1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper compares use of collocations by Italian learners writing in and translating into English, conceptualising the two tasks as different modes of constrained language production and adopting Halverson’s (2017) revised Gravitational Pull Hypothesis as a theoretical model. A particular focus is placed on identifying a method for comparing datasets containing translations and essays, assembled opportunistically and varying in size and structure. The study shows that lexical association scores for dependency-defined word pairs are significantly higher in translations than essays. A qualitative analysis of a subset of collocations shared and unique to either mode shows that the former set features more collocations with direct cross-linguistic links (connectivity), and that the source/first language seems to affect both modes similarly. We tentatively conclude that second/target language salience effects are more visible in translation than second language use, while connectivity and source language salience affect both modes of bilingual processing similarly, regardless of the mediation variable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer
2023-04-11
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfuraih, R. F.
    (2020) The undergraduate learner translator corpus: a new resource for translation studies and computational linguistics. Language Resources and Evaluation, 541, 801–830. 10.1007/s10579‑019‑09472‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09472-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B., & Granger, S.
    (2001) The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 173–195. 10.1093/applin/22.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E.
    (2009) The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources & Evaluation, 431, 209–226. 10.1007/s10579‑009‑9081‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernardini, S.
    (2011) Monolingual comparable corpora and parallel corpora in the search for features of translated language. SYNAPS, 261, 2–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowker, L., & Bennison, P.
    (2003) Student translation archive: Design, development and application. InF. Zanettin, S. Bernardini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora in translator education (pp. 103–117). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Callies, M.
    (2015) Learner corpus methodology. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 35–55). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Canty, A., & Ripley, B. D.
    (2021) boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package (version 1.3–28).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Castagnoli, S., Ciobanu, D., Kübler, N., Kunz, K., & Volanschi, A.
    (2006) Designing a learner translator corpus for training purposes. Proceedings of TALC2006, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & Mcnamara, D. S.
    (2015) Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 570–590.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dayrell, C.
    (2007) A quantitative approach to compare collocational patterns in translated and non-translated texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(3), 375–414. 10.1075/ijcl.12.3.04day
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.12.3.04day [Google Scholar]
  12. Durrant, P.
    (2014) Corpus frequency and second language learners’ knowledge of collocations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(4), 443–477. 10.1075/ijcl.19.4.01dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.4.01dur [Google Scholar]
  13. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N.
    (2009) To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations?International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(2), 157–177. 10.1515/iral.2009.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. Durrant, P., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A.
    (2015) Learner corpora and psycholinguistics. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 57–78). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ebeling, S., & Hasselgård, H.
    (2015) Learner corpora and phraseology. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 207–230). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N.
    (2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44. 10.1017/S0267190512000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
    (2008) Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 375–396. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Espunya, A.
    (2014) The UPF learner translation corpus as a resource for translator training. Language Resources and Evaluation, 481, 33–43. 10.1007/s10579‑013‑9260‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9260-1 [Google Scholar]
  19. European Master’s in Translation Board [Google Scholar]
  20. Feng, H.
    (2020) Form, meaning and function in collocation. A corpus study on commercial Chinese-to-English translation. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429318368
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318368 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferraresi, A., & Miličević, M.
    (2017) Phraseological patterns in interpreting and translation. Similar or different?InG. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp. 157–182). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z.
    (2012) Discovering statistics using R. Sage Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2017) Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67(S1), 155–179. 10.1111/lang.12225
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilquin, G.
    (2008) Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. InG. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking contrastive and Learner Corpus Research (pp. 3–33). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_002 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) From design to collection of learner corpora. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 9–34). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. González-Davies, M.
    (2014) Towards a plurilingual development paradigm: From spontaneous to informed use of translation in additional language learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 1–14. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.908555
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908555 [Google Scholar]
  27. Granger, S.
    (1998) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. InA. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Granger, S., & Bestgen, Y.
    (2014) The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(3), 229–252. 10.1515/iral‑2014‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0011 [Google Scholar]
  29. Granger, S., & Lefer, M.-A.
    (2020) The Multilingual Student Translation corpus: a resource for translation teaching and research. Language Resources and Evaluation, 541, 1183–1199. 10.1007/s10579‑020‑09485‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09485-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gries, S. T.
