1887
Volume 30, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Most corpus-based studies of translation use published texts as the basis for their corpus. This overlooks interventions by other agents involved in translation such as editors, who may have significant influence on the translated text. In order to study editors’ influence on the translation product, this paper presents a comparative analysis of manuscript and published translations, which allows a differentiation of actual translated language and edited translated language. Based on a tripartite parallel corpus of English business articles and their translations into German, I analyse translators’ and editors’ influence on grammatical metaphoricity of the text, specifically on the use of nominalisations. One finding is that a significant amount of nominalisation is re-verbalised by editors. The results show that translated language may often be the result of significant editorial intervention. Thus, by just considering source text and published translation, our picture of what translators actually do may be significantly distorted.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.16116.bis
2018-03-21
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abney, Steven P.
    1987The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis , Gianina Iordăchioaia , and Florian Schäfer
    2011 “Scaling the Variation in Romance and Germanic Nominalisations.” InThe Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic Structure, Variation and Change, edited by Petra Sleeman and Harry Perridon , 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.171.04ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.171.04ale [Google Scholar]
  3. Alves, Fabio , Adriana Pagano , Stella Neumann , Erich Steiner , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-Based Translation Research.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone , 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ata.xv.07alv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.07alv [Google Scholar]
  4. Andújar, Gemma
    2016 “Traducción entregada frente a traducción publicada: Reflexiones sobre la normalización en traducción editorial a partir de un estudio de caso.” Meta61 (2): 396–420.10.7202/1037765ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1037765ar [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Mona
    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.10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  6. Bisaillon, Jocelyne
    2007 “Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors.” Written Communication24 (4): 295–322.10.1177/0741088307305977
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307305977 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bisiada, Mario
    2016 “‘Lösen Sie Schachtelsätze möglichst auf’: The Impact of Editorial Guidelines on Sentence Splitting in German Business Article Translations.” Applied Linguistics37 (3): 354–376.10.1093/applin/amu035
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu035 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017 “Translation and Editing: A Study of Editorial Treatment of Nominalisations in Draft Translations.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice26 (1): 24–38.10.1080/0907676X.2017.1290121
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1290121 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coleman, Edmund B.
    1964 “The Comprehensibility of Several Grammatical Transformations.” Journal of Applied Psychology48 (3): 186–190.10.1037/h0040440
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040440 [Google Scholar]
  10. Delaere, Isabelle
    2015Do Translations Walk the Line? Visually Exploring Translated and Non-Translated Texts in Search of Norm Conformity. PhD diss. Universiteit Gent.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Demske, Ulrike
    2000 “Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen: Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur122 (3): 365–411.10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365 [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty, Monika
    1991 “Informationelle Holzwege: Ein Problem der Übersetzungswissenschaft.” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik21 (84): 30–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
    1999 “Information Packaging and Translation: Aspects of Translational Sentence Splitting (German – English/Norwegian).” InSprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, edited by Monika Doherty , 175–214. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fantinuoli, Claudio , and Federico Zanettin
    2015 “Creating and Using Multilingual Corpora in Translation Studies.” InNew Directions in Corpus-Based Translation Studies, edited by Claudio Fantinuoli and Federico Zanettin , 1–10. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_559833
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_559833 [Google Scholar]
  15. Göpferich, Susanne
    1995Textsorten in Naturwissenschafien und Technik: Pragmatische Typologie – Kontrastierung – Translation. Tübingen: Günter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gouadec, Daniel
    2007Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.73
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.73 [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and James R. Martin
    1993Writing Science: Literary and Discursive Power. London: Falmer.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1999Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hansen, Sandra , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2012 “Grammatical Shifts in English-German Noun Phrases.” InCross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, edited by Silvia Hansen-Schirra , Stella Neumann , and Erich Steiner , 133–145. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110260328.133
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.133 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hansen, Silvia
    2003The Nature of Translated Text: An Interdisciplinary Methodology for the Investigation of the Specific Properties of Translation. PhD diss.Universität des Saarlandes.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia
    2011 “Between Normalization and Shining-Through: Specific Properties of English – German Translations and their Influence on the Target Language.” InMultilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, edited by Svenja Kranich , Viktor Becher , Steffen Höder , and Juliane House , 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.12.07han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.12.07han [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Sandra Hansen , Sascha Wolfer , and Lars Konieczny
    2009 “Fachkommunikation, Popularisierung, Übersetzung: Empirische Vergleiche am Beispiel der Nominalphrase im Englischen und Deutschen.” Linguistik online39 (3): 109–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Harvey, Keith
    2003 “‘Events’ and ‘Horizons’: Reading Ideology in the ‘Bindings’ of Translations.” InApropos of Ideology, edited by María Calzada Pérez , 43–69. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Heyvaert, Liesbet
    2003 “Nominalization as Grammatical Metaphor: On the Need for a Radically Systemic and Metafunctional Approach.” InGrammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Anne-Marie Vandenbergen , Miriam Taverniers , and Louise J. Ravelli , 65–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.236.05hey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.05hey [Google Scholar]
  27. Houston, Ann
    1989 “The English Gerund: Syntactic Change and Discourse Function.” InLanguage Change and Variation, edited by Ralph W. Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin , 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.52.10hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.52.10hou [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakobsen, Arnt L.
