1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores both comparable and translation data from the fiction part of the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC) in a new way. Rather than studying fiction as a unified register, we investigate to what extent fiction can be seen to contain (at least) two distinct registers – dialogue and narrative – and to what extent this may have implications for contrastive studies based on a corpus such as the ENPC. Token counts show that, although the texts are predominantly narrative in nature, the Norwegian texts are even more so than the English ones. On the basis of word lists, two items proportionally more frequent in dialogue and that had previously been studied on the basis of the fiction texts in the ENPC were identified and chosen for further scrutiny: and . Results from these two case studies uncover some differences in the use of and in dialogue vs. narrative, most conspicuously for where its preferred use in dialogue is the cognition sense and in narrative the perception sense. For , a noticeable difference is the choice of verb in the Norwegian translations of existential -clauses in dialogue and narrative. In narrative, verbs other than verbs of existence are sometimes chosen, while this is never the case in dialogue.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00019.oks
2020-10-06
2020-11-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    2004 The Interface between Perception, Evidentiality and Discourse Particle Use – Using a Translation Corpus to Study the Polysemy of see . TradTerm10: 246–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B.
    1999 Adverbial Connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and Lexical Correspondences. InOut of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    2018 AntConc (version 3.5.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available atwww.laurenceanthony.net/software
  4. Biber, D.
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Breivik, L. E.
    1990Existential there. A Synchronic and Diachronic Study. Oslo: Novus Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chocholoušová, B.
    2007 Norwegian Det-Constructions and their Translation Correspondences in English and German: A Contrastive Corpus Based Study of Dummy Subjects. Masterʼs Dissertation, Masaryk University.
  8. 2008There and it in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. A Parallel Corpus Study of English Dummy Subjects and their Translation Equivalents in Norwegian and German. Masterʼs Dissertation, University of Oslo.
  9. Cortes, V.
    2008 A Comparative Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Academic History Writing in English and Spanish. Corpora3(1): 43–57. 10.3366/E1749503208000063
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000063 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Haan, P.
    1996 More on the Language of Dialogue in Fiction. ICAME Journal20: 23–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dupont, M. and Zufferey, S.
    2017 Methodological Issues in the Use of Directional Parallel Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(2): 270–297. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.05dup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.05dup [Google Scholar]
  12. Ebeling, J.
    2000Presentative Constructions in English and Norwegian. A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Oslo: Acta Humaniora.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ebeling, J. and Ebeling, S. O.
    2013Patterns in Contrast. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.58
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.58 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ebeling, S. O. and Ebeling, J.
    2017 A Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Recurrent Word Combinations in a Comparable Corpus of English and Norwegian Fiction. InContrasting English and Other Languages through Corpora, M. Janebová , E. Lapshinova-Koltunski and M. Martinková (eds), 2–31. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2020 Contrastive Analysis, Tertium Comparationis and Corpora. Nordic Journal of English Studies19(1): 97–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Egbert, J. and Mahlberg, M.
    2017 Fiction – One Register or Two? Narrative and Fictional Speech in Dickens’s Novels. Paper presented at theNinth International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, 25–28 July 2017. Available athttps://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2017/general/paper323.pdf [last accessed7 May 2019].
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gledhill, C.
    2000 The Discourse Function of Collocation in Research Article Introductions. English for Specific Purposes19(2): 115–135. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00015‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00015-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Granger, S.
    2014 A Lexical Bundle Approach to Comparing Languages: Stems in English and French. Languages in Contrast14(1): 58–72. 10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.04gra [Google Scholar]
  19. Gundel, J.
    2002 Information Structure and the Use of Cleft Sentences in English and Norwegian. InInformation Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, H. Hasselgård , S. Johansson , B. Behrens , and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 113–128. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004334250_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334250_008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M. A. K.
    2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed.Revised by C. M. I .M. Matthiessen . London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hasselgård, H.
    2017 Temporal Expressions in English and Norwegian. InContrasting English and Other Languages through Corpora, M. Janebová , E. Lapshinova-Koltunski and M. Martinková (eds), 75–101. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johansson, S.
    2007Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  23. Johansson, S. , Ebeling, J. and Oksefjell, S.
    1999/2001 The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: Manual. Institutt for britiske og amerikanske studier, Universitetet i Oslo. Available atwww.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/services/omc/enpc/ENPCmanual.pdf [last accessed7 May 2019].
  24. Johansson, S. and Hofland, K.
    1994 Towards an English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus. InCreating and Using English Language Corpora, U. Fries , G. Tottie and P. Schnieder (eds), 25–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lefer, M.-A. and Vogeleer, S.
    (eds) 2014 Genre- and Register-Related Discourse Features in Contrast. Special issue ofLanguages in Contrast14(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis, D.
    2017 Coherence Relations and Information Structure in English and French Political Speeches. InContrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres, K. Aijmer and D. Lewis (eds), 141–161. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Neumann, S.
    2013Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238594
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238594 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nordrum, L. , Ebeling, S. O. and Hasselgård, H.
    2016 Introduction – Languages in Contrast 20 Years on. Nordic Journal of English Studies15(3): 1–6. 10.35360/njes.372
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.372 [Google Scholar]
  29. Øhman, B. I.
    2006 An SFG Perspective on the Polysemy of See: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Master’s Dissertation, University of Oslo.
  30. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2014 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available atwww.R-project.org/ [last accessed7 May 2019].
  31. Semino, E. and Short, M.
    2004Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203494073
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203494073 [Google Scholar]
  32. Stubbs, M. and Barth, I.
    2003 Using Recurrent Phrases as Text-Type Discriminators. A Quantitative Method and Some Findings. Functions of Language10(1): 61–104. 10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu [Google Scholar]
  33. Teich, E.
    2003 Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translation and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  34. Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J.
    1958 [1977]Stylistique comparée du franc̦ais et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier. Transl. J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel . Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1995.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (1994–1997)
    The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (1994–1997), Dept. of British and American Studies, University of Oslo Compiled by Stig Johansson (project leader), Knut Hofland (project leader), Jarle Ebeling (research assistant), Signe Oksefjell (research assistant) . www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/services/omc/enpc/ [last accessed7 May 2019].
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00019.oks
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00019.oks
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contrastive analysis , dialogue , English/Norwegian , existential there , fiction , narrative and verb see
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