1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the existence of translation universals by investigating the use of aspect in modal contexts in translated and non-translated legal Polish and by analysing the observed differences with reference to insights from cognitive linguistics. Corpus analysis highlights significant distributional differences in the use of the two aspectual forms of Polish verbs (imperfective and perfective) in modal contexts. I argue that cognitive mechanisms called ‘chunking’ ( Langacker 1988 ; Bybee 2006 ) and ‘entrenchment’ ( Bybee 2010 ) underlie these differences. I show that what may at first glance seem as behaviour unique to the translation process, is in fact caused by general cognitive processes. The study has implications for both translation studies and cognitive linguistics: it offers support for the basic assumptions about the usage-based nature of linguistic knowledge and highlights the importance of taking these assumptions into consideration when investigating the translation process and translation universals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.15155.szy
2018-02-21
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnon, Inbal , and Neil Snider
    2010 “More than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-Word Phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language62 (1): 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, Harald
    2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mona
    1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” InText and Technology in Honour of John Sinclair, edited by Mona Baker , Gill Francis , and Elena Tognini-Bonelli , 17–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  4. 1996 “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” InTerminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering, in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited by Harold Somers , 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  5. Barlow, Michael , and Suzanne Kemmer
    eds. 2000Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bermel, Neil
    1997Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Błaszczyk-Szabat, Agnieszka
    2005 “The Relationship between Inherent Aspect and Past Tense in the Early and Late Acquisition of L2 Polish.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics40: 91–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burnham, Kenneth P. , and David R. Anderson
    2002Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoric Approach. 2nd ed.New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan
    2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language82 (4): 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Comrie, Bernard
    1976Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dąbrowska, Ewa , and Dagmar Divjak
    eds. 2015Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110292022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2015 “Individual Differences in Grammatical Knowledge.” In Dąbrowska and Divjak 2015, 650–667.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Sutter, Gert , Isabelle Delaere , and Koen Plevoets
    2012 “Lexical Lectometry in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Combining Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modeling.” InQuantitative Methods in Translation Studies, edited by Michael Oakes and Meng Ji , 326–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.51.13sut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.51.13sut [Google Scholar]
  15. Dickey, Stephen M.
    2000Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A Cognitive Approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Divjak, Dagmar
    2004Degrees of Verb Integration. Conceptualizing and Categorizing Events in Russian. PhD thesis KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006 “Ways of Intending: Delineating and Structuring Near-Synonyms.” InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, edited by Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch , 19–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 “Predicting Aspectual Choice in Modal Constructions: A Quest for the Holy Grail?” inSlavic Linguistics in a Cognitive Framework, edited by Marcin Grygiel and Laura Janda , 67–86. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Divjak, Dagmar , and Catherine Caldwell-Harris
    2015 “Frequency and Entrenchment.” In Dąbrowska and Divjak 2015, 53–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Divjak, Dagmar , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2006 “Ways of Trying in Russian. Clustering Behavioral Profiles.” Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2 (1): 23–60
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 “Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian.” InStudies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, edited by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Katarzyna Dziwirek , 273–296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Divjak, Dagmar , Nina Szymor , and Anna Socha-Michalik
    2015 “Less Is More: Possibility and Necessity as Centres of Gravity in a Usage-Based Classification of Core Modals in Polish.” Russian Linguistics39 (3): 327–349. doi: 10.1007/s11185‑015‑9153‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9153-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Faber, Dorrit , and Mette Hjort-Pedersen
    2009 “Manifestations of Inference Processes in Legal Translation.” InBehind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research (Copenhagen Studies in Language 37), edited by Susanne Göpferich , Arnt Lykke Jakobsen , and Inger M. Mees , 107–124. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Frawley, William
    1984 “Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation.” InTranslation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, edited by William Frawley , 159–175. London: Associated University Presses.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Glynn, Dylam
    2014 “Correspondence Analysis: Exploring Data and Identifying Patterns.” InCorpus Methods for Semantics. Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson , 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  26. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2006 “Corpus-Based Methods and Cognitive Semantics: The Many Senses of to run .” InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, edited by Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch , 57–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Naoki Otani
    2010 “Behavioral Profiles: A Corpus-Based Perspective on Synonymy and Antonymy.” ICAME Journal34: 121–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halverson, Sandra
    2003 “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals.” Target15 (2): 197–241. doi: 10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for Translation Studies.” InCognitive Linguistics and Translation. Advanced in Some Theoretical Models and Applications, edited by Ana Rojo and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano , 33–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110302943.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansen, Bjorn
    2004 “Modals and the Boundaries of Grammaticalization: The Case of Russian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian.” InWhat Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from its Fringes and its Components, edited by Walter Bisang , Nikolaus Himmelmann , and Björn Wiemer , 245–271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hosmer, David W. , and Stanely Lemeshow
    2000Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/0471722146
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722146 [Google Scholar]
  32. House, Juliane
    2008 “Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation?” Trans-Kom1 (1): 6–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Janda, Laura A.