    (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 3–26). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  31. Grosjean, F.
    (2013) Speech perception and comprehension. InF. Grosjean, & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 29–49). Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halverson, S. L.
    (2017) Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model. InG. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp. 9–46). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110459586‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hasselgren, A.
    (1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–260. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Hasselgård, H.
    (2019) Phraseological teddy bears. Frequent lexical bundles in academic writing by Norwegian learners and native speakers of English. InV. Wiegand & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Corpus linguistics, context and culture (pp. 339–62). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110489071‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110489071-013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hasselgård, H., & Ebeling, S.
    (2018) At the interface between Contrastive Analysis and Learner Corpus Research: A parallel contrastive approach. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 182–214. 10.35360/njes.438
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ivaska, I., Ferraresi, A., & Bernardini, S.
    (2022) Syntactic properties of constrained English: A corpus-driven approach. InS. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies. (pp. 133–157). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350143289.0013
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143289.0013 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jantunen, J. H.
    (2004) Untypical patterns in translations. InA. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 101–128). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.09jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.09jan [Google Scholar]
  39. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203935927
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kellerman, E.
    (1977) Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 21, 58–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kenny, D.
    (2001) Lexis and creativity in translation. A corpus-based approach. St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kjellmer, G.
    (1984) Some thought on collocational distinctiveness. InJ. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Recent developments in the use of computer corpora in English language research (pp163–71). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004483446_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004483446_011 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kolehmainen, L., Meriläinen, L., & Riionheimo, H.
    (2014) Interlingual reduction: Evidence from language contacts, translation and second language acquisition. InH. Paulasto, L. Meriläinen, H. Riionheimo, & M. Kok (Eds.), Language contacts at the crossroads of disciplines (pp. 3–32). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kotze, H.
    (2020) Converging what and how to find out why. InL. Vandevoorde, J. Dams, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp. 333–371). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2022) Translation as constrained communication: Principles, concepts and methods. InS. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 67–98). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350143289.0010
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350143289.0010 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B.
    (2016) Constrained language. A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide, 37(1), 26–57. 10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru [Google Scholar]
  47. Kutuzov, A., & Kunilovskaya, M.
    (2014) Russian learner translator corpus. InP. Sojka, A. Horak, I. Kopecek, & K. Pala (Eds.), Text, speech and dialogue (pp. 315–323). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑10816‑2_39
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10816-2_39 [Google Scholar]
  48. LaFlair, G. T., Egbert, J., & Plonsky, L.
    (2015) A practical guide to bootstrapping descriptive statistics, correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs. InL. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 46–77). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315870908‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870908-4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lanstyak, I., & Heltai, P.
    (2012) Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99–121. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R.
    (2010) Improving data analysis in Second Language Acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 368–390. 10.1093/applin/amp038
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp038 [Google Scholar]
  51. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T.
    (2011) Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2): 647–672. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00621.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14 [Google Scholar]
  53. Osborne, J.
    (2015) Transfer and learner corpus research. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 333–356). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.015 [Google Scholar]
  54. Paquot, M.
    (2014) Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. InL. Roberts, I. Vedder, & J. Hulstijn (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (pp. 216–237). John Benjamins. 10.1075/eurosla.14.10paq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.10paq [Google Scholar]
  55. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. InJ. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Plonsky, L., Egbert, J., & LaFlair, G. T.
    (2015) Bootstrapping in applied linguistics: Assessing its potential using shared data. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 591–610.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Rabinovich, E., Nisioi, S., Ordan, N., & Wintner, S.
    (2016) On the similarities between native, non-native and translated texts. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1870–1881. 10.18653/v1/P16‑1176
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1176 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rendall, S.
    (1997) The translator’s task, Walter Benjamin (Translation). TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 10(2), 151–165. 10.7202/037302ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037302ar [Google Scholar]
  60. Rychlý, P.
    (2008) A lexicographer-friendly association score. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing (RASLAN), 6–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Shlesinger, M.
    (1989) Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N.
    (2008) L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 429–458. 10.3138/cmlr.64.3.429
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.429 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang, Y.
    (2016) The idiom principle and L1 influence: A contrastive learner-corpus study of delexical verb + noun. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.77
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.77 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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