Greater English language dominance predicted a higher likelihood of preferring the word-for-word translation

Description #

A logistic regression relating language dominance (Bilingual Language Profile score) to translation choice showed that more Spanish-dominant participants were more likely to choose the functionalist translation B, while more English-dominant participants were more likely to choose the word-for-word translation A. For every 10-point shift toward English dominance, a participant was almost twice as likely (odds ratio 1.76) to choose the word-by-word translation, though this trend fell just short of significance (p = 0.058). Balanced bilinguals (BLP score 0) had a slight, non-significant lean toward the functionalist translation (p = 0.067) (Table 1).

"Our results showed that participants with higher Spanish dominance were more likely to choose a functionalist translation (translation B) over the word-for-word translation (translation A)." (Colina, 2022, p. 33)

"a participant is almost twice (1.76 times, p = 0.058) as likely to choose a word-by-word translation over a functional translation." (Colina, 2022, p. 34)

"It is notable that participants considered as balanced bilinguals (with a BLP score of 0) had a slight but not statistically significant preference for the functionalist translation (p = 0.067)." (Colina, 2022, p. 34)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: the modeled probability that a participant chose translation B (functionalist) over A (word-for-word), as a function of the participant's language-dominance score.

"A logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the likelihood of choosing translation B (with its functionalist approach) over A (with its word-for-word approach) based on language dominance (see table 1)." (Colina, 2022, p. 33)

How? #ⓘ

Language dominance was scored with the Bilingual Language Profile (BLP); a logistic regression (R glm package) modeled binary translation preference (A coded 1, B coded 0) on the BLP score.

"The BLP assigns points to questions related to language background and language use to obtain a total score on a numerical continuum of language dominance, ranging from -218 to +218." (Colina, 2022, p. 32)

"the logistical regression was run using the glm package." (Colina, 2022, p. 33)

Who? #ⓘ

The 20 bilingual adults, whose BLP scores ranged from -106 (most Spanish-dominant) to +138 (most English-dominant); 11 were Spanish-dominant, 1 balanced, and 8 English-dominant.

"For 11 participants, their dominant language was Spanish. One participant was fairly evenly bilingual (a fairly "balanced bilingual"), and 8 were English dominant." (Colina, 2022, p. 32)

Other Notes #

Table 1 (the logistic regression) is in the online Supporting Information, not the article body. The direction is the interpretively important part: the readers closest to a true limited-English-proficiency profile (Spanish-dominant) leaned toward the functionalist translation. The effect is a non-significant trend (p = 0.058) in a 20-person sample.

Caveats #

• Sample size of 20 is too small to statistically confirm the main effects The study enrolled only 20 participants. The authors acknowledge that a larger sample is needed to statistically confirm the main effects from the t-tests; the small n is also why the logistic-regression language-dominance trend reached only p = 0.058 rather than conventional significance. The authors frame the current findings as sufficient illustration rather than definitive confirmation.
• Sample was bilingual not monolingual LEP limiting generalizability to true limited-English readers All 20 participants were bilingual to some degree rather than monolingual or truly limited-English-proficient, because recruiting participants with no English skills in Tucson, Arizona was difficult. Their knowledge of English could make them more accepting of English-influenced, literal renderings than a genuinely LEP reader would be, which limits how far the preference and comprehension findings generalize to the target population — the authors call for a future study recruiting monolingual speakers.