Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 28:3 (2016) ► pp.372–398

Assessing morphologically motivated transfer in parallel corpora

 | Ghent University
 | Independent scholar
This paper proposes a new way of identifying and analysing positive transfer on the basis of corpus data. Taking stock of process-oriented research into what is called ‘literal translation’, transfer is defined as an instance in which a translator is primed into using a target language item that is formally similar to the source item to be translated, when alternatives are available. In order to measure the extent to which morphological transfer is present in translation, a study is conducted on translations of negative prefixes in parallel corpora of French, Swedish and Dutch. The corpus study revealed that (1) transfer is by far the main translation option translators choose in all corpora involved, (2) transfer is more frequent when translators have the opportunity to use a cognate prefix in the other language, (3) transfer is more frequent between languages belonging to the same language family. The results of the study contradict the generally acknowledged fact that transfer is more likely from a language which is culturally dominant to a language which is not.
Keywords: corpus-based translation studies, transfer, morphology, negative prefix
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: transfer in corpus-based studies
  • 2.Transfer, priming and ‘literal translation’
  • 3.Introducing a process-oriented interpretation of transfer into product-oriented translation research
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Corpora used
    • 4.2Case study
      • 4.2.1Formal selection criteria
      • 4.2.2Semantic selection criteria
    • 4.3Assessment of potential transfer
      • 4.3.1Semantic comparability across languages
      • 4.3.2Lexical comparability across languages
      • 4.3.3Alternatives
  • 5.Hypotheses
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1First hypothesis
    • 6.2Second hypothesis
    • 6.3Third and fourth hypotheses
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 September 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.3.02def
References (49)
References
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman-Pearson.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1994. “L’insoutenable légèreté morphologique du préfixe in- dans la formation d’adjectifs.” LINX 51: 299–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “La nuit, certains chats sont gris, ou la généricité sans syntagme générique.” LINX 471: 13–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis. 2003. “Le rôle de l’iconicité constructionnelle dans le fonctionnement du préfixe négatif in- .” Cahiers de linguistique analogique 11: 35–63.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Simon P. Liversedge, Andrew J. Stewart, and Thomas P. Urbach 1995. “Syntactic Priming: Investigating the Mental Representation of Language.” Psycholinguistic Research 24 (6): 489–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Goedele Van Dyck, and Marijke Van de Poel. 1999. “Visual Word Recognition in Bilinguals: Evidence from Masked Phonological Priming.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 251: 137–148.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2011. “Negation and Lexical Morphology across Languages: Insights from a Trilingual Translation Corpus.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47 (4): 795–843.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denturck, Kathelijne. 2012. “Explicitation vs. Implicitation: A Bidirectional Corpus-Based Analysis of Causal Connectives in French and Dutch Translations.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (2): 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaatone, David. 1971. Etude descriptive du système de la négation en français contemporain. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap De Rooij, and Maarten Van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff / Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hansen, Gyde. 2010. “Translation Errors.” In Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 385–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heydel, Maren, and Wayne S. Murray. 2000. “Conceptual Effects in Sentence Priming: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” In Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing, ed. by Marica De Vincenzi, and Vincenzo Lombardo, 227–254. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, and Ariane Van Santen. 1994. “Produktiviteitsveranderingen: de adjectieven op –lijk en –baar .” Leuvense Bijdragen 831: 1–29.Google Scholar
Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” In Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, ed. by Itamar Even-Zohar, and Gideon Toury, special issue of Poetics Today 2 (4): 51–59.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2010. “A Typology of V2 with regard to V1 and Second Position Phenomena: An Introduction to the V1/V2 Volume.” In Verb-First, Verb-Second, ed. by Mélanie Jouitteau, special issue of Lingua 120 (2): 197–209.Google Scholar
Landers, Clifford E. 2001. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lederer, Marianne. 1981. La traduction simultanée. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude. 2012a. “Word-Formation in Translated Language: The Impact of Language-Pair Specific Features and Genre Variation.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (2): 145–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “La préfixation française à travers les genres et les domaines: étude de corpus.” In Actes du 3ième Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2012, ed. by Franck Neveu, Valelia Muni Toke, Peter Blumenthal, Thomas Klingler, Pierluigi Ligas, Sophie Prévost, and Sandra Teston-Bonnard, 1325–1349. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili. 1996. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and its Implications for Translation Theory.” In Translation and Meaning, Part 3, ed. by Marcel Thelen, and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 483–495. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht.Google Scholar
Malmgren, Sven-Göran. 1994. Svensk lexikologi – Ord, ordbildning, ordböcker och orddatabaser. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2004. “Corpora, Universals and Interference.” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist? ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Pekka Kujamäki, 65–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David E., and Roger W. Schvaneveldt. 1971. “Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence between Retrieval Operations.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 901: 227–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pirkola, Ari. 2001. “Morphological Typology of Languages for IR.” Journal of Documentation 57 (3): 330–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poupaud, Sandra, Anthony Pym, and Ester Torres Simón. 2009. “Finding Translations. On the Use of Bibliographical Databases in Translation History.” Meta 54 (2): 264–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rawoens, Gudrun. 2010. “Multilingual Corpora in Cross-Linguistic Research. Focus on the Compilation of a Dutch-Swedish Parallel Corpus.” In Statistical Analysis of Textual Data. Proceedings of 10th International Conference JADT2010, ed. by Sergio Bolasco, Isabella Chiari, and Luca Giuliano, 1287–1294. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.Google Scholar
Sarcevic, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Schacter, Daniel L. 1987. “Implicit Memory: History and Current Status.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13 (3): 501–518.Google Scholar
Schenkein, Jim. 1980. “A Taxonomy for Repeating Action Sequences in Natural Conversation.” In Language Production, Vol. 11, ed. by Brian Butterworth, 21–47. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 2002. “Cognitive and Communicative Consequences of Linguistic Diversity.” In The Diversity of Languages and Language Learning, ed. by Sven Strömqvist, 7–23. Lund: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael, and Bernard Smith. 2001. Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 1985. “De soep is wel eetbaar maar niet etelijk: over deverbatieven op -(e)lijk in de Vlaamse dialekten en het A.N.” Spektator 151: 94–103.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2002. “Metaphoric Expressions in Translation Processes.” Across Languages and Cultures. A Multidisciplinary Journal for Translation and Interpreting Studies 3 (1): 101–116.Google Scholar
. 2005. “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta 50 (2): 405–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Toorn, Maarten, Willy Pijnenburg, Arjan van Leuvensteijn, and Joop van der Horst. 1997. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Marle, Jaap. 1989. “A Case of Morphological Elaboration.” Folia Linguistica Historica 91: 213–234.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, and William Labov. 1983. “Constraints on the Agentless Passive.” Journal of Linguistics 191: 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wuilmart, Françoise. 2012. “Summary of the PETRA Recommendations.” In Towards New Conditions for Literary Translation in Europe. Brussels: Passa Porta. [URL]
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Isabelle Delaere
2023. Functional hybridity in translation. Languages in Contrast 23:2 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo
Lim, Lily
2021. A Corpus-Based Examination of the Translation of the Suffix –ism into Chinese. In New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Lang, Yue & Defeng Li
2020. Cognitive Processing Routes of Culture-Specific Linguistic Metaphors in Simultaneous Interpreting. In Key Issues in Translation Studies in China [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Valdeón, Roberto A.
2019. Ad hoc Corpora and Journalistic Translation Research: BBC News and BBC Mundo's Coverage of Margaret Thatcher's Death and Funeral. Across Languages and Cultures 20:1 ► pp. 79 ff. 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.