Cover not available
Article published In:
Comparing Crosslinguistic Complexity
Edited by Jenny Ström Herold and Magnus Levin
[Languages in Contrast 24:1] 2024
► pp. 5–32

English complex premodifiers and their German and Swedish correspondences

The case of hyphenated premodifiers in a non‑fiction corpus

| Linnaeus University , Sweden
| Linnaeus University , Sweden
This study concerns English hyphenated premodifiers (science-based targets; lower-back pain) contrasted with their German and Swedish correspondences. The data stem from the Linnaeus University English-German-Swedish corpus (LEGS), which contains non-fiction texts, but comparisons are also made to fiction texts from the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC). The study shows that these condensed and complex premodifiers are more frequent in English originals than in English translations, and more typical of the non-fiction genre than that of fiction. Information density and terminological precision thus seem to be more important factors for the use of hyphenated premodifiers than creativity and expressiveness. In original English, two-thirds of the right-hand elements are either nouns or ed-participles. In translated English, numerals as left-hand elements (three-page document) are less frequent than in original English. Regarding German and Swedish correspondences, around half are premodifiers. Postmodifiers in the form of prepositional phrases and relative clauses are more frequent in Swedish than in German, which instead “overuses” premodifying extended attributes. Compound adjectives/participles and compound nouns are the most frequent correspondences in both German and Swedish. In almost half the instances, German and Swedish translators choose the same correspondents, indicating a high degree of similarity in the structural preferences in the two target languages.
Keywords: hyphenated premodifiers, postmodification, noun phrases, the Linnaeus University English-German-Swedish corpus, English/German/Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies on hyphenated premodifiers and German and Swedish counterparts
  • 3.Material and method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1The frequencies of hyphenated premodifiers
    • 4.2Hyphenated premodifiers in German and Swedish translations
      • Primary type
        • I.Premodifier
        • II.NP head
        • III.Postmodifier
        • IV.Restructured
    • 4.3Hyphenated premodifiers in original English and translated English
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00033.lev
References (35)
References
Altenberg, B., Aijmer, K. and Svensson, M. 1999. The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC): Manual. Department of English, Lund University.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. and Renouf, A. 2001. A Corpus-Based Study of Compounding in English. Journal of English Linguistics 29(2): 101–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2009. IE, Germanic: Danish. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber and P. Stekauer (eds), 400–416. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English. Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Grieve, J. and Iberri-Shea, G. 2009. Noun Phrase Modification. In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, G. Rohdenburg and J. Schlüter (eds), 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, M. 2004. Deutsch und Schwedisch im Kontrast: Zur Distribution nominaler und verbaler Ausdrucksweise in Zeitungstexten. PhD Thesis. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Chesterman, A. 2004. Hypotheses about Translation Universals. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer and D. Gile (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. 2020. Hyphenated Phrasal Expressions in Fashion Journalism: A Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Study of Vogue Magazine . Lingue Culture Mediazioni/Languages Cultures Mediation 71: 137–158.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2010. Adjektiv-/Partizipialattribute im diskursbezogenen Kontrast (Deutsch–Englisch/Norwegisch). Deutsche Sprache 38(2): 175–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, S. and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2012. Grammatical Shifts in English-German Noun Phrases. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, S. Hansen-Schirra, E. Steiner and S. Neumann (eds), 133–145. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hein, K. 2018. Heile-Welt-Gerede und ”im-fremden-Bett-schlaf-ich-immer-schlecht-Sensibelchen“. Phrasenkomposita als konstruktionsgrammatisch erfassbarer Fall sprachlicher Verfestigung. In Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen, K. Steyer (ed.), 73–102. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2015. From Hand-Carved to Computer-Based: Noun-Participle Compounding and the Upward Strengthening Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1): 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingo, R. 2007. Konsten att översätta: Översättandets praktik och didaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Levin, M. and Ström Herold, J. 2017. Premodification in Translation: English Hyphenated Premodifiers in Fiction and their Translations into German and Swedish. In Cross-linguistic Correspondences. From Lexis to Genre, T. Egan and H. Dirdal (eds), 149–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. On Brackets in Translation (or how to Elaborate in Brackets). Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies 11(1): 121–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljung, M. 2000. Text Condensation in the Press: The Case of Compound Adjectival Premodifiers. In Words: Structure, Meaning, Function; A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky, C. Dalton-Puffer and N. Ritt (eds), 205–215. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. 2018. Self-Prefixed Verbs: Analogy in the Functional Discourse Grammar Lexicon. Word Structure 11(1): 67–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, G. 1995. Deutsch-Schwedisch kontrastiv: Stolpersteine bei avancierter Übersetzung. Moderna språk 89(2): 164–179.Google Scholar
2002. Zur syntaktischen Densität in deutschen und schwedischen Sachtexten. Eine kontrastive Studie zum Adjektivsuffix -bar. Studia Neophilologica 741: 76–97.Google Scholar
Mair, C. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. 2007. How Marginal are Phrasal Compounds? Generalized Insertion, Expressivity, and I/Q-Interaction. Morphology 17(2): 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellenius, I. 2004. Word Formation. In The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar, G. Josefsson, C. Platzack and G. Håkansson (eds), 75–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pastor-Gomez, I. 2011. The Status and Development of N+N Sequences in Contemporary English Noun Phrases. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rush, S. 1998. The Noun Phrase in Advertising English. Journal of Pragmatics 29(2): 155–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, E. 2021. Syntactic Change in Late Modern English. Studies on Colloquialization and Densification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ström Herold, J. and Henriksson, H. 2022. Angekommen im Schwedischen? Deutsche Partizipialkonstruktionen in schwedischer Übersetzung. Moderna Språk 116(1): 67–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Andersson, E. and Hellberg, S. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Thelen, M. 2015. The Interaction between Terminology and Translation. Or where Terminology and Translation Meet. Trans-kom 8(2): 347–381.Google Scholar
Toury, G. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, C. 2012. Empirical and Theoretical Aspects of Phrasal Compounds: Against the “Syntax Explains it all” Attitude. Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8). Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011. 322–346.Google Scholar