Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The recent emergence of large parallel corpora has represented a leap ahead for cross-linguistic and translation studies. However, the specificities of these corpora and their influence on the nature of observed linguistic phenomena remain underexplored, especially in the field of contrastive linguistics. In this study, we compare the translation equivalences of four concessive adverbial connectives in English and in French across three corpora varying along three dimensions: register, directionality of the translation and translator expertise. Our results indicate that these dimensions affect the cross-linguistic equivalences observed between connectives. We conclude that, in future work, translation-based claims about cross-linguistic equivalences should be balanced according to the type of data analysed. We also identify a pressing need for more rigorously-documented parallel corpora for the English-French language pair.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2013) ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 191–210. doi: 10.1075/tis.8.2.04alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.04alb [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B.
    (1999) Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp.249–268). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2007) The correspondence of resultive connectors in English and Swedish. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 1–26. Retrieved fromojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/11/14 (last accessedNovember 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anscombre, J. -C. , & Ducrot, O.
    (1977) Deux mais en français?Lingua, 43(1), 23–40. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Asr, F. , & Demberg, V.
    (2012) Implicitness of discourse relations. In M. Kay & C. Boitet (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING: Technical Papers (pp.2669–2684). Mumbai: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, M.
    (1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker , G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Studies in Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair (pp.233–250). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  7. (1995) Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target, 7(2), 223–243. doi: 10.1075/target.7.2.03bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.03bak [Google Scholar]
  8. Barlow, M.
    (2008) Parallel texts and corpus-based contrastive analysis. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González , J. Lachlan Mackenzie & E. González Álvarez (Eds.), Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp.101–121). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.60.08bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.08bar [Google Scholar]
  9. Becher, V.
    (2011) When and why do translators add connectives?Target, 23(1), 26–47. doi: 10.1075/target.23.1.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.02bec [Google Scholar]
  10. Beeby Lonsdale, A.
    (2009) Directionality. In G. Saldanha & M. Baker (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.84–88). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernardini, S. , & Baroni, M.
    (2005) Spotting translationese: A corpus-driven approach using support vector machines. In P. Danielsson & M. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005, Vol.1 (pp.1–12). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blakemore, D.
    (2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blumenthal, P.
    (1980) La Syntaxe du Message. Application au Français Moderne. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowker, L.
    (2005) Productivity vs. quality? A pilot study on the impact of translation memory systems. Localisation Focus, 4(1), 13–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Candel-Mora, M.
    (2015) Comparable corpus approach to explore the influence of computer-assisted translation systems on textuality. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 198, 67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.420
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.420 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cartoni, B. , Zufferey, S. , & Meyer, T.
    (2013) Using the Europarl corpus for linguistic research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 27, 23–42. doi: 10.1075/bjl.27.02car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.27.02car [Google Scholar]
  17. Cettolo, M. , Girardi, C. , & Federico, M.
    (2012) WIT: Web Inventory of Transcribed and Translated Talks. Proceedings of the 16th EAMT Conference (pp.261–268). Trento, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Das, D. , & Taboada, M.
    (2013) Explicit and implicit coherence relations: A corpus study. In S. Luo (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Victoria: University of Victoria.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Degand, L.
    (2004) Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of ‘puisque’ and ‘aangezien’. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.251–270). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Delaere, I. , & De Sutter, G.
    (2016) Variability of English loanword use in Belgian Dutch translations. Measuring the effect of source language, register, and editorial intervention. In G. De Sutter , M. -A. Lefer & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical Translation Studies. New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Elimam, A.
    (2007) The impact of translation memory tools on the translation profession. Translation Journal, 11(1).Retrieved fromtranslationjournal.net/journal/39TM.htm (last accessedAugust 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Englund Dimitrova, B.
    (2005) Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.64 [Google Scholar]
  23. Granger, S.
    (2014) A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages. Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 58–72. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra [Google Scholar]
  24. Gregory, M. , & Carroll, S.
    (1978) Language and Situation: Language Varieties and their Social Contexts. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Halverson, S.
    (2004) Connectives as a translation problem. In H. Kittel , A. Frank , N. Greiner , T. Hermans , W. Koller , J. Lamber & F. Paul (Eds.), Translation: An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.562–572). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hansen-Schirra, S. , Neumann, S. , & Steiner, E.
