A Study of the Quantitative Influence of Intercultural Factors on Textual Coherence in English and American Literary Translation
Mar 19, 2025
About this article
Published Online: Mar 19, 2025
Received: Oct 25, 2024
Accepted: Feb 22, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0423
Keywords
© 2025 Jie Lian, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
The model results of the text consistency of the translation
| Linguistic characteristics | Estimate | Std.Error | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 274.894 | 45.928 | 4.879 | 0.000 |
| V2 | -55.662 | 13.789 | -3.252 | 0.001 |
| V4 | 0.078 | 0.205 | 2.482 | 0.004 |
| V5 | -19.017 | 7.219 | -4.434 | 0.005 |
| V8 | -0.158 | 0.615 | -1.841 | 0.001 |
| V11 | 0.23 | 0.072 | 4.276 | 0.002 |
| S9 | 12.043 | 8.438 | 1.605 | 0.035 |
| S14 | -2.954 | 0.388 | -3.748 | 0.007 |
| L8 | -61.576 | 20.635 | -4.918 | 0.003 |
| L11 | -21.124 | 11.484 | -3.771 | 0.001 |
| L12 | 124.416 | 12.936 | 5.582 | 0.000 |
Standardized estimation results of path coefficient
| Path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | Result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Geographic location | Text understanding | -0.156 | 0.089 | 2.483 | 0.003 | Support |
| H2 | Custom | Text understanding | -0.297 | 0.077 | 3.256 | *** | Support |
| H3 | Religious belief | Text understanding | -0.399 | 0.055 | 3.024 | *** | Support |
| H4 | Thought idea | Text understanding | -0.208 | 0.041 | 5.458 | 0.007 | Support |
| H5 | Regional politics | Text understanding | -0.251 | 0.026 | 4.149 | 0.002 | Support |
| H6 | Historical development | Text understanding | -0.216 | 0.014 | 7.073 | 0.005 | Support |
| H7 | Text understanding | Textual consistency | 0.314 | 0.044 | 6.197 | 0.006 | Support |
Test results of model suitability
| Fitness index | Matching results | Fitness criteria | Judging result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | 1.725 | <3 | Fittest |
| RMSEA | 0.031 | <0.08 | Fittest |
| RMR | 0.074 | <0.05 | Unpalatable |
| GFI | 0.925 | >0.9 | Fittest |
| AGFI | 0.911 | >0.9 | Fittest |
| NFI | 0.953 | >0.9 | Fittest |
| IFI | 0.933 | >0.9 | Fittest |
| CFI | 0.943 | >0.9 | Fittest |
The correlation analysis results of each variable
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Geographic location | 1 | |||||||
| 2.Custom | 0.383 *** | 1 | ||||||
| 3.Religious belief | 0.277 *** | 0.451 *** | 1 | |||||
| 4.Thought idea | 0.234 *** | 0.311 *** | 0.239 *** | 1 | ||||
| 5.Regional politics | 0.357 *** | 0.477 *** | 0.369 *** | 0.252 *** | 1 | |||
| 6.Historical development | 0.257 *** | 0.243 *** | 0.332 *** | 0.261 *** | 0.292 *** | 1 | ||
| 7.Text understanding | -0.233 *** | -0.208 *** | -0.329 *** | -0.318 *** | -0.344 *** | -0.175 *** | 1 | |
| 8.Textual consistency | -0.158 ** | -0.213 *** | -0.275 *** | -0.259 *** | -0.357 *** | -0.225 ** | 0.159 *** | 1 |