    2004 “A Metaphor in Search of a Source Domain: The Categories of Slavic Aspect.” Cognitive Linguistics15 (4): 471–527. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.471 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaleta, Zofia
    1995Gramatyka Języka Polskiego dla Cudzoziemców. Kraków: Nakł. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1988 “A Usage-Based Model.” InTopics in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn , 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  36. Lanstyák, István , and Pál Heltai
    2012 “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 99–121. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Laviosa, Sara
    2002Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. National Corpus of Polish
    National Corpus of Polish. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. nkjp.pl/
  39. Nenadic, Oleg , and Michael Greenacre
    2007 “Correspondence Analysis in R, with Two- and Three-Dimensional Graphics: The ca Package.” Journal of Statistical Software20 (3): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nowak, Joanna
    2011Modalność deontyczna w języku prawa na przykładzie polskiego i hiszpańskiego kodeksu cywilnego. PhD thesis Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Olohan, Maeve
    2001 “Spelling Out the Optionals in Translation: A Corpus Study.” UCREL Technical Papers13: 423–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Padučeva, Elena
    2006 “Modality, Negation and Aspect: The Case of the Russian možet and dolžen .” Paper presented at the39th Annual Meeting of the SLE, Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. PELCRA English-Polish Parallel Corpora
    PELCRA English-Polish Parallel Corpora. pelcra.pl/res/parallel/pelcra-par-1/
  44. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2010 “Does Frequency in Text Really Instantiate Entrenchment in the Cognitive System?” InQuantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, edited by Dylan Glynn and Kerstin Fischer , 101–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.101 [Google Scholar]
  45. Šmelev, Alexej , and Anna Zaliznjak
    2006 “Aspect, Modality and Closely Related Categories in Russian.” Unpublished paper. Inaugural meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society in Bloomington, Indiana, 8–10September 2006.
  46. Snider, Neal , and Inbal Arnon
    2012 “A Unified Lexicon and Grammar? Compositional and Non-compositional Phrases in the Lexicon.” InFrequency Effects in Language Representation, edited by Dagmar Divjak and Stefan Th. Gries , 127–164. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110274073.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274073.127 [Google Scholar]
  47. Szymor, Nina
    2011Quality Control in Legal Translation: Translation of EU Legislation into Polish. Unpublished MA thesis University of Sheffield.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2015 “Behavioral Profiling in Translation Studies.” Trans-kom8(2): 483–498.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vandevoorde, Lore , Gert De Sutter , and Koen Plevoets
    2015 “On Semantic Differences between Translated and Non-Translated Dutch. Using Bidirectional Parallel Corpus Data for Measuring and Visualizing Distances between Lexemes in the Semantic Field of Inceptiveness.” InEmpirical Translation Studies. Interdisciplinary Methodologies Explored, edited by Ji Meng , 128–146. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Venables, William N. , and Brian D. Ripley
    2002Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Więcławska, Edyta
    2014 “On Linguistic Features of Legal Discourse.” Studia Anglica Resoviensia11 (85): 105–115.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.15155.szy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.15155.szy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aspect , cognitive linguistics , corpus-based , modality , Polish , translation universals and usage-based
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