    (2012) Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hervey, S. , & Higgins, I.
    (1992) Thinking Translation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoek, J. , & Zufferey, S.
    (2015) Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ISO-ACL/SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (pp.39–45). Tilburg: Tilburg Centre for Cognition and Communication.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Holland, R.
    (2012) News translation. In C. Millán & F. Bartrina (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (pp.332–346). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Johansson, S.
    (2007) Seeing Through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  32. Knott, A. , & Dale, R.
    (1994) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1080/01638539409544883
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544883 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koehn, P.
    (2005) Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. (pp.79–86). Phuket, Thailand.
  34. Kunz, K. , & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2015) Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lefer, M. -A. , & Grabar, N.
    (2015)  Super-creative and over-bureaucratic: A cross-genre corpus-based study on the use and translation of evaluative prefixation in TED talks and EU parliamentary debates. Across Languages and Cultures, 16(2), 187–208. doi: 10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lefer, M. -A. , & Vogeleer, S.
    (Eds.) (2014) Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast [Special issue]. Languages in Contrast. 14(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu, D.
    (2008) Linking adverbials. An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 491–518. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.05liu [Google Scholar]
  38. Macken, I. , De Clercq, O. , & Paulussen, H.
    (2011) Dutch Parallel Corpus: A balanced copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta, 56(2), 374–390. doi: 10.7202/1006182ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1006182ar [Google Scholar]
  39. Mann, W. , & Thompson, S.
    (1992) Relational discourse structure: A comparison of approaches to structuring text by ‘Contrast’. In S. Hwang & W. Merrifield (Eds), Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre (pp.19–45). Dallas, TX: SIL.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Murray, J.
    (1995) Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. Lorch & E. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of Cohesion in Text Comprehension (pp.107–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1997) Connectives and narrative text. The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 227–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03201114
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201114 [Google Scholar]
  42. Neumann, S.
    (2014) Cross-linguistic register studies. Theoretical and methodological considerations. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 35–57. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.1.03neu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.03neu [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Hagan, M.
    (2009) Computer-aided translation (CAT). In G. Saldanha & M. Baker (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.48–51). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pit, M.
    (2007) Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast, 7(1), 53–82. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit [Google Scholar]
  45. Pokorn, N.
    (2010) Directionality. In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, vol.2 (pp.37–39). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Prasad, R. , Dinesh, N. , Lee, A. , Miltsakaki, E. , Robaldo, L. , Joshi, A. , & Webber, B.
    (2008) The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp.2961–2968). Marrakech: European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nisioi, S. , Rabinovich, E. , Dinu, L. & Wintner, S.
    (2016) A corpus of native, non-native and translated texts. In N. Calzolari et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Language and Resources Evaluation Conference (LREC) (pp.4197–4201). Porotrož, Slovenia.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sanders, T.
    (1997) Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 119–148. doi: 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schäler, R.
    (2009) Localization. In G. Saldanha & M. Baker (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.157–161). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Shreve, G.
    (1997) Cognition and the evolution of translation competence. In J. Danks , G. Shreve , S. Fountain & M. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp.120–136). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith, R. & Frawley, W.
    (1983) Conjunctive cohesion in four English genres. Text, 3(4), 347–374. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1983.3.4.347
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1983.3.4.347 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tirkonnen-Condit, S.
    (2005) The Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process research. Meta, 50(2), 405–414. doi: 10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  54. Vinay, J. -P. , & Darbelnet, J.
    (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zufferey, S.
    (2016) Discourse connectives across languages. Factors influencing their explicit or implicit translation. Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 264–279. doi: 10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.05zuf [Google Scholar]
  56. Zufferey, S. , & Cartoni, B.
    (2012) English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 232–250. doi: 10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf [Google Scholar]
  57. (2014) A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target, 26(3), 361–384. doi: 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]
  58. Zufferey, S. , & Gygax, P.
    (2016) Discourse relations with a perspective shift are difficult to convey implicitly. Evidence from processing and translating the French connective en effet . Discourse Processes, 53(7), 532–555. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1062839 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concessive connectives; English; French; register variation; translation corpora
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