1887
image of An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article investigates cohesion in the spoken and written registers of constrained language varieties to highlight the similarities and differences in the cohesion patterns of mediated (i.e., interpreted and translated) and non-native texts with respect to original texts produced by native speakers. In particular, it examines how different types of cohesive devices are distributed across spoken and written native, non-native, and mediated speeches originally delivered impromptu and read out at the plenary sessions of the European Parliament. The dataset comes from the European Translation and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC) ( ). The context provides a rare opportunity to examine the spoken and written registers of professional communication, both mono- and multilingual, in a relatively homogenous setting. First, in the exploratory analysis, I investigate the distribution of different types of cohesive devices across the investigated varieties drawing on mosaic plots and correspondence analysis. Thereafter, I make use of regression modelling of the overall frequency of cohesive devices across the examined varieties to evaluate the effect of constrainedness, mode of delivery, and individual variation. The results indicate that non-native and mediated texts do diverge from native production in the use of cohesive devices, but in different ways.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.19186.kaj
2021-04-20
2021-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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 byHarold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton, Kamil
    2019MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. Version 1.43.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
    2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentz, Christian, and Bodo Winter
    2014 “Languages with More Second Language Learners Tend to Lose Nominal Case.” InQuantifying Language Dynamics: On the Cutting Edge of Areal and Phylogenetic Linguistics, edited bySøren Wichmann and Jeff Good, 96–124. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, and Maja Miličević
    2016 “From EPIC to EPTIC – Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective.” Target28 (1): 61–86. 10.1075/target.28.1.03ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1986 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, edited byJuliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolker, Benjamin [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolker, Benjamin, Mollie Brooks, Connie Clark, Shane Geange, John Poulsen, M. Henry Stevens, and Jada-Simone White
    2009 “Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide for Ecology and Evolution.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution24 (3): 127–135. 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cao, Yan, and Richard Xiao
    2013 “A Multi-Dimensional Contrastive Study of English Abstracts by Native and Non-Native Writers.” Corpora8 (2): 209–234. 10.3366/cor.2013.0041
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0041 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chesterman, Andrew
    2004 “Beyond the particular.” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?edited byAnna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 33–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.04che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.04che [Google Scholar]
  11. 2014 “Translation Studies Forum: Universalism in Translation Studies.” Translation Studies7 (1): 82–90. 10.1080/14781700.2013.828904
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.828904 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Sutter, Gert, and Marie-Aude Lefer
    2020 “On the Need for a New Research Agenda for Corpus-Based Translation Studies: A Multi-Methodological, Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Approach.” Perspectives28 (1): 1–23. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891 [Google Scholar]
  13. Defrancq, Bart, Koen Plevoets, and Cédric Magnifico
    2015 “Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?” InYearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies, edited byJesús Romero-Trillo, 195–222. Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑17948‑3_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17948-3_9 [Google Scholar]
  14. EP (European Parliament)
    EP (European Parliament). n.d.European Parliament Plenary Debates: Note to the Reader. AccessedMay 18, 2020. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cre/info_en.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferraresi, Adriano, and Silvia Bernardini
    2019 “A Many-Sided, Multi-Purpose Corpus of EU Parliament Proceedings.” InParallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies: New Resources and Applications, edited byIrene Doval and M. Teresa Sánchez Nieto, 123–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.90.08fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.90.08fer [Google Scholar]
  16. Granger, Sylviane, and Stephanie Tyson
    1996 “Connector Usage in the English Essay Writing of Native and Non-Native EFL Speakers of English.” World Englishes15 (1): 17–27. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumul, Ewa
    2006 “Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Strategy or a By-Product of Language Mediation?” Across Languages and Cultures7 (2): 171–190. 10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2017 “Explicitation and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting.” Linguistica Silesiana38: 311–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halverson, Sandra
    2003 “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target15 (2): 197–241. 10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  20. Hayward, Kathy, and Hardy. C. Wilcoxon
    1994 “Connectives in Context.” English Teaching Forum32: 20–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hartig, Florian
    2019DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. Version 0.2.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hinkel, Eli
    2001 “Matters of Cohesion in L2 Academic Texts.” Applied Language Learning12 (2): 111–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ivaska, Ilmari, Adriano Ferraresi, and Silvia Bernardini
    . Forthcoming. “Syntactic Properties of Constrained English: A Corpus-Driven Approach.” InExtending the Scope of Corpus-Based Translation Studies edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta
    2018a “Interpretese vs. Non-Native Language Use: The Case of Optional That.” InMaking Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, edited byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 97–113. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2018b “Translationese, Interpretese and Foreignese – What Do They Have in Common?” Paper delivered atUsing Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta, and Ilmari Ivaska
    2020 “A Multivariate Approach to Lexical Diversity in Constrained Language.” Across Languages and Cultures21 (2): 169–194. 10.1556/084.2020.00011
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2020.00011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kassambara, Alboukadel, and Fabian Mundt
