Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 19:1 (2024) ► pp.33–56

Lexical bundles in formulaic interpreting

A corpus-based descriptive exploration

ORCID logo | Northeastern University
ORCID logo | University of Agder
Inspired by Henriksen (2007), this article investigates some key characteristics of formulaic interpreting, understood as the recurrent use of linguistic formulae in interpreted texts. Using a Chinese-English corpus of consecutive interpreting in the political setting (CICPPC), the study quantitatively investigates some features of 4-gram lexical bundles in interpreted text, i.e., their discourse functions and relationships to the source text, and qualitatively studies characteristics of specific instances of lexical bundles. The patterns are described both in terms of equivalence, shifts, and additions, as well as ‘constraints on formulaicity,’ a generalization that captures the tension involved between frequency-driven selection and the need to establish a translational relationship. It is suggested that equivalence typical of form-based rendition and addition typical of meaning-based rendition are subject to lower constraints, while greater constraints pertain in the case of shifts.
Keywords: 4-gram lexical bundles, consecutive interpreting corpus, frequency patterns, formulaicity
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Characteristics of lexical bundles
  • Method
    • Corpus
    • 4-gram lexical bundles
    • Retrieval and screening
    • Analytic framework for translation relationships
  • Analysis and results
    • The distribution of discourse functions and correspondence patterns
    • Equivalence
    • Shift
    • Addition
  • Discussion
  • Concluding remarks
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 15 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.19037.li
References (53)
References
Ädel, Annelie and Britt Erman. 2012. “Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach.” English for Specific Purposes 31(2): 81–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2020. “ AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software].” Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Arnon, Inbal and Neal Snider. 2010. “More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aston, Guy. 2016. “How the corporation can help the interpreter walk the tightrope.” In Corpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting: From Theory to Applications, ed. by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Miriam Seghiri, 219–238. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Acquiring the language of interpreters: A Corpus-based Approach.” In Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli and Bart Defrancq, 83–96. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avner, Ehud Alexander, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner. 2014. “Identifying translationese at the word and sub-word level.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(1): 163–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Federica Barbieri. 2007. “Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers.” English for Specific Purposes 26(3): 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Viviana Cortes. 2004. “ If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks.” Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. “Lexical bundles across four legal genres.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2): 229–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria and Miriam Seghiri (ed). 2016. Corpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting: From Theory to Applications. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 2013. “The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(1): 33–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csomay, Eniko. 2013. “Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse.” Applied Linguistics 34(3): 369–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dam, Helle V. 2001. “On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 111: 27–55. [URL]
De Cock, Sylvie. 1998. “A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1): 59–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 1996. “Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1): 91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. “Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Rita Simpson-Vlach, and Carson Maynard. 2008. “Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL.” TESOL Quarterly 42(3): 375–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Adriano and Maja Miličević. 2017. “Phraseological patterns in translation and interpreting. Similar or different?” In Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, ed. by Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere, 157–182. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forchini, Pierfranca and Amanda Murphy. 2008. “N-grams in comparable specialized corpora: Perspectives on phraseology, translation, and pedagogy.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 351–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel (ed). 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training ( 2nd edition ), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, Line. 2007. “The song in the booth: Formulaic interpreting and oral textualisation.” Interpreting 9(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Kaibao and Tao Qing. 2013. “The Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus: Uses and Limitations.” Meta 58(3): 626–642. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. “As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation.” English for Specific Purposes 27(1): 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isham, William P. 1994. “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization.” In Bridging the Gap: Empirical research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 191–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Roderick (ed). 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly. 2005. “Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lederer, Marianne (ed). 1981. La Traduction Simultanée. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.Google Scholar
Li, Yang. 2016. “A corpus-based interpreting exploration into pragmatic functions of prefabricated chunks.” Modern Foreign Languages 39(2): 246–256.Google Scholar
. 2017. “A corpus-based exploration into the use of lexical bundles and students’ interpreting proficiency: A study based on PACCEL.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 296(5): 88–96.Google Scholar
Li, Yang and Sandra L. Halverson. 2020. “A Corpus-based Exploration into Lexical Bundles in Interpreting.” Across Languages and Cultures 21(1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Yang and Wang Nan. 2012. “The exploration into the alleviating effects of prefabricated chunks on simultaneous interpreting.” Foreign Language World 148(1): 61–67.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2013. “Speaking professionally in an L2: Issues of corpus methodology.” In Variation and Change in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. by Julia Bamford, Silvia Cavalieri, and Giuliana Diani, 5–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, Magali. 2013. “Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3): 391–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russo, Mariachiara, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq (eds). 2018. Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovich, Danica (ed). 1975. Langage, langues et mémoire. Paris: Minard.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin (ed). 1999. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam and Noam Ordan. 2012. “More spoken or more translated?: Exploring a known unknown of simultaneous interpreting.” Target 24(1): 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shrefler, Nathan. 2011. “Lexical bundles and German bibles.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 26(1): 89–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, Rita and Nick C. Ellis. 2010. “An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research.” Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna and Ron Martinez. 2014. “The idiom principle revisited.” Applied Linguistics 36(5): 549–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael and Isabel Barth. 2003. “Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings.” Functions of Language 10(1): 61–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta (ed). 2004. A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel? Ph.D. dissertation University of Tampere, Finland.
Wang, Binhua (ed). 2013. A descriptive study of norms in interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Wenyu and Yan Huang. 2011. “Investigating the use of chunks in Chinese-English interpretation by college English Majors.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 260(5): 73–79.Google Scholar
. 2013. “The use of chunks and the quality of oral interpretation: An empirical study.” Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education 152(4): 28–35.Google Scholar
Wang, Ying. 2017. “Lexical bundles in spoken academic ELF.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 187–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations, Trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe. USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2000. “Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice.” Applied linguistics 21(4): 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Weihe (ed). 2006. A Coursebook of Interpreting between English and Chinese. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gu, Chonglong & Dechao Li
2024. Interpreter-mediated political communication N-Grammed: a corpus-driven discourse analysis of government interpreters’ (ideological) use of formulaic language. The Translator ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Li, Yang & Ewa Gumul
2024. Stance-taking lexical bundles in interpreted diplomatic discourse. A corpus-informed approach. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Dan Feng, Fang Li & Hang Guo
2023. Chunking in simultaneous interpreting: the impact of task complexity and translation directionality on lexical bundles. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Tang, Fang & Shuzhen Jiang
2022. Four-word lexical bundles in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting—A comparative study between professionals and trainees. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 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.