1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
  4. Volume 9, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article analyses the extent to which four well-known general cognitive constraints – syntactic priming, cognitive routinisation, markedness of coding and structural integration – impact the linguistic output of translation students and professional translators similarly. It takes subject placement variation in Dutch as a test case to gauge the effect of the four constraints and relies on a controlled corpus of student and professional French-to-Dutch L1 news translations, from which all declarative main clauses with either a preverbal or a postverbal subject were extracted. All corpus instances were annotated for four random variables, the fixed variable and ten other fixed variables, which were considered good proxies for the cognitive constraints. A mixed-effects regression analysis reveals that by and large the cognitive constraints have an identical effect on student and professional translators’ output, with priming and structural integration having the strongest impact on subject placement. However, students diverge from professionals when translating French clauses with a left-dislocated adjunct into Dutch, which is interpreted as an indication of a difference in automatisation when dealing with specific French-Dutch cross-linguistic differences.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
2023-04-11
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M., & Kim, L. K.
    (2013) Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403–413. 10.1002/wcs.1234
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1234 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arxiv.org (rXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Blom, E., & de Korte, S.
    (2008) De verwerving van het Nederlands: dummies en Verb Second. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 131, 133–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bock, J. K.
    (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouma, G.
    (2008) Starting a sentence in Dutch. A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 66). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  7. Broekhuis, H.
    (2020) 8.1.2. Noun phrases in clause-initial position. Taalportaal. https://www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/link/syntax____Dutch__np__n8__nouns8_Syntactic.8.1.2.xml
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G.
    (2014) Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 1501, 80–84. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Vol.451). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Calvillo, D. P., & Jackson, R. E.
    (2014) Animacy, perceptual load, and inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 670–675. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0543‑8
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0543-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carl, M., Dragsted, B., & Jakobsen, A. L.
    (2011) A taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal, 16(2), 155–168.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Castagnoli, S.
    (2016) Investigating trainee translators’ contrastive pragmalinguistic competence: a corpus-based analysis of interclausal linkage in learner translations. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 343–363. 10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236562
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1236562 [Google Scholar]
  14. Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M., & Waldorp, L. J.
    (2003) Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 201–211. 10.1017/S1366728903001135
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001135 [Google Scholar]
  15. Claes, J.
    (2017) Probabilistic grammar: The view from Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), Art. 62. 10.5334/gjgl.298
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.298 [Google Scholar]
  16. Corpas Pastor, G., Mitkov, R., Afzal, N., & Pekar, V.
    (2008) Translation universals: do they exist? A corpus-based NLP study of convergence and simplification. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Research Papers, 75–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Coussé, E.
    (2009) Focus, complexiteit en extrapositie. Over de veranderende woordvolgorde in het Nederlands. Neerlandistiek.nl, 09.04.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. De Sutter, G., Cappelle, B., De Clercq, O., Loock, R., & Plevoets, K.
    (2017) Towards a corpus-based, statistical approach to translation quality: Measuring and visualizing linguistic deviance in student translations. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 161, 25–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Sutter, G., Colleman, T., & Ghyselen, A.-S.
    (2021) Intra- and inter-textual syntactic priming in original and translated English. InG. Kristiansen, K. Franco, S. De Pascale, L. Rosseel, & W. Zhang (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 48) (pp.264–276). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110733945‑032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733945-032 [Google Scholar]
  20. Diamond, B. J., & Shreve, G. M.
    (2010) Neural and physiological correlates of translation and interpreting in the bilingual brain. Translation and Cognition, 151, 289–321. 10.1075/ata.xv.16dia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.16dia [Google Scholar]
  21. Diessel, H.
    (2017) Usage-based linguistics. InM. Aronoff, Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-363. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2019) The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 271, 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ami038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  24. Falk, S.
    (2014) On the notion of salience in spoken discourse-prominence cues shaping discourse structure and comprehension. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 301. journals.openedition.org/tipa/1303 ; 10.4000/tipa.1303
     https://doi.org/10.4000/tipa.1303 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fox, J., & Hong, J.
    (2009) Effect Displays in R for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the effects Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1), 1–24. 10.18637/jss.v032.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v032.i01 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fries, P. H.
