Cover not available
Article published In:
Converging paradigms in contrastive and translation studies: Crosslinguistic corpus perspectives
Edited by Silvia Bernardini and Adriano Ferraresi
[Languages in Contrast 23:2] 2023
► pp. 161–198

Verbs of perception and evidentiality in English/French translation

 | Université Paris 8 Vincennes-St. Denis (France)
Differences between verbs of perception in English and French have often been a subject of theoretical conjecture, but seldom studied empirically. Four such verbs (En. hear, see, Fr. entendre, voir) were thus inventoried in a 13.5m-word bidirectional English/French translation corpus. A statistically significant difference between translators and authors was found for hear and entendre. Correlations between source and target texts were statistically significant for all verbs. Quantitative analysis of random samples revealed five regular alternatives to word-for-word translation. Qualitative data support the hypothesis that verbs of perception may follow different “evidential strategies” in English and French. An approach combining quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify translators closest to target language norms offers a new model for researchers and translators.
Keywords: corpus linguistics, translation, verbs of perception, evidentiality, English/French
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Corpus design
    • 2.2Data collection
    • 2.3Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1‘Hear’/‘Entendre’
      • 3.1.1Target texts (translators) vs. target language norms (authors)
      • 3.1.2Source/Target correlation
      • 3.1.3Qualitative classification
        • Target counterparts of ‘hear’ (En0→FtrE)
        • Source counterparts of ‘entendre’’(En0→FtrE)
        • Target counterparts of ‘entendre’(Fr0→EtrF)
        • Source counterparts of ‘hear’ (Fr0→EtrF)
    • 3.2‘See’/‘Voir’
      • 3.2.1Translators vs. authors (target texts vs. target language norms)
      • 3.2.2Source/Target correlation
      • 3.2.3Qualitative classification
        • Target counterparts of see (En0→FtrE)
        • Source counterparts of voir (En0→FtrE)
        • Target counterparts of voir (Fr0→EtrF)
        • Source counterparts of see (Fr0→EtrF)
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00028.hen
References (39)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Information Source and Evidentiality: What can we Conclude. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 209–227.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1999. Adverbial Connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and Lexical Correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. 2020. AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at [URL]
Asudeh, A. and Toivonen, I. 2017. A Modular Approach to Evidentiality. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG’17). Konstanz, Germany, 25–27 July 2017. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 45–65.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology, M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banfield, A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bardière, Y. 2010. Modus et dictum. Could et les verbes de perception: Valeurs et traduction. Modèles linguistiques 31(62): 127–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Les traductions de can et could devant les verbes de perception. Modèles linguistiques 36(71): 31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2006. A New Approach to the Study of Translationese: Machine-learning the Difference between Original and Translated Text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3): 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufaye, L. 2014. CAN avec les verbes de perception. In Autour du verbe anglais. Construction, lexique, évidentialité, G. Girard-Gillet (ed.). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. 1984. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation. In Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, W. Frawley (ed.), 159–175. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Galac, Á. 2020. Semantic Change of Basic Perception Verbs in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Hungarian. Argumentum 161: 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gellerstam, M. 1986. Translationese in Swedish Novels Translated from English. In Translation Studies in Scandinavia, L. Wollin and H. Lindquist (eds), 88–95. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. 1996. English Perception Verbs. PhD Thesis, University College London.
Gisborne, N. and Holmes, J. 2007. A History of English Evidential Verbs of Appearance. English Language & Linguistics 11(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grezka, A. 2006. Études du lexique de la perception: Bilan et perspectives. Suvremena lingvistika 61(1): 45–67.Google Scholar
2020. Verbes de perception et traitement de la polysémie: Pourquoi et comment ? Actes du Colloque International « La perception : Langue, discours, cognition ». Paris, France. 6–7 December 2019. 29–44.Google Scholar
Grossmann, F. and Tutin, A. 2010. Evidential Markers in French Scientific Writing: The Case of the French Verb Voir . In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, G. Diewald and E. Smirnova (eds), 279–308. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillemin-Flescher, J. 1981. Syntaxe comparée du français et de l’anglais: Problémes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
1984a. Énonciation, perception et traduction. Langages (73): 74–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984b. Traduire l’inattestable. Cahiers Charles V 6(1): 131–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on, R. Facchinetti (ed.), 51–72. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koppel, M. and Ordan, N. 2011. Translationese and its Dialects. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Portland, Oregon, USA, 19–24 June 2011. 1318–1326.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Xiao, R. 2007. Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What are they up to? In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, G. Anderman and M. Rogers (eds), 18–31. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. 2008. Prédication et Évidentialité: de l’Emploi Copule des Verbes de Perception en Anglais. Faits de Langues, 31(1): 253–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neagu, M. 2013. What is Universal and what is Language Specific in the Polysemy of Perception Verbs? Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 58(3): 329–343.Google Scholar
Øverås, L. 1998. In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation. Meta 43(4): 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patrick, D. and Van Bogaert, J. 2007. A Semantic Description of French Lexical Evidential Markers and the Classification of Evidentials. Rivista di linguistica 19(1): 65–89.Google Scholar
Piron, S. 2001. Les verbes de perception en français: Une analyse des entrées de dictionnaires. Actes des XVes Journées de Linguistique. Quebec, Canada, 15–16 March 2001. 119–128.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E. and Majid, A. 2018. Universal Meaning Extensions of Perception Verbs are Grounded in Interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 29(3): 371–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. 1994. Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Teich, E. 2003. Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text: A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, A. 1983. The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study. Linguistics 211: 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Volansky, V., Ordan, N. and Wintner, S. 2015. On the Features of Translationese. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30(1): 98–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wyld, H. 2021. Degrés de subjectivisation dans la représentation linguistique de la perception: Le cas de la perception directe dans les récits en anglais. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics 311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar