1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Pronominal subject use constitutes a potential challenge in translation because of cross-linguistic differences: while the subject must be expressed in non-null subject languages, this is not necessary in null subject languages. The aim of the paper is twofold: first, to show that the type of source language influences the frequency of personal pronouns in translation, and second, to establish whether translations into a null subject language differ from comparable target language originals in terms of pronominal subject use. The study is based on the analysis of a 625,000-word corpus comprising original and translated popular science texts in Slovene and the corresponding source texts in English and Italian. The results confirm that pronominal subjects are more frequent in translations from English, a non-null subject language; furthermore, they are more frequent in translations than in comparable originals. Untypical cohesive patterns are identified in translations and possible reasons for their presence are explored.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16007.pis
2017-11-28
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barbosa, P. Duarte, M. E. and Kato, M. A.
    2005 Null Subjects in European and Brasilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics4(2):11–52. doi: 10.5334/jpl.158
    https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.158 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S.
    2006 A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing21(3):259–274. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqi039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqi039 [Google Scholar]
  3. Becher, V.
    2011 When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies23(1):26–47. doi: 10.1075/target.23.1.02bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23.1.02bec [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens, B.
    2004 Cohesive ties in translation: A contrastive study of the Norwegian connective dermed . Languages in Contrast5(1):3–32. doi: 10.1075/lic.5.1.04beh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.5.1.04beh [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cardinaletti, A.
    1997 Subjects and clause structure. InThe New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed), 33–63. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    1981/1988Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa Lecture. 5th Edition. Dordrecht/Providence: Floris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cordin, P.
    2001 I pronomi personali. Caratteristiche generali. InGrande grammatica italiana di consultazione, L. Renzi , G. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 549–563. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dardano, M. and Trifone, P.
    1995Grammatica italiana con nozioni di linguistica. Third edition. Bologna: Zanichelli.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. de Prada Pérez, A.
    2009 Subject Expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of Contact with Catalan. PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
  11. Flores-Ferrán, N.
    2004 Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact?Language Variation and Change16(1):49–73. doi: 10.1017/S0954394504161048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394504161048 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. R.
    2003 On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. Language and Computers46(1): 225–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilquin, G.
    2008 Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. InLinking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin , S. Papp and M. B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 1–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi: 10.1163/9789401206204_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hansen-Schirra, S. , Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
    2007 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast7(2): 241–266. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyams, N.
    1983 The Pro Drop Parameter in child grammars. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol.2. Stanford, Ca: Stanford Linguistics Association, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. 126–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. J.
    (eds) 1989The Null Subject Parameter. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordercht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Klaudy, K. and Károly, K.
    2005 Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures6(1): 13–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kunz, K.
    2007 A method for investigating coreference in translations and originals. Languages in Contrast7(2):267–287. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.2.10kun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.10kun [Google Scholar]
  19. Liceras, J. and Díaz, L.
    1999 Topic-drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research15(1):1–40. doi: 10.1191/026765899678128123
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765899678128123 [Google Scholar]
  20. Marco, J.
    2012 An analysis of explicitation in the COVALT corpus: The case of the substituting pronoun one (s) and its translation into Catalan. Across Languages and Cultures13(2):229–246. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mauranen, A.
    2005 Contrasting languages and varieties with translational corporaLanguages in Contrast5(1):73–92. doi: 10.1075/lic.5.1.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.5.1.07mau [Google Scholar]
  22. Olohan, M. and Baker, M.
    2000 Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation?Across Languages and Cultures1(2):141–158. doi: 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Øverås, L.
    1998 In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/ Meta: Translators’ Journal43(4): 557–570. doi: 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  24. Palumbo, G. and Musacchio, M. T.
    2010 When a Clue is not a Clue. A corpus-driven study of explicit vs. implicit signalling of sentence links in popular economics translation. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione12:63–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Paradis, J. and Navarro, S.
    2003 Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input?Journal of Child Language30(2):371–393. doi: 10.1017/S0305000903005609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005609 [Google Scholar]
  26. Perlmutter, D.
    1968 Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. PhD Thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
  27. Platzack, C.
    1987 The Scandinavian languages and the Null Subject Parameter. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory5(3):377–401. doi: 10.1007/BF00134554
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134554 [Google Scholar]
  28. Reindl, D. F.
    1997 Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages. Slovene Linguistic Studies1:24–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rizzi, L.
    1982Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110883718
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  30. Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A.
    2009 Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. InParametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, T. Biberauer , I. Roberts and M. Sheehan (eds), 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Robinson, D.
    2001 Literal translation. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and K. Malmkjaer (eds), 125–127. Routledge: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rothman, J.
    2009 Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax – pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics41(5):951–973. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Silveira, R.
    2008 Cohesive devices and translation: An analyis. Cadernos de Tradução1(2):421–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Scott, M.
    2008WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F.
    2006 Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research22(3):339–368. doi: 10.1191/0267658306sr271oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr271oa [Google Scholar]
  36. Serratrice, L.
    2007 Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics39(6):1058–1087. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Toporišič, J.
    2004Slovenska slovnica “Slovene Grammar”. Maribor: Obzorja.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Trebits, A.
    2009 Conjunctive cohesion in English language EU documents – A corpus-based analysis and its implications. English for Specific Purposes28(3):199–210. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsimpli, I. , Sorace, A. , Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F.
    2004 First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism8(3):257–277. doi: 10.1177/13670069040080030601
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080030601 [Google Scholar]
  40. White, L.
    1985 The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning35(1):47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1985.tb01014.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01014.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16007.pis
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.16007.pis
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus analysis , English / Slovene , Italian / Slovene , pronominal subject 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