Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper proposes a new way of identifying and analysing positive transfer on the basis of corpus data. Taking stock of process-oriented research into what is called ‘literal translation’, transfer is defined as an instance in which a translator is primed into using a target language item that is formally similar to the source item to be translated, when alternatives are available. In order to measure the extent to which morphological transfer is present in translation, a study is conducted on translations of negative prefixes in parallel corpora of French, Swedish and Dutch. The corpus study revealed that ( 1 ) transfer is by far the main translation option translators choose in all corpora involved, ( 2 ) transfer is more frequent when translators have the opportunity to use a cognate prefix in the other language, ( 3 ) transfer is more frequent between languages belonging to the same language family. The results of the study contradict the generally acknowledged fact that transfer is more likely from a language which is culturally dominant to a language which is not.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, Valerie
    2001Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman-Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombre, Jean-Claude
    1994 “L’insoutenable légèreté morphologique du préfixe in- dans la formation d’adjectifs.” LINX5: 299–321. doi: 10.3406/linx.1994.1302
    https://doi.org/10.3406/linx.1994.1302 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2002 “La nuit, certains chats sont gris, ou la généricité sans syntagme générique.” LINX47: 13–30. doi: 10.4000/linx.558
    https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.558 [Google Scholar]
  4. Apothéloz, Denis
    2003 “Le rôle de l’iconicité constructionnelle dans le fonctionnement du préfixe négatif in- .” Cahiers de linguistique analogique1: 35–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, Laurie
    1983English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  6. Booij, Geert
    2002The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Branigan, Holly P. , Martin J. Pickering , Simon P. Liversedge , Andrew J. Stewart , and Thomas P. Urbach
    1995 “Syntactic Priming: Investigating the Mental Representation of Language.” Psycholinguistic Research24 (6): 489–506. doi: 10.1007/BF02143163
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143163 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brysbaert, Marc , Goedele Van Dyck , and Marijke Van de Poel
    1999 “Visual Word Recognition in Bilinguals: Evidence from Masked Phonological Priming.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25: 137–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan
    2007Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, Bert , and Rudy Loock
    2013 “Is There Interference of Usage Constraints? A Frequency Study of Existential there is and its French Equivalent il y a in Translated vs. Non-Translated Texts.” Target25 (2): 252–275. doi: 10.1075/target.25.2.05cap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.2.05cap [Google Scholar]
  11. Cartoni, Bruno , and Marie-Aude Lefer
    2011 “Negation and Lexical Morphology across Languages: Insights from a Trilingual Translation Corpus.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics47 (4): 795–843.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chesterman, Andrew
    1998Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  13. Denturck, Kathelijne
    2012 “Explicitation vs. Implicitation: A Bidirectional Corpus-Based Analysis of Causal Connectives in French and Dutch Translations.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (2): 211–227. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaatone, David
    1971Etude descriptive du système de la négation en français contemporain. Genève: Librairie Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haeseryn, Walter , Kirsten Romijn , Guido Geerts , Jaap De Rooij , and Maarten Van den Toorn
    1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff / Wolters Plantyn.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansen, Gyde
    2010 “Translation Errors.” InHandbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1, ed. by Yves Gambier , and Luc van Doorslaer , 385–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hts.1.tra3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra3 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heydel, Maren , and Wayne S. Murray
    2000 “Conceptual Effects in Sentence Priming: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” InCross-Linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing, ed. by Marica De Vincenzi , and Vincenzo Lombardo , 227–254. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3949‑6_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3949-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hüning, Matthias , and Ariane Van Santen
    1994 “Produktiviteitsveranderingen: de adjectieven op –lijk en –baar .” Leuvense Bijdragen83: 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ivir, Vladimir
    1981 “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited.” InTheory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, ed. by Itamar Even-Zohar , and Gideon Toury , special issue ofPoetics Today2 (4): 51–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jespersen, Otto
    1917Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jouitteau, Mélanie
    2010 “A Typology of V2 with regard to V1 and Second Position Phenomena: An Introduction to the V1/V2 Volume.” InVerb-First, Verb-Second, ed. by Mélanie Jouitteau , special issue ofLingua120 (2): 197–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Landers, Clifford E.
