Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch
A corpus-based translation study
In English sentences with a verb denoting an action like give, the subject usually plays the semantic role of agent. While in English non-human agents such as this manual in This manual gives instructions on the correct assembly occur quite frequently, Dutch seems to apply more restrictions, as illustrated in Dit handboek bevat voorschriften over de juiste montage in which the Dutch subject dit handboek is not an agent but rather a possessor (see e.g. Delsoir 2011; Vandepitte & Hartsuiker 2011).
This article investigates how a set of 154 English sentences from the Dutch Parallel Corpus with non-human agents as subjects of give are translated into Dutch. The lower number of Dutch non-human agents are discussed with regard to translation tactics and explained in terms of differences in verb meanings between English give and its Dutch cognate geven and the lexico-semantics of the non-human agents . The lexical choices translators made lead to valency loss in Dutch.
References (33)
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. s’-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., N.V.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delsoir, Jan. 2011. The acceptability of non-prototypical agents with prototypical agent requiring predicates in Dutch. Gent: Hogeschool Gent.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished PhD, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. The case for case reopened. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8. New York/ San Francisco/London: Academia Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977b. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic structures processing, 55–88. Amsterdam: North Holland.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction, 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hawkins, John. A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. Austin, London and Sydney: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
House, Juliane. 2008. Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualisation and a third space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia 7. 149–175.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8(1). 47–69. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klaiman, M.H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen:
Niemeyer Verlag. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rura, Lidia, Willy Vandeweghe & Maribel M. Perez. 2008. Designing a parallel corpus as a multifunctional translator’s aid.
Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress
, 4–7 August 2008, Shanghai, China, from [URL].
Sanfilippo, Antonio. 1990. Grammatical relations, thematic roles and verb semantics. Unpublished PhD, University of Edinburgh.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 189–210. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siewierska, Anna. 1991. Functional grammar. Routledge: New York.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tamm, Anne. 2012. Scalar verb classes. Scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Online dictionary items
“geven”. Dikke Van Dale. Van Dale Uitgevers. 02 December 2013. [URL].
“give”. Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web 21 October 2013. [URL].
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.