Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 34:1 (2022) ► pp.130–162

An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University
This article investigates cohesion in the spoken and written registers of constrained language varieties to highlight the similarities and differences in the cohesion patterns of mediated (i.e., interpreted and translated) and non-native texts with respect to original texts produced by native speakers. In particular, it examines how different types of cohesive devices are distributed across spoken and written native, non-native, and mediated speeches originally delivered impromptu and read out at the plenary sessions of the European Parliament. The dataset comes from the European Translation and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC) (Ferraresi and Bernardini 2019). The context provides a rare opportunity to examine the spoken and written registers of professional communication, both mono- and multilingual, in a relatively homogenous setting. First, in the exploratory analysis, I investigate the distribution of different types of cohesive devices across the investigated varieties drawing on mosaic plots and correspondence analysis. Thereafter, I make use of regression modelling of the overall frequency of cohesive devices across the examined varieties to evaluate the effect of constrainedness, mode of delivery, and individual variation. The results indicate that non-native and mediated texts do diverge from native production in the use of cohesive devices, but in different ways.
Keywords: constrained language, translation, interpreting, cohesion, multimodal corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: What is constrained language?
  • 2.Constrained language and its linguistic properties
  • 3.Cohesive devices in bilingual speech production
    • 3.1Cohesive devices in translation and interpreting
    • 3.2Cohesive devices in non-native language use
  • 4.Research design and data
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Data
    • 4.3Method
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Patterns of use of various types of cohesive devices across constrained and unconstrained varieties in spoken and written registers (RQ1)
    • 5.2Predicting the total frequency of cohesive devices in the spoken register from text variety and mode of source event delivery mode (RQ2)
      • 5.2.1Total frequency of cohesive devices in the spoken register (excluding phrase-level coordinators)
      • 5.2.2Total frequency of phrase-level coordinators in the spoken register
    • 5.3Predicting the total frequency of cohesive devices in the written register from text variety and source event delivery mode (RQ3)
      • 5.3.1Total frequency of cohesive devices in the written register (excluding phrase-level coordinators)
      • 5.3.2Total frequency of phrase-level coordinators in the written register
    • 5.4Similarity of frequency patterns across spoken and written register (RQ4)
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19186.kaj
References (55)
References
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges that Lie Ahead.” In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, Kamil. 2019. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. Version 1.43.6. [URL]
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentz, Christian, and Bodo Winter. 2014. “Languages with More Second Language Learners Tend to Lose Nominal Case.” In Quantifying Language Dynamics: On the Cutting Edge of Areal and Phylogenetic Linguistics, edited by Søren Wichmann and Jeff Good, 96–124. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, and Maja Miličević. 2016. “From EPIC to EPTIC – Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective.” Target 28 (1): 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, edited by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bolker, Benjamin. 2019. GLMM FAQ. Accessed September 30, 2020. [URL]
Bolker, Benjamin, Mollie Brooks, Connie Clark, Shane Geange, John Poulsen, M. Henry Stevens, and Jada-Simone White. 2009. “Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide for Ecology and Evolution.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (3): 127–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, Yan, and Richard Xiao. 2013. “A Multi-Dimensional Contrastive Study of English Abstracts by Native and Non-Native Writers.” Corpora 8 (2): 209–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2004. “Beyond the particular.” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist? edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 33–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Translation Studies Forum: Universalism in Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 7 (1): 82–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2020. “On 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
Defrancq, Bart, Koen Plevoets, and Cédric Magnifico. 2015. “Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies, edited by Jesús Romero-Trillo, 195–222. Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EP (European Parliament). n.d. European Parliament Plenary Debates: Note to the Reader. Accessed May 18, 2020. [URL]
Ferraresi, Adriano, and Silvia Bernardini. 2019. “A Many-Sided, Multi-Purpose Corpus of EU Parliament Proceedings.” In Parallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies: New Resources and Applications, edited by Irene Doval and M. Teresa Sánchez Nieto, 123–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, and Stephanie Tyson. 1996. “Connector Usage in the English Essay Writing of Native and Non-Native EFL Speakers of English.” World Englishes 15 (1): 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumul, Ewa. 2006. “Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Strategy or a By-Product of Language Mediation?” Across Languages and Cultures 7 (2): 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Explicitation and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Linguistica Silesiana 381: 311–329.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2003. “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Kathy, and Hardy. C. Wilcoxon. 1994. “Connectives in Context.” English Teaching Forum 321: 20–23.Google Scholar
Hartig, Florian. 2019. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. Version 0.2.4. [URL]
Hinkel, Eli. 2001. “Matters of Cohesion in L2 Academic Texts.” Applied Language Learning 12 (2): 111–132.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari, Adriano Ferraresi, and Silvia Bernardini. Forthcoming. “Syntactic Properties of Constrained English: A Corpus-Driven Approach.” In Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Translation Studies, edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta. 2018a. “Interpretese vs. Non-Native Language Use: The Case of Optional That .” In Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, edited by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 97–113. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “Translationese, Interpretese and Foreignese – What Do They Have in Common?” Paper delivered at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, and Ilmari Ivaska. 2020. “A Multivariate Approach to Lexical Diversity in Constrained Language.” Across Languages and Cultures 21 (2): 169–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kassambara, Alboukadel, and Fabian Mundt. 2017. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. Version 1.0.5. [URL]