    (1981) On the status of Theme in English: arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum, 61, 1–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson, E.
    (2000) The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. InA. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp.94–126). The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gries, S. T.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gries, S. T., & Kootstra, G. J.
    (2017) Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 235–250. 10.1017/S1366728916001085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001085 [Google Scholar]
  31. Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
    (2007) A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 161–193. 10.1515/CLLT.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.
    (2019) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Harrell, F. E.
    (2015) Regression modeling strategies. With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑19425‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hartsuiker, R. J., Beerts, S., Loncke, M., Desmet, T., & Bernolet, S.
    (2016) Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language, 901, 14–30. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency (No.73). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (2001) Why are categories adjacent?Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 1–34. 10.1017/S002222670100860X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670100860X [Google Scholar]
  37. Jansen, F. & Wijnands, R.
    (2004) Doorkruisingen van het links-rechtsprincipe. Neerlandistiek.nl, 04.01. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/28494
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kajzer-Wietrzny, M.
    (2019) Linking words in inter- and intralingual translation. Combining corpus linguistics and key-logging data. InL. Vandevoorde, J. Daems, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp.114–138). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429030376‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030376-6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaushanskaya, M., & Rechtzigel, K.
    (2012) Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 191, 935–941. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0271‑5
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0271-5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Khoe, Y. H., Tsoukala, C., Kootstra, G. J., & Frank, S. L.
    (2021) Is structural priming between different languages a learning effect? Modelling priming as error-driven implicit learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–21. 10.1080/23273798.2021.1998563
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1998563 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kunilovskaya, M., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2020) Lexicogrammatic translationese across two targets and competence levels. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 4102–4112.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kunilovskaya, M., Morgoun, N., & Pariy, A.
    (2018) Learner vs professional translations into Russian: Lexical profiles. Translation and Interpreting, 10(1), 33–52. 10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a03
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a03 [Google Scholar]
  43. Labov, W.
    (1965) On the mechanism of linguistic change. Georgetown monographs on language and linguistics, 181, 91–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lambrecht, K.
    (2010) Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English: A contrastive analysis. InC. Breul & E. Göbbel (Eds.), Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure (pp.77–100). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.165.04lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.165.04lam [Google Scholar]
  46. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2022) Detecting normalisation and shining-through in novice and professional translations. InS. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp.182–206). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350143289.0015
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143289.0015 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Popović, M. & Koponen, M.
    (2022) DiHuTra: a parallel corpus to analyse differences between human translations. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 335–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
    (2017) Does translation involve structural priming?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1575–1589. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1194439 [Google Scholar]
  49. Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., & Leisch, F.
    (2015) e1071: Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group [R package version 1.6-7]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=e1071
  50. Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I.
    (2013) The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. InP. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing (pp.219–247). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑30910‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S.
    (2008) Structural priming: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pijpops, D.
    (2020) What is an alternation?: Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 283–294. 10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij [Google Scholar]
  53. Qi, P., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Bolton, J., & Manning, C. D.
    (2020) Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. arxiv.org (arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07082). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.07082.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  54. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Redelinghuys, K., & Kruger, H.
    (2015) Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(3), 293–325. 10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red [Google Scholar]
  56. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., & Rioul, R.
    (2009) Grammaire méthodique du français. Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Rosenbach, A.
    (2005) Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. 10.1353/lan.2005.0149
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M.
    (2013) Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies: The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 8(2), 169–190. 10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.2.03sch [Google Scholar]
  59. Schmid, H. J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–26. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2005) Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tiselius, E., & Hild, A.
    (2017) Expertise and competence in translation and interpreting. InJ. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp.423–444). Wiley. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch23
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch23 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vogels, J., & Van Bergen, G.
    (2017) Where to place inaccessible subjects in Dutch: The role of definiteness and animacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 369–398. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wasow, T.
    (2002) Postverbal behavior. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Zwart, J.-W.
    (2011) The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511977763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977763 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
Loading
Is linguistic decision-making constrained by the same cognitive factors in student and in professional translation?
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9, 61 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive routinisation; markedness of coding; priming; structural integration; translation expertise

Most Cited

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