Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation, Cognition & Behavior
Vol. 1:2 (2018) ► pp.251–290

Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties

Reconceptualising that-omission in translated and non-translated English using the MuPDAR approach

| Macquarie University | North-West University
| Ghent University
The Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis (MuPDAR) method (Gries & Deshors 2014) represents an influential methodological advance in studying variation in contexts where linguistic choices in a “peripheral” variety (learner language, New Englishes) are studied in relation to the “central” variety. In this article we demonstrate how the method may be extended to study how varieties produced in settings of language contact (including translation) differ from non-contact varieties, particularly with respect to the degree of lexicogrammatical explicitness. We use the method to determine how (dis)similar the factors governing that-omission are in two different types of contact varieties, namely South African translated (trans-SAE) and South African non-translated English (SAE), in relation to British (GBE) English. The results show that the choices made in the contact varieties can be predicted to a reasonable extent, although South African translators and South African non-translators have a higher and lower inclination respectively to use explicit that compared to GBE non-translators. Based on the findings, we re-evaluate the explanations proposed for the increased explicitness of translated language through the frame of language contact, outlining the advantages of multifactorial methods over the frequency-based methods favoured in earlier studies.
Keywords: complementiser omission, explicitation, Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis (MuPDAR), language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Explanations for that-omission in translation and other contact-influenced varieties
  • 3.Variationist methods in studies of that-complementiser omission
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Corpora
    • 4.2Data extraction and factor coding
    • 4.3Statistical analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1The central GBE model
    • 5.2Comparison 1: How different is that-realisation in SAE compared to GBE?
    • 5.3Comparison 2: How different is that-realisation in trans-SAE compared to GBE?
    • 5.4Comparison 3: How different is that-realisation in trans-SAE compared to (non-translated) SAE?
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
References (63)
References
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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
. 2011. Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation: A Corpus-Based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD Thesis, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Jesse Egbert, Bethany Gray, Rahel Oppliger, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2016. “Variationist Versus Text-linguistic Approaches to Grammatical Change in English: Nominal of Head Nouns.” In Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Edited by M. Kytö, and P. Pahta, 351–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. “Register as a Predictor of Linguistic Variation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8 (1): 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 2000 [1986]. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader (1st edition). Edited by L. Venuti, 298–313. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder. 2007. “Complement-taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 31 (3): 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2004. “Hypotheses about Translation Universals.” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Edited by G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer, and D. Gile, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, and Marie-Aude Lefer. 2016. “Empirical Translation Studies in the Post-Baker Era: Towards a New Research Agenda.” Unpublished conference paper presented at the 8th EST Congress, 15–17 September, Aarhus.
Deshors, Sandra C., and Stefan Th. Gries. 2016. “Profiling Verb Complementation Constructions across New Englishes: A Two-step Random Forests Analysis of -ing vs to Complements.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (2): 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaspari, Frederico, and Silvia Bernardini. 2010. “Comparing Non-native and Translated Language: Monolingual Comparable Corpora with a Twist.” In Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Edited by R. Xiao, 215–234. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Allison S. Adelman. 2014. “Subject Realization in Japanese Conversation by Native and Non-native Speakers: Exemplifying a New Paradigm for Learner Corpus Research.” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Edited by J. Romero, 35–54. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Sandra Deshors. 2014. “Using Regressions to Explore Deviations Between Corpus Data and a Standard/Target: Two Suggestions.” Corpora 9 (1): 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Tobias Bernaisch. 2016. “Exploring Epicentres Empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes.” English World-Wide 37 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Sandra C. Deshors. 2015. “EFL and/vs ESL? A Multi-level Regression Modeling Perspective on Bridging the Paradigm Gap.” International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1 (1): 130–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Tobias J. Bernaisch, and Benedikt Heller. In press. “A Corpus-linguistic Account of the History of the Genitive Alternation in Singapore English.” In Modeling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties. Edited by S. C. Deshors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Grosjean, François. 2013. “Bilingualism: A Short Introduction.” In The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Edited by F. Grosjean, and P. Li, 5–25. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2003. “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Stella Neumann, and Erich Steiner. 2007. “Cohesive Explicitness and Explicitation in an English-German Translation Corpus.” Languages in Contrast 7 (2): 241–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2003. “Why Are Zero-marked Phrases Close to their Heads?” In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Edited by G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf, 175–204. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 2004. “Explicitness in Discourse Across Languages.” In Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft. Edited by J. House, W. Koller, and K. Schubert, 185–208. Bochum: AKS.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. “The Development of Comment Clauses.” In The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change With Corpora. Edited by B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, and S. Wallis, 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta. 2018. “Interpretese vs Non-native Language Use: The Case of Optional That .” In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Edited by M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, and B. Defrancq, 97–114. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga. 2009. “The Asymmetry Hypothesis in Translation Research.” In Translators and Their Readers. Edited by R. Dimitriu, and M. Shlesinger, 283–303. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.Google Scholar