    2001Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lederer, Marianne
    1981La traduction simultanée. Paris: Minard.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lefer, Marie-Aude
    2012a “Word-Formation in Translated Language: The Impact of Language-Pair Specific Features and Genre Variation.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (2): 145–172. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012b “La préfixation française à travers les genres et les domaines: étude de corpus.” InActes du 3ième Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2012, ed. by Franck Neveu , Valelia Muni Toke , Peter Blumenthal , Thomas Klingler , Pierluigi Ligas , Sophie Prévost , and Sandra Teston-Bonnard , 1325–1349. Paris: EDP Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mandelblit, Nili
    1996 “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and its Implications for Translation Theory.” InTranslation and Meaning, Part 3, ed. by Marcel Thelen , and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , 483–495. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Malmgren, Sven-Göran
    1994Svensk lexikologi – Ord, ordbildning, ordböcker och orddatabaser. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mauranen, Anna
    2004 “Corpora, Universals and Interference.” InTranslation Universals: Do They Exist?ed. by Anna Mauranen , and Pekka Kujamäki , 65–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.48.07mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.07mau [Google Scholar]
  29. Meyer, David E. , and Roger W. Schvaneveldt
    1971 “Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence between Retrieval Operations.” Journal of Experimental Psychology90: 227–234. doi: 10.1037/h0031564
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pirkola, Ari
    2001 “Morphological Typology of Languages for IR.” Journal of Documentation57 (3): 330–348. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000007085
    https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007085 [Google Scholar]
  31. Plag, Ingo
    2003Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  32. Poupaud, Sandra , Anthony Pym , and Ester Torres Simón
    2009 “Finding Translations. On the Use of Bibliographical Databases in Translation History.” Meta54 (2): 264–278. doi: 10.7202/037680ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037680ar [Google Scholar]
  33. Rawoens, Gudrun
    2010 “Multilingual Corpora in Cross-Linguistic Research. Focus on the Compilation of a Dutch-Swedish Parallel Corpus.” InStatistical Analysis of Textual Data. Proceedings of 10th International Conference JADT2010, ed. by Sergio Bolasco , Isabella Chiari , and Luca Giuliano , 1287–1294. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sarcevic, Susan
    1997New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schacter, Daniel L.
    1987 “Implicit Memory: History and Current Status.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition13 (3): 501–518.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schenkein, Jim
    1980 “A Taxonomy for Repeating Action Sequences in Natural Conversation.” InLanguage Production, Vol.1, ed. by Brian Butterworth , 21–47. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Slobin, Dan
    2002 “Cognitive and Communicative Consequences of Linguistic Diversity.” InThe Diversity of Languages and Language Learning, ed. by Sven Strömqvist , 7–23. Lund: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Swan, Michael , and Bernard Smith
    2001Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667121
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667121 [Google Scholar]
  39. Taeldeman, Johan
    1985 “De soep is wel eetbaar maar niet etelijk: over deverbatieven op -(e)lijk in de Vlaamse dialekten en het A.N.” Spektator15: 94–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tannen, Deborah
    1989Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Teleman, Ulf , Staffan Hellberg , and Erik Andersson
    1999Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
    2002 “Metaphoric Expressions in Translation Processes.” Across Languages and Cultures. A Multidisciplinary Journal for Translation and Interpreting Studies3 (1): 101–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2005 “The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research.” Meta50 (2): 405–414. doi: 10.7202/010990ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/010990ar [Google Scholar]
  44. Toury, Gideon
    1995Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Van den Toorn, Maarten , Willy Pijnenburg , Arjan van Leuvensteijn , and Joop van der Horst
    1997Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi: 10.5117/9789053562345
    https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053562345 [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Marle, Jaap
    1989 “A Case of Morphological Elaboration.” Folia Linguistica Historica9: 213–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Weiner, E. Judith , and William Labov
    1983 “Constraints on the Agentless Passive.” Journal of Linguistics19: 29–58. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700007441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007441 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wuilmart, Françoise
    2012 “Summary of the PETRA Recommendations.” InTowards New Conditions for Literary Translation in Europe. Brussels: Passa Porta. www.ceatl-members.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PETRA12.pdf
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus-based translation studies; morphology; negative prefix; transfer
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