    1999 “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” InProbing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, edited by Gyde Hansen , 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ko, Leong
    2011 “Translation Checking: A View from the Translation Market.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology19 (2): 123–134.10.1080/0907676X.2010.514348
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2010.514348 [Google Scholar]
  30. Konšalová, Petra
    2007 “Explicitation as a Universal in Syntactic De/condensation.” Across Languages and Cultures8 (1): 17–32.10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Krein-Kühle, Monika
    2003Equivalence in Scientific and Technical Translation: A Text-in-Context-Based Study. PhD diss. University of Salford.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kruger, Haidee
    2012 “A Corpus-Based Study of the Mediation Effect in Translated and Edited Language.” Target24 (2): 355–388.10.1075/target.24.2.07kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.2.07kru [Google Scholar]
  33. Kunz, Kerstin
    2010Variation in English and German Nominal Coreference: A Study of Political Essays. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lassen, Inger
    2003Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A Survey of Style and Grammatical Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ddcs.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.4 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
    1996 “English Nominalisations in the Layered Model of the Sentence.” InComplex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, edited by Betty Devriendt , Louis Goossens , and Johan van der Auwera , 325–355. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110815894.325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815894.325 [Google Scholar]
  36. Marcus, Mitchell P. , Beatrice Santorini , and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz
    1993 “Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.” Computational Linguistics19 (2): 313–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mossop, Brian
    2014Revising and Editing for Translators. 3rd ed.Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Müller-Feldmeth, Daniel , Uli Held , Peter Auer , Sandra Hansen-Morath , Silvia Hansen-Schirra , Karin Maksymski , Sascha Wolfer , and Lars Konieczny
    2015 “Investigating Comprehensibility of German Popular Science Writing.” InTranslation and Comprehensibility, edited by Karin Maksymski , Silke Gutermuth , and Silvia Hansen-Schirra , 227–261. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “On Paradigms and Cognitive Translatology.” InTranslation and Cognition, edited by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone , 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ata.xv.10mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.10mun [Google Scholar]
  40. Neef, Martin
    1999 “A Declarative Approach to Conversion into Verbs in German.” InYearbook of Morphology 1998, edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle , 199–224. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3720‑3_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Norberg, Ulf
    2003Übersetzen mit doppeltem Skopos: Eine empirische Prozess- und Produktstudie. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Palumbo, Giuseppe
    2008Translating Science: An Empirical Investigation of Grammatical Metaphor as a Source of Difficulty for a Group of Translation Trainees in English – Italian Translation. PhD diss. University of Surrey.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch , and Anne Schjoldager
    2011 “Revising Translations: A Survey of Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies.” The Journal of Specialised Translation11: 87–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ravelli, Louise J.
    1988 “Grammatical Metaphor: An Initial Analysis.” InPragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically Inspired Approaches, edited by Erich Steiner and Robert Veltman , 135–147. London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rumpeltes, Kerstin
    . In preparation. Microanalysis of Translations of -ing-Clauses as Subjects in the Register ESSAY. PhD diss. University of Saarbrücken.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rüth, Lisa
    2012Grammatische Metapher und Common Ground. Master’s diss. Johannes-​Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Saldanha, Gabriela , and Sharon O’Brien
    2013Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schiller, Anne , Simone Teufel , Christine Stöckert , and Christine Thielen
    1999Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS. www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/resources/stts-1999.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmid, Helmut
    1995 “Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German.” Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop:1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Shin, Soo-Song
    2006 “On the Event Structure of -ung Nominals in German.” Linguistics39 (2): 297–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Steiner, Erich
    2001 “Translations English – German: Investigating the Relative Importance of Systemic Contrasts and of the Text-Type ‘Translation’.” SPRIKreports7:1–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2004 “Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Exploring Some Implications for the Overall Model.” Languages in Contrast4 (1): 137–164.10.1075/lic.4.1.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.07ste [Google Scholar]
  53. Taverniers, Miriam
    2003 “Grammatical Metaphor in SFL: A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” InGrammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Anne-Marie Vandenbergen , Miriam Taverniers , and Louise J. Ravelli , 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.236.02tav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236.02tav [Google Scholar]
  54. Teich, Elke
    2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110896541
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896541 [Google Scholar]
  55. Utka, Andrius
    2004 “Phases of Translation Corpus: Compilation and Analysis.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9 (2): 195–224.10.1075/ijcl.9.2.03utk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.2.03utk [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.16116.bis
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.16116.bis
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