Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 24:2 (2012) ► pp.355–388

A corpus-based study of the mediation effect in translated and edited language

| North-West University
This paper presents the results of a study investigating the hypothesis that the recurrent features, or universals, of translated language are primarily the result of a mediation process that is shared among different kinds of mediated language, rather than the particularities of bilingual language processing. The investigation made use of a comparable corpus consisting of a subcorpus of English texts translated from Afrikaans, a subcorpus of comparable edited English texts, and a subcorpus of comparable unedited (and also untranslated) English texts. The frequency and distribution of linguistic features associated with three of the universals of translated language (explicitation, normalisation/conservatism, and simplification) across the three subcorpora were analysed. The study was guided by the hypothesis that the frequency and distribution of linguistic features associated with the universals of translated language would demonstrate similarities in the two subcorpora of mediated text (i.e., the translated and edited subcorpus), as compared to the subcorpus of unmediated text (i.e., the unedited subcorpus). However, the study yields almost no evidence for a mediation effect that is shared by translated and edited language, at least not along the linguistic features investigated. There is, however, evidence for what appears to be a separate translation-specific effect, which seems likely to be more unconscious, more proceduralised and more related to the linguistic level alone. This offers some support for the hypothesis of universals of translated language that are unique to this kind of text mediation specifically. Furthermore, the findings of the study suggest that editing may involve a different kind of mediation effect altogether, which frequently remains invisible in conventional corpus-based studies comparing translated and non-translated language, and which requires further investigation.
Keywords: corpus-based approach, universals of translated language, mediation, edited language, cognitive approaches
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus composition
    • 2.2Data collection and processing
      • 2.2.1Linguistic features used as operationalisations
      • 2.2.2Data collection
      • 2.2.3Statistical analysis
  • 3.Findings and discussion
    • 3.1Explicitation
      • 3.1.1Frequency of the complementiser that
      • 3.1.2Frequency of full forms rather than contracted forms
      • 3.1.3Frequency of linking adverbials
    • 3.2Normalisation or conservatism
      • 3.2.1Frequency of coinages and unlexicalised loanwords
      • 3.2.2Frequency of lexical bundles
      • 3.2.3Use of inclusive language
    • 3.3Simplification
      • 3.3.1Lexical diversity
      • 3.3.2Mean word length
  • 4.Summary and interpretation of findings
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 February 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.2.07kru
References (58)
References
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2010. “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research”. In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications”. In Text and Technology:Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 17–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and some Suggestions for Future Research”. Target 7 (2): 223–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges that Lie Ahead”. In Translation: Studies in Language Engineering, in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (2): 167–193.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Patterns of Idiomaticity in Translated vs. Non-translated Text”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21 (1): 11–21.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, Bernd Meyer, and Demet Özçetin. 2008. “Explicitness in Translation and Interpreting: A Critical Review and some Empirical Evidence (of an Elusive Concept)”. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2): 177–203.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer-Hohenwarter, Gerrit. 2011. “‘Creative Shifts’ as a Means of Measuring and Promoting Translational Creativity”. Meta 56 (3): 663–692.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor. 2010. “Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-inherent’ Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies”. Across Languages and Cultures 11 (1): 1–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia. 2007. “Collocations in Translated Language: Combining Parallel, Comparable and Reference Corpora”. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2007), University of Birmingham, UK, 27–30 July 2007, ed. by Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston, and Pernilla Danielsson[URL]
. 2011. “Monolingual Comparable Corpora and Parallel Corpora in the Search for Features of Translated Language”. SYNAPS: A Journal of Professional Communication 261: 2–13.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Adriano Ferraresi. 2011. “Practice, Description and Theory Come Together: Normalization or Interference in Italian Technical Translation?” Meta 56 (2): 226–246.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Frederico Zanettin. 2004. “When is a Universal not a Universal? Some Limits of Current Corpus-based Methodologies for the Investigation of Translation Universals”. In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranan and P. Kujamäki, 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1991. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
Butcher, Judith, Caroline Drake, and Maureen Leach. 2006. Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies”. Target 5 (1): 1–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation”. In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina, Schäffner and Beverly Adab, 77–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Hypotheses about Translation Universals”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne. 2009. “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study ‘TransComp’”. In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Google Scholar
. 2011. “Exploring Translation Competence Acquisition: Criteria of Analysis put to the Test”. In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 57–85. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2003. “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals”. Target 15 (2): 197–241.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
http://ice-corpora.net/ice/index.htm.International Corpus of English: Home page.
