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. 252275
Berg, T.
2014Boundary Permeability: A Parameter for Linguistic Typology. Linguistic Typology 18(3): 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Compounding in German and English: A Quantitative Translation Study. Languages in Contrast 17(1): 43–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S.
2009Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkovec, M. and N. Madin
2019ggparty: ‘ggplot’ visualizations for the ‘partykit’ package. R package version 1.0.0.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
2012English is less Rich in Manner-of-Motion Verbs when Translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures 13(2): 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
2007What is a Unique Item? In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (eds), 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. and G. Rawoens
Demske, U.
2002Nominalization and Argument Structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 271: 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G., Lefer, M-A. and Delaere, I.
(eds) 2017Empirical Translation Studies. New Methodologies and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G. and Lefer, M.-A.
2020On the Need for a New Research Agenda for Corpus-Based Translation Studies: A Multi-methodological, Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Approach. Perspectives 28(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., Kosterk, D. and Leuschner, T.
(eds) 2020German and Dutch in Contrast. Synchronic, Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L., Heyvaert, L. and Maekelberghe, C.
2015How do Gerunds Conceptualize Events? A Diachronic Study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4): 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Castejón, M. Á.
2012Contrastive Analysis and Translation Study from a Corpus Linguistics Perspective. International Journal of English Studies 12(2): 111–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
2004HCFA 3.2 – A Program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R for Windows.Google Scholar
2020On Classification Trees and Random Forests in Corpus Linguistics: Some Words of Caution and Suggestions for Improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 617–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S.
2003The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals. Target 15(2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
2012Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hareide, L.
2017The Translation of Formal Source-Language Lacunas: An Empirical Study of the Over-Representation of Target-Language Specific Features and the Unique Items Hypotheses. In Corpus Methodologies Explained. An Empirical Approach to Translation Studies, M. Ji, L. Hareide, D. Li and M. Oakes, 137–187. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S.
2014Constructing a Schema. Word-Class Changing Morphology in a Usage-Based Perspective. In Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014, M. Hilpert. and S. Flach (eds), 235–251. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, L.
2008On the Constructional Semantics of Gerundive Nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 9–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C.
199714.8.2 Nominalisaties behorend tot type 1. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [URL]
Hawkins, J.
1986A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2009The German Mit-Predicative Construction. Constructions and Frames 1(1): 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T. and Zeileis, A.
2015 Partykit: A Modular Toolkit for Recursive Partitioning in R. Journal of Machine Learning Research 161: 3905–3909.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. and Gast, V.
2009Understanding English-German Contrasts (2nd ed). Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Macken, L., De Clercq, O. and Paulussen, H.
2011Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus. Meta 56(2): 374–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maekelberghe, C.
2020The Present-Day English Gerund System: A Cognitive-Constructionist Account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022Modeling Variation in the English Gerund System. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues, L. Sommerer and E. Keizer (eds), 136–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menzel, K.
2010Identifying English Gerunds and their Translation Equivalents in an English-German Translation Corpus. Master’s Dissertation. Universität des Saarlandes.
Neumann, S.
2021Is German More Nominal than English? Evidence from a Translation Corpus. In New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics, R. Enghels, B. Defrancq and M. Jansegers (eds), 127–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2022R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ross, J. R.
1973Nouniness. In Fuzzy grammar, B. Aarts, D. Denison, E. Keizer and G. Popova (eds), 91–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, D.
2008Lattice: Multivariate Data Visualization with R. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, H-J.
2001Scales between Nouniness and Verbiness. In Language Typology and Language Universals (vol. 11), Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationsswissenschaft 20, M. Haspelmath (ed.), 495–509. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scott, A. K.
2010Accounting for the Semantic Extension of Derived Action Nouns. Journal of Linguistics 461: 711–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbina, T., Hintzen, S., Niemietz, P. and Neumann, S.
2017Changes of Word Class During Translation – Insights from a Combined Analysis of Corpus, Keystroke Logging and Eye-Tracking Data. In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Čulo and S. Hofmann (eds), 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, E.
2012A Characterization of the Resource Based on Shallow Statistics. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, S. Hansen-Schirra, S. Neumann and E. Steiner (eds), 71–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. and Baayen, H. R.
2012Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
2004Unique Items ― Over- or Under-Represented in Translated Language? In Translation universals. Do they exist?, P. Kujamäki and A. Mauranen (eds), 177–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B.
1956Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Van Landeghem, J.
2015-ing Seen through its Dutch Translation Equivalents: A Contrastive Parallel Treebank-Based Study. Master’s Dissertation, University of Leuven.
von Eye, A.
1990Introduction to Configural Frequency Analysis: The Search for Types and Antitypes in Cross-Classifications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar