Article published In:
Languages in Contrast: Online-First Articles

A contrastive analysis of English deverbal -er synthetic compounds and their Italian equivalents

ORCID logo | University of Pisa (Italy)
This study deals with English synthetic compounds ending in -er, such as heartbreaker, time-killer, and bodybuilder, and their Italian equivalents. Synthetic compounds are very productive in Germanic languages (e.g. E. heartbreaker, G. Herzensbrecher, D. hartenbreker), but virtually absent in Romance languages, where various morphological forms and word-formation strategies are used to render the same concepts (cf. It. rubacuori, Sp. rompecorazones, Fr. tombeur). The analysis of English synthetic compounds still remains a controversial topic in morphological accounts, with a lively theoretical debate between two mutually exclusive hypotheses, i.e. whether synthetic compounds have to be analyzed as derivations (i.e. [[heart break] [-er]]) or as compounds (i.e. [[heart] [break-er]]). In word-formation, they are part of transitional morphology, i.e. they have an ambivalent status between derivation and compounding. This study explores a collection of about 100 English synthetic compounds drawn from the English Lexicon Project database and compares them with their possible Italian renditions. The contrastive analysis mainly aims at highlighting differences between the two morphological systems (cf. E. time-killer/It. passatempo). Moreover, the study examines the translation procedures used to render English synthetic compounds in OPUS2 Italian. Corpus-based results confirm that English and Italian display language-specific constructions which may result in mis- or under-translation.
Keywords: synthetic compounds, translation procedures, transitional morphology, English/Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
  • 3.Data collection and methodology
    • 3.1Dataset
    • 3.2Methodology
  • 4.Contrastive analysis of SCs
    • 4.1Lexicographic and morphological investigation
      • 4.1.1Derived words
      • 4.1.2Compound words
      • 4.1.3Phrases/paraphrases
    • 4.2Illustration of translation procedures in the OPUS2 parallel corpus
      • 4.2.1Borrowing
      • 4.2.2aSemantic calque
      • 4.2.2bMorphological calque
      • 4.2.3Literal translation
      • 4.2.4Transposition
      • 4.2.5Modulation
      • 4.2.6aExpansion
      • 4.2.6bReduction
      • 4.2.7Equivalence
      • 4.2.8Adaptation
    • 4.3Quantitative analysis of translation procedures in the OPUS2 parallel corpus
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Online dictionaries
Published online: 1 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.23005.mat
References (44)
References
Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B. and Treiman, R. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 391: 445–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. I1, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 695–707. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005. The Borderline between Derivation and Compounding. In Morphology and its Demarcations, W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer and F. Rainer (eds), 97–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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. and Huddleston, R. D. 2002. Lexical Word-Formation. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, R. D. Huddleston and G. K. Pullum (eds), 1621–1723. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bonsignori, V., Bruti, S. and Sandrelli, A. 2019. Paolo Virzì’s Glocal Comedy in English Subtitles: An Investigation into Linguistic and Cultural Representation. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 27(2): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocco Galèas, G. 2003. Compound Adjectives in English: The Type Lion-Hearted and Good-Natured . Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 32(1): 31–43.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 2000. Extragrammatical vs. Marginal Morphology. In Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, U. Doleschal and A. M. Thornton (eds), 1–10. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. and Wurzel, W. U. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Merlini Barbaresi, L. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furiassi, C. 2010. False Anglicisms in Italian. Monza: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. and Zeldes, A. 2017. Between VP and NN: On the Constructional Types of German -er Compounds. Constructions and Frames 91: 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, M. and Rainer, F. (eds). 2004. La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Hacken, P. 2010. Synthetic and Exocentric Compounds in a Parallel Architecture. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 171: 233–251.Google Scholar
Iordăchioaia, G., Alexiadou, A. and Pairamidis, A. 2017. Morphosyntactic Sources for Nominal Synthetic Compounds in English and Greek. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 11: 47–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubícek, M., Kovár, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. 2004. The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. 2017. The Quantum Metaphor and the Organization of Words in the Mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 11: 49–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach (2nd ed.). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. 2022. Transitional Morphology: Combining Forms in Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. and Dressler, W. U. 2022. Dualism and Superposition in the Analysis of English Synthetic Compounds Ending in -er . Linguistics 60(2): 395–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melloni, C. 2020. Subordinate and Synthetic Compounds in Morphology. Oxford Research Enclyclopedia in Linguistics: 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. The Evolution of Noun Incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1988. A Textbook on Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pulcini, V. 1997. ‘Friends’ and ‘False Friends’ in the English language. In La didattica della lingua inglese. Percorsi per l’aggiornamento 1994–1995, V. Pulcini (ed.), 149–161. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. and Siegel, M. 1978. A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 91: 199–260.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1992. Compounding in Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 4(1): 175–199.Google Scholar
1994. Morfologia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. and Bisetto, A. 2009. The Classification of Compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber and Štekauer, P. (eds), 34–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. 1993. Übersetzung und Bearbeitung. Zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Übersetzungsbegriffs. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J. 1995 [1958]. Stylistique comparée du francais et de l’anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier, translated by J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel, Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. A Methodology for Translation, translated by J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. In The Translation Studies Reader, L. Venuti (ed.), 84–93. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M., Donalies, E., Eichinger, L. M., Habermann, M., Meibauer, J., Schlücker, B., Solms, H.-J., Štekauer, P. and Hernández, S. V. (eds). 2017. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 1(1): 1–100. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Voghera, M. 1994. Lessemi complessi: Percorsi di lessicalizzazione a confronto. Lingua e Stile 291: 185–214.Google Scholar
2004. Polirematiche. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, M. Grossmann and F. Rainer (eds), 56–69. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’. Linguistic Inquiry 121: 245–274.Google Scholar
Online dictionaries
Cambridge English-Italian Dictionary. Available at [URL] [last accessed 24 October 2022].
Treccani. Available at [URL] [last accessed 5 September 2022].
WordReference English-Italian Dictionary. Available at [URL] [last accessed 24 October 2022].