http://ice-corpora.net/ice/design.htm.International Corpus of English: Corpus Design.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2000. “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies in Translating”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 71–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar
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
Kußmaul, Paul. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara. 1997. “How Comparable can Comparable Corpora be?” Target 9 (2): 289–319.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose”. Meta 43 (4): 557–570.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2000. “Strange Strings in Translated Language: A study on Corpora”. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies—Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 119–141. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki (eds). 2004. Translation Universals: Do they Exist?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Casey, and Kate Swift. 1995. The Handbook of Non-sexist Writing for Writers,Editors and Speakers. London: Women’s Press. Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2009. “Expertise and Environment in Translation”. Mutatis mutandis 2 (1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Mutesayire, Martha. 2004. “Apposition Markers and Explicitation: A Corpus-based Study”. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 35 (1): 54–69.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Dalene. 2003. Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z. Cape Town: Pharos. 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
. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE. 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model”. In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
. 2005. “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues”. Meta 50 (2): 609–619.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: Knowledge of Translation and Efficacy of the Translation Process”. In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 104–126. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
. 2011. “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Project and Dynamic Translation Index”. In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 30–56. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
Pápai, Vilma. 2004. “Explicitation: A Universal of Translated Text?” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2005. “Explaining Explicitation”. In New Trends in Translation Studies:Honour of Kinga Klaudy, ed. by Krisztina Károly and Ágota, Fóris, 29–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar
. 2008. “On Toury’s Laws of how Translators Translate”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas. 2003. Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools, version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. [URL]
Schwartz, Marilyn. 1995. Guidelines for Bias-free Writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. 2006. “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise”. Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
StatSoft Inc. 2011. Statistica (data analysis software system), version 10. [URL]
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Universals—or a Challenge to the Very Concept?” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. byGyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 15–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita, and Amanda Murphy. 2008. “Descriptive Translation Studies and the Use of Corpora: Investigating Mediation Universals”. In Corpora for University Language Teachers, ed. by Carol Taylor Torsello, Katherine Ackerley, and Erik Castello, 141–166. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Donna A.. 2005. Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada: A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Ottawa. [URL].
Zanettin, Frederico. 2012. Translation-driven Corpora. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 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
de Baets, Pauline & Gert de Sutter
2023. How do translators select among competing (near-)synonyms in translation?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pang, Shuangzi & Kefei Wang
2023. Sketching the changing patterns in kaleidoscopes: New developments in corpus-based studies of translation features (2001–2021). Research in Corpus Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Han, Tianyi, Dechao Li, Xingcheng Ma & Nan Hu
2022. Comparing product quality between translation and paraphrasing: Using NLP-assisted evaluation frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology 13 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
Yan, Hengbin
2022. I Think We Should… . International Journal of Translation, Interpretation, and Applied Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Li, Tao & Kaibao Hu
2021. Corpus-Based Translation Studies and Political Discourse Analysis. In Reappraising Self and Others [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 6], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Bisiada, Mario
2018. Translation and editing: a study of editorial treatment of nominalisations in draft translations. Perspectives 26:1 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Bisiada, Mario
2018. Editing nominalisations in English−German translation: when do editors intervene?. The Translator 24:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Bisiada, Mario
2018. The editor’s invisibility. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 30:2 ► pp. 288 ff. DOI logo
Bisiada, Mario
2019. Translated Language or Edited Language? A Study of Passive Constructions in Translation Manuscripts and their Published Versions. Across Languages and Cultures 20:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee & Gert De Sutter
2018. Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Atabekova, Anastasia, Valentina Stepanova, Natalia Udina, Olga Gorbatenko & Tatyana Shoustikova
2017. Should Math Tools and Quantitative Methods be Part of University-based Translator and Interpreter’s Training? Russian Graduates’ Voices in the Focus. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13:8 DOI logo
KRUGER, HAIDEE & BERTUS VAN ROOY
2017. Editorial practice and the progressive in Black South African English. World Englishes 36:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Andújar Moreno, Gemma
2016. Traducción entregada frente a traducción publicada: reflexiones sobre la normalización en traducción editorial a partir de un estudio de caso. Meta 61:2 ► pp. 396 ff. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, Bogusława Whyatt & Katarzyna Stachowiak
2016. Simplification in inter- and intralingual translation – combining corpus linguistics, key logging and eye-tracking. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2 DOI logo
Whyatt, Bogusława, Katarzyna Stachowiak & Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny
2016. Similar and different: cognitive rhythm and effort in translation and paraphrasing. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.