Kotze, Haidee. 2020. “Translation, Contact Linguistics and Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited by Fabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 113–132. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee, Minna Korhonen, Adam Smith, and Bertus van Rooy. Forthcoming. “Salient Differences Between Oral Parliamentary Discourse and its Official Written Records: A Comparison of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Analysis Methods.” In Parliamentary Discourse Across Time and Space: Using Big Data to Study Language and Society, edited by Minna Korhonen, Haidee Kotze, and Jukka Tyrkkö. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy. 2012. “Register and the Features of Translated Language.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “Syntactic and Pragmatic Transfer Effects in Reported-Speech Constructions in Three Contact Varieties of English Influenced by Afrikaans.” Language Sciences 561: 118–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “Constrained Language: A Multidimensional Analysis of Translated English and a Non-Native Indigenised Variety of English.” English World-Wide 37 (1): 26–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Gert de Sutter. 2018. “Alternations in Contact and Non-Contact Varieties: Reconceptualising That-Omission in Translated and Non-Translated English Using the MuPDAR Approach.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1 (2): 251–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai. 2012. “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 1998. “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svartvik. 2013. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, Max M., Philip M. McCarthy, Danielle S. McNamara, and Arthur C. Graesser. 2004. “Variation in Language and Cohesion Across Written and Spoken Registers.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 261: 843–848.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2000. “Strange Strings in Translated Language: A Study on Corpora.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Marzocchi, Carlo. 2007. “Translation – Transcript – Interpretation: Notes on the European Parliament Verbatim Report of Proceedings.” Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 249–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merilaine, Elina. 2015. The Frequency and Variability of Conjunctive Adjuncts in the Estonian–English Interlanguage Corpus. MA diss. University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra. 2007. “The Hansard Hazard: Gauging the Accuracy of British Parliamentary Transcripts.” Corpora 2 (2): 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nenadic, Oleg, and Michael Greenacre. 2007. “Correspondence Analysis in R, with Two- and Three-Dimensional Graphics: The ca Package.” Journal of Statistical Software 20 (3): 1–13.Google Scholar
Nencioni, Giovanni. 1976. “Parlato-parlato, parlato-scritto, parlato-recitato.” Strumenti critici 291: 1–56. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker. 2000. “Reporting That in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordan, Noam, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2012. “More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting.” Target 24 (1): 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Øverås, Lynn. 1998. “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2007. “On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal for interpreting.” In Interpreting Studies and Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 175–190, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina. 2004. “Explicitation of Clausal Relations: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Clause Connectives in Translated and Non-Translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 165–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Rabinovitch, Ella, Sergiu Nisioi, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2016. “On the Similarities between Native, Non-Native and Translated Texts.” In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 11, edited by Katrin Erk and Noah A. Smith, 1870–1881. Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Séguinot, Candace. 1988. “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1 (2): 106–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Claudio Bendazzoli. 2005. “Lexical Patterns in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Preliminary Investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” In Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series 1 (1), Birmingham: University of Birmingham. [URL]
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts on the Oral–Literate Continuum. MA diss. Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Translator 1 (2): 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus, Lize Terblanche, Christoph Haase, and Joseph Schmied. 2010. “Register Differentiation in East African English: A Multidimensional Study.” English World-Wide 31 (3): 311–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Chen, Jiaxin, Dechao Li & Kanglong Liu
2024. Unraveling cognitive constraints in constrained languages: a comparative study of syntactic complexity in translated, EFL, and native varieties. Language Sciences 102 ► pp. 101612 ff. DOI logo
Kotze, Haidee & Bertus van Rooy
2024. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings [Contact Language Library, 60], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus & Haidee Kotze
2024. Chapter 9. Conclusion. In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings [Contact Language Library, 60], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Granger, Sylviane & Marie-Aude Lefer
2023. Learner translation corpora. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Götz, Andrea
2023. Chapter 3. Adding connectives to manage interpreted discourse. In Pragmatics and Translation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 337], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Yueyue & Dechao Li
2023. Translatorial voice through modal stance: A corpus-based study of modality shifts in Chinese-to-English translation of research article abstracts. Lingua 295 ► pp. 103610 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yi, Andrew K.F. Cheung & Kanglong Liu
2023. Syntactic complexity of interpreted, L2 and L1 speech: A constrained language perspective. Lingua 286 ► pp. 103509 ff. DOI logo
Gumul, Ewa & Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk
2022. Interpreters’ explicitating styles. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Yue & Jiang Niu
2022. A corpus-based search for machine translationese in terms of discourse coherence. Across Languages and Cultures 23:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.