of three interlingual factorsImpact of three interlingual factors
 numbernumber of translations (experiments 1 & 2)
 dominancedominance of these translations (experiments 1 & 2)
 semantic similaritysemantic similarity between the multiple
translations (experiment 2)

8. Hypothetical representation of semantical nodes shared by the
translation equivalents for words with one or more-than-one
translations.
More-than-one translations
FEMME WOMAN WIFE
One translation
ARBRE TREE
dominant non-dominant

9. Hypothetical representation of semantical nodes shared by the
translation equivalents for words with more than one translation
equivalents of which one dominant (D+) and one non dominant (D-).
 Semantically similar
BATEAU BOAT SHIP
 Semantically dissimilar
TEMPS TIME WEATHER
dominant non dominantdominant non dominant

10. Factors/ hypothesesFactors/ hypotheses
Number-of-translations
One translation < More-than-One translation
Dominance of the translations
Dominant translation < non-dominant translation
Participants
32 native speakers of French students of English at the
University of Montpellier (France)

11. MaterialMaterial
28
Nail - Clou
28
Nail - Ongle
28
Moon-Lune
L2-L1
28
Femme- Wife
28
Femme-Woman
28
Lait-Milk
L1-L2
More-than-One translation pairs
DominantDominant Non-dominantNon-dominant
One translation pairs
Translation Equivalents

12. *lune
moon
yes
*
shoe
lune
no

13. 450
500
550
600
650
700
L1L2 L2L1
one translation
dominant translation
non dominant translation
Experiment 1

14. Factors / hypothesesFactors / hypotheses
Number-of-translations
One translation < More-than-One translation
Semantic similarity of translations
Semantically similar < Semantically dissimilar
Participants
24 native speakers of French, students of English at the
University of Montpellier (France)

15. Material
10
Nail – Ongle
Nail - Clou
10
Husband- Mari
Husband -Epoux
20
Moon-Lune
L2-L1
10
Argent – Money
Argent - Silver
10
Maison – House
Maison - Home
20
Lait-Milk
L1-L2
“More-than-One” translation
pairs
SimilarSimilar DissimilarDissimilar
“One translation”
pairs
Translation Equivalents

16. 612
683
450
500
550
600
650
700
Experiment 2
Similar Dissimilar
Semantic similarity effect

17. 500
550
600
650
700
L1L2 L2L1
One translation two translations (similar)
two translations (dissimilar)

18. 450
500
550
600
650
700
L1L2 L2L1
one transaltion
dominant translation
non dominant translation

19. Our results confirm our hypotheses
words with one translation are processed
faster than words with more-than-one
translations.
dominant translations are also processed
faster than non-dominant translations.
words with two semantically similar
translations are processed faster than words
with two semantically distant translations.

20. DiscussionDiscussion
Despite the complexity of relations between
translation equivalents, the bilingual semantic
memory remains efficient

21. The more the translation equivalents share
features (hypothetically) at the semantic level the
faster the translation recognition
(One translation< Dominant translation< Non-dominant translation)
The similar results in both directions of translation
can be taken as an argument in favour of the
hypothesis that both translation directions use the
semantic route of translation.

22. Merci, Kiitos, Tack, Gracias, Grazie
etc...