An Introduction to the Ambiguity Tolerance: As a Source of Variation in English-Persian Translation

Hooshang Khoshsima, Seyyed Morteza Hashemi Toroujeni


Different individuals provide different translations of different qualities of the same text. This may be due to one’s dominant cognitive style and individuals’ particular personal characteristics (Khoshsima & Hashemi Toroujeni, 2017) in general or ambiguity tolerance in particular. A certain degree of ambiguity tolerance (henceforth AI) has been found to facilitate language learning (Chapelle, 1983; Ehrman, 1999; Ely, 1995). However, this influential factor has been largely overlooked in translation studies. The purpose of this study was to find the relationship between AT and translation quality by identifying the expected positive correlation between the level of AT and the numbers of translation errors. Out of the 56 undergraduates of English-Persian Translation at Chabahar Maritime University (CMU), a sample of 34 top students was selected based on their scores on the reading comprehension which enjoys a special focus in many contexts (Khoshsima & Rezaeian Tiyar, 2014) and structure subtests of the TOEFL. The participants responded to the SLTAS questionnaire for AT developed by Ely (1995). The questionnaire had a high alpha internal consistency reliability of .84 and standardized item alpha of .84. In the next stage of the research, the participants translated a short passage of contemporary English into Persian, which was assessed using the SICAL III scale for TQA developed and used by Canadian Government’s Translation Bureau as its official TQA model (Williams, 1989).  Then, to find the relationship between the level of ambiguity tolerance in undergraduates of English-Persian translation at Chabahar Maritime University and their translation quality, analysis of the collected data revealed a significant positive correlation (r=440, p<.05) between the participants’ degree of AT and the numbers of errors in their translations. Controlling for SL proficiency, the correlation was still significantly positive (r=.397, p<.05). Accordingly, it was concluded that the more intolerant of ambiguity a person is, the more errors s/he is likely to make while translating; conversely, the more tolerant of ambiguity a person is, the higher the quality of his/her translation will be. Therefore as expected, analysis of the data revealed a positive correlation throughout the sample between ambiguity intolerance and translation quality.



Ambiguity, Ambiguity (In)tolerance, Ambiguity (In)tolerance Level

Full Text:



Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Anderson, S., & Schwartz, A. (1992). Intolerance of ambiguity and depression. Social Cognition (10), 271-298.

Brown, H. D. (2006). Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 231-244.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality (30), 29-50.

Chapelle, C. (1983). The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and success in acquiring English as a second language in adult learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.

Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition research. Language Learning (42), 47-83.

Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning (36), 27-45.

Chirumbolo, A. (2002). The relationship between need for cognitive closure and political orientation: The mediating role of authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 603–610.

Ebrahimi, M. R., & Khoshsima, H. (2015). An Experimental Study on the Impact(s) of Emotional Intelligence Enhancement on Answering Cloze Test among Iranian University Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 5, No. 8, pp. 1586-1593, August 2015. DOI:

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (ed), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 68-86). Cambridge University Press.

El-Koumy, A. S. (2000). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. The National Symposium on English Language Teaching in Egypt. Ain Shams University, The Center for Developing English Language Teaching.

Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals (22), 437-445.

Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Fibert, Z., & Ressler, W.H. (1998). Intolerance of ambiguity and political orientation among Israeli university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 33–40.

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1948). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality (18), 108-143.

Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Tolerance toward ambiguity as a personality variable. American Psychologist, 3, 268.

Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor-analytic study of 4 tolerances of ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 403-410. Doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90066-3.

Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1993). Corporate assessment. London: Routledge.

Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14 (3), 179-199.

Harada, T. (1989). The relationships between intolerance of ambiguity and political interests and political attitudes. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 60 (3), 133-140.

Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. W. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning (31), 349-67.

Hermans, T. (2007). Literary translation. In P. Kuhiwczak, & K. Littau, A companion to Translation Studies (PP. 77-91). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures' consequences. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

House, J. (1981). A model for translation quality assessment. Tubingen: Narr.

Johansson, J.C. (2000). Correlations of self-esteem and intolerance of ambiguity with risk aversion. Psychological Reports, 87 (2), 534.

Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339 –375.

Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003b). Exceptions that prove the rule: Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 383–393.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107.

Kazamia, V. (1999). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign language ambiguities? Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, 69-78.

Khoshsima, H. & Hashemi Toroujeni, S.M. (2017). Transitioning to an Alternative Assessment: Computer-Based Testing and Key Factors related to Testing Mode. European Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol 2, Issue 1 (2017).

Khoshsima, H., Hosseini, M. & Hashemi Toroujeni, S.M. (2017). Cross-Mode Comparability of Computer-Based Testing (CBT) versus Paper and Pencil-Based Testing (PPT): An Investigation of Testing Administration Mode among Iranian Intermediate EFL learners. English Language Teaching, Vol 10, No 2(2017).

Khoshsima, H., & Rezaeian Tiyar (2014). The effect of Summarizing and Presentation Strategies on Reading Comprehension of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, Vol 3, No. 4; July 2014. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.88.

Kruglanski, A.W., & Webster, D.M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: Seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.

Lachance, S., Ladouceur, R., & Dugas, M. J. (1999). Elements explaining the tendency to worry. Applied Psychology—an International Review, 48, 187-196. Doi: 10.1080/026999499377600.

Martínez Melis, N., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta, 46 (2), 272-287.

Merrotsky, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 232-237. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783762.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Nutt, p. (1993). Flexible decision styles and the choices of top executives. Journal of Management Studies (30), 695-721.

Robinson, D. (2001). Becoming a translator. London and New Yourk: Routledge.

Sidanius, J. (1978). Intolerance of ambiguity and socio-politico ideology: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 215–235.

Sidanius, J. (1985). Cognitive functioning and sociopolitical ideology revisited. Political Psychology, 6, 637–661.

Tsui, J. (1993). Tolerance for ambiguity, uncertainty audit qualifications and bankers' perceptions. Psychological Reports (72), 915.

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2010). The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality, 78 (6), 1765-1800.

Williams, M. (1989). The assessment of professional translation quality: Creating credibility out of chaos. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 2 (2), 13-33.

Zare Behtash, E., Hashemi Toroujeni, S.M. & Safarzade Samani, F. (2017). An Introduction to the Medieval English: the Historical and Literary Context, Traces of Church and Philosophical Movements in the Literature. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1; February 2017. Doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.1p.143. URL:

Ziahosseini, S. M. (2007). The relationship between introversion-extroversion and the reading skill. In S. M. Ziahosseini, Selected Articles on Linguistics, Methodology, Translation, and Literature (pp. 42-47). Tehran: Rahnama Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2021 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.