Kolbe-Hanna, Daniela, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2015. “Grammatical Variation.” In The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Edited by D. Biber, and R. Reppen, 161–179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. 2012. “A Corpus-Based Study of the Mediation Effect in Translated and Edited Language.” Target 24 (2): 355–388. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2015. “Verb Complement Clauses in Afrikaans: A Case for Constructional Differentiation.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
. 2016a. “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
. 2016b. “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
Kruger, Haidee. (in press). “ That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicitness in Translated English.” Across Languages and Cultures.
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai. 2012. “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. “(Apparently) Competing Motivations in Morpho-syntactic Variation.” In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Edited by B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, and E. Moravcsik, 209–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Dalene, and Sebastian Pistor. 2011. Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z (Write Afrikaans from A to Z). 2nd ed. Cape Town: Pharos.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella. 2014. Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 251. Berlin: De Gruyter.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
Paolillo, John C. 2013. “Individual Effects in Variation Analysis: Model, Software, and Research Design.” Language Variation and Change 251: 89–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2005. “Explaining Explicitation.” In New Trends in Translation Studies. Edited by K. Károly, and Á. Fóris, 29–34. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Translating as Risk Management.” Journal of Pragmatics 851: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. Available at [URL].
Redelinghuys, Karien, and Haidee Kruger. 2015. “Using the Features of Translated Language to Investigate Translation Expertise: A Corpus-Based Study.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (3): 293–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English.” Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2): 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Jeffrey L. Elman, and Victor S. Ferreira. 2006. “Why Is That? Structural Prediction and Ambiguity Resolution in a Very Large Corpus of English Sentences.” Cognition 981: 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2013. Wordsmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. [URL].
Séguinot, Candace. 1988. “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1 (2): 106–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shank, Christopher, Julie van Bogaert, and Koen Plevoets. 2016. “The Diachronic Development of Zero Complementation: A Multifactorial Analysis of the That/Zero Alternation with Think, Suppose, and Believe .” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12 (1): 31–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. “Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice.” Language Variation and Change 241: 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Jennifer Smith. 2005. “No Momentary Fancy! The Zero “Complementizer” in English Dialects.” English Language and Linguistics 9 (2): 289–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer That in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 151: 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and James A. Walker. 2009. “On the Persistence of Grammar in Discourse Formulas: A Variationist Study of That .” Linguistics 47 (1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus. 2017. “South African English.” In The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Edited by M. Filppula, J. Klemola, and D. Sharma, 508–530. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ronel, and Bertus van Rooy. 2014. “The Development of Modals of Obligation and Necessity in White South African English Through Contact with Afrikaans. Journal of English Linguistics 42 (1), 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Nicholas Lester, and Ma. Teresa Martínez García. 2014. “ That-Variation in German and Spanish L2 English.” Language and Cognition 6 (2): 271–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries, and Nicholas A. Lester. 2018. “Optional That in Complementation by German and Spanish learners.” In What Is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research. Edited by A. Tyler, L. Huan, and H. Jan. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2015. “Prenominal Adjective Order Preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A Multifactorial Corpus Study.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5 (1): 122–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 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
Ivaska, Ilmari & Anne Tamm
2024. Same yet different. Linguistic Variation 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
Neumann, Stella, Elma Kerz & Arndt Heilmann
2024. Chapter 8. Comparing contact effects in translation and second language writing. In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings [Contact Language Library, 60], ► pp. 223 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
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
Liu, Nannan
2023. Speaking in the first-person singular or plural. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Qin, Xiaowan & Keming Peng
2023. Book Review. International Journal of Translation, Interpretation, and Applied Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. MuPDAR for corpus-based learner and variety studies. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 256 ff. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta
2022. An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 34:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Reynaert, Ryan, Lieve Macken, Arda Tezcan & Gert De Sutter
2021. Building a New-Generation Corpus for Empirical Translation Studies: The Dutch Parallel Corpus 2.0. In New Perspectives on Corpus Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
De Sutter, Gert & 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 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th., Santa Barbara, Justus Liebig & Sandra C. Deshors
2020. There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal 44:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta & Ilmari Ivaska
2020. A Multivariate Approach to Lexical Diversity in Constrained Language. Across Languages and Cultures 21:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Xiaomin, Haidee Kotze (Kruger) & Jing Fang
2020. Explicitation in children’s literature translated from English to Chinese: a corpus-based study of personal pronouns. Perspectives 28:5 ► pp. 717 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Soziolinguistische Bibliographie europäischer Länder für 2018Sociolinguistic Bibliography of European Countries for 2018Bibliographie sociolinguistique des pays européens pour 2018. Sociolinguistica 34:1 ► pp. 277 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.