1887
Volume 65, Issue 6
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A cursory overview of how the ‑ing forms of a small sample of verbs (see, take, do) are translated in various types of European documents as presented on Linguee (http://www.linguee.com/) indicates a surprising variety of possible equivalents in Romanian: infinitive and nominalized infinitive, conjunctive (preceded by marker ), verbs in the various tenses of the indicative, nominal groups, gerunziu ‑ind/ ‑ând forms etc.

Translators often have to compensate for the fact that both English participles and gerunds are potentially ambiguous without complements. Translating any ‑ing forms often involves obligatory or optional grammatical transformations. The present paper proposes the creation of a (preliminary) inventory of interlinguistic correspondences of gerund forms and their equivalents in Romanian based on real corpus (reports of the parliamentary committees) to point out the various translational options, evaluate them quantitatively (the most/least frequently used solutions) and to reveal potential difficulties arising from such an array of options.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00125.ghi
2020-01-10
2020-09-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Academia Română
    Academia Română 2008Gramatica Limbii Române. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, A.; G. Iordăchioia; F. Schäffer
    2011 ”Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations”. InThe Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, variation, and change, ed. ByPetra Sleeman; and Harry Perridon, 25–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.171.04ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.171.04ale [Google Scholar]
  3. Aranberri-Monasterio, N.; S. O‘Brien
    2009 “Evaluating RBMT output for ‑ing forms: A study of four target languages”. Linguistica Antverpiensia8: 105–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bednárová-Gibová, K.
    s.a. 2018Nominalization, translation studies and critical stylistics: A case study of EU-ese in parallel English-Slovak texts. https://www.pulib.sk/web/kniznica/elpub/dokument/Ferencik4/subor/Bednarova_Gibova.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    1988Variation across speech and writingCambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernth, A.; and Gdaniec, C.
    2001 “Translatability”. Machine Translation16: 175–218. 10.1023/A:1019867030786
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019867030786 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowker, L.; and Pearson, J.
    2002Working with specialized language. A practical guide to using corpora. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203469255
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203469255 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dimitriu, C.
    2000Tratat de gramatica a limbii romane. I Morfologia. Iași: Institutul European
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Duffley, P.
    2006The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gómez-Castejón, Á.
    2012 “Contrastive analysis and translation study from a corpus linguistics Perspective”. International Journal of English Studies IJES12 (2): 111–132. 10.6018/ijes/2012/2/161781
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2012/2/161781 [Google Scholar]
  11. Huddleston, R.; and Pullum, G.
    2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  12. Izquierdo, M.
    2008 ”The translaton of ‑ing nominal constructons into Spanish: a corpus-based study”. InActas del III Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. La traducción del futuro: mediación lingüístca y cultural en el siglo XXI, ed. byPegenaute, L.; Decesaris, J.; Tricás, M.; and Bernal, E., 101–112. Barcelona: PPU.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Malá, M.; P. Šaldová
    2015 ”English non-finite participial clauses as seen through their Czech counterparts”. Nordic Journal of English Studies14 (1): 232–257. 10.35360/njes.346
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.346 [Google Scholar]
  14. Malouf, Robert
    1998 Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. [dissertation] citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51.3857&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  15. Mehl, S.
    1996 “Systematic Alternatives in Lexicalization: The Case of Gerund Translation”. Machine Translation11 (1-2-3): 185–216. 10.1007/BF00349357
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00349357 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mehl, S.; Volk, M.
    1999 “Aspects of the translation of English subordinate clauses into German. Problems and Potential of English-to-German MT systems”. Workshop at the8th International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, Chester 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Quirk, R.
    1976A University Grammar of English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Van Landeghem, Jordy
    2015 ‑ing seen through its Dutch Translation Equivalents: A contrastive parallel treebank based study [MA thesis] doi:  10.13140/RG.2.1.4934.1600
    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4934.1600 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00125.ghi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00125.ghi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus , documents pour l’Union européenne , EU documents , gerund , gérondif , traduction and translation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error