    2017Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. Version 1.0.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kotze, Haidee
    2020 “Translation, Contact Linguistics and Cognition.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, edited byFabio Alves and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 113–132. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315178127‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178127-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kotze, Haidee, Minna Korhonen, Adam Smith, and Bertus van Rooy
    . Forthcoming. “Salient Differences Between Oral Parliamentary Discourse and its Official Written Records: A Comparison of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Analysis Methods.” InParliamentary Discourse Across Time and Space: Using Big Data to Study Language and Society edited by Minna Korhonen, Haidee Kotze, and Jukka Tyrkkö. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy
    2012 “Register and the Features of Translated Language.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 33–65. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2016a “Syntactic and Pragmatic Transfer Effects in Reported-Speech Constructions in Three Contact Varieties of English Influenced by Afrikaans.” Language Sciences56: 118–131. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016b “Constrained Language: A Multidimensional Analysis of Translated English and a Non-Native Indigenised Variety of English.” English World-Wide37 (1): 26–57. 10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru [Google Scholar]
  33. Kruger, Haidee, and Gert de Sutter
    2018 “Alternations in Contact and Non-Contact Varieties: Reconceptualising That-Omission in Translated and Non-Translated English Using the MuPDAR Approach.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior1 (2): 251–290. 10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru [Google Scholar]
  34. Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai
    2012 “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 99–121. 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Laviosa, Sara
    1998 “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose.” Meta43 (4): 557–570. 10.7202/003425ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003425ar [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svartvik
    2013A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed.Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315836041
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836041 [Google Scholar]
  37. Louwerse, Max M., Philip M. McCarthy, Danielle S. McNamara, and Arthur C. Graesser
    2004 “Variation in Language and Cohesion Across Written and Spoken Registers.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society26: 843–848.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mauranen, Anna
    2000 “Strange Strings in Translated Language: A Study on Corpora.” InIntercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited byMaeve Olohan, 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Marzocchi, Carlo
    2007 “Translation – Transcript – Interpretation: Notes on the European Parliament Verbatim Report of Proceedings.” Across Languages and Cultures8 (2): 249–254. 10.1556/Acr.8.2007.2.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Merilaine, Elina
    2015The Frequency and Variability of Conjunctive Adjuncts in the Estonian–English Interlanguage Corpus. MA diss.University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mollin, Sandra
    2007 “The Hansard Hazard: Gauging the Accuracy of British Parliamentary Transcripts.” Corpora2 (2): 187–210. 10.3366/cor.2007.2.2.187
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2007.2.2.187 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Nencioni, Giovanni
    1976 “Parlato-parlato, parlato-scritto, parlato-recitato.” Strumenti critici29: 1–56. Torino: Einaudi.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker
    2000 “Reporting That in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures1 (2): 141–158. 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ordan, Noam, and Miriam Shlesinger
    2012 “More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting.” Target24 (1): 43–60. 10.1075/target.24.1.04shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.1.04shl [Google Scholar]
  46. Øverås, Lynn
    1998 “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta43 (4): 557–570. 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]
  47. Pym, Anthony
    2007 “On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal for interpreting.” InInterpreting Studies and Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, edited byFranz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 175–190, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Puurtinen, Tiina
    2004 “Explicitation of Clausal Relations: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Clause Connectives in Translated and Non-Translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?, edited byAnna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 165–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.48.13puu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.13puu [Google Scholar]
  49. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2013R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rabinovitch, Ella, Sergiu Nisioi, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner
    2016 “On the Similarities between Native, Non-Native and Translated Texts.” InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol.1, edited byKatrin Erk and Noah A. Smith, 1870–1881. Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Séguinot, Candace
    1988 “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction1 (2): 106–113. 10.7202/037024ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037024ar [Google Scholar]
  52. Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Claudio Bendazzoli
    2005 “Lexical Patterns in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Preliminary Investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus).” InProceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series1 (1), Birmingham: University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/corpus/publications/conference-archives/2005-conf-e-journal.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1989Simultaneous Interpretation as a Factor in Effecting Shifts in the Position of Texts on the Oral–Literate Continuum. MA diss.Tel Aviv University.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1995 “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting.” The Translator1 (2): 193–214. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Rooy, Bertus, Lize Terblanche, Christoph Haase, and Joseph Schmied
    2010 “Register Differentiation in East African English: A Multidimensional Study.” English World-Wide31 (3): 311–349. 10.1075/eww.31.3.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.31.3.04van [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.19186.kaj
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.19186.kaj
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: interpreting ; constrained language ; multimodal corpus ; translation ; cohesion
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