1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis (MuPDAR) method (Gries & Deshors 2014) represents an influential methodological advance in studying variation in contexts where linguistic choices in a “peripheral” variety (learner language, New Englishes) are studied in relation to the “central” variety. In this article we demonstrate how the method may be extended to study how varieties produced in settings of language contact (including translation) differ from non-contact varieties, particularly with respect to the degree of lexicogrammatical explicitness. We use the method to determine how (dis)similar the factors governing -omission are in two different types of contact varieties, namely South African translated (trans-SAE) and South African non-translated English (SAE), in relation to British (GBE) English. The results show that the choices made in the contact varieties can be predicted to a reasonable extent, although South African translators and South African non-translators have a higher and lower inclination respectively to use explicit compared to GBE non-translators. Based on the findings, we re-evaluate the explanations proposed for the increased explicitness of translated language through the frame of language contact, outlining the advantages of multifactorial methods over the frequency-based methods favoured in earlier studies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
2018-09-27
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. 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]
  2. Becher, Viktor
    2010 “Abandoning the Notion of “Translation-inherent” Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures11 (1): 1–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2011Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation: A Corpus-Based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD Thesis, University of Hamburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas , Jesse Egbert , Bethany Gray , Rahel Oppliger , and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2016 “Variationist Versus Text-linguistic Approaches to Grammatical Change in English: Nominal of Head Nouns.” InCambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Edited by M. Kytö , and P. Pahta , 351–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139600231.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600231.022 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas
    2012 “Register as a Predictor of Linguistic Variation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory8 (1): 9–37. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    2000 [1986] “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” InThe Translation Studies Reader (1st edition). Edited by L. Venuti , 298–313. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, Kasper , and Peter Harder
    2007 “Complement-taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language31 (3): 569–606. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  9. Chesterman, Andrew
    2004 “Hypotheses about Translation Universals.” InClaims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Edited by G. Hansen , K. Malmkjaer , and D. Gile , 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.50.02che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.50.02che [Google Scholar]
  10. De Sutter, Gert , and Marie-Aude Lefer
    2016 “Empirical Translation Studies in the Post-Baker Era: Towards a New Research Agenda.” Unpublished conference paper presented at the8th EST Congress, 15–17 September, Aarhus.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Deshors, Sandra C. , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2016 “Profiling Verb Complementation Constructions across New Englishes: A Two-step Random Forests Analysis of -ing vs to Complements.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics21 (2): 192–218.10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des [Google Scholar]
  12. Gaspari, Frederico , and Silvia Bernardini
    2010 “Comparing Non-native and Translated Language: Monolingual Comparable Corpora with a Twist.” InUsing Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Edited by R. Xiao , 215–234. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Allison S. Adelman
    2014 “Subject Realization in Japanese Conversation by Native and Non-native Speakers: Exemplifying a New Paradigm for Learner Corpus Research.” InYearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Edited by J. Romero , 35–54. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Sandra Deshors
    2014 “Using Regressions to Explore Deviations Between Corpus Data and a Standard/Target: Two Suggestions.” Corpora9 (1): 109–136. doi: 10.3366/cor.2014.0053
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2014.0053 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Tobias Bernaisch
    2016 “Exploring Epicentres Empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes.” English World-Wide37 (1): 1–25.10.1075/eww.37.1.01gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.1.01gri [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Sandra C. Deshors
    2015 “EFL and/vs ESL? A Multi-level Regression Modeling Perspective on Bridging the Paradigm Gap.” International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1 (1): 130–159. doi: 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri [Google Scholar]
  17. Gries, Stefan Th. , Tobias J. Bernaisch , and Benedikt Heller
    . In press. “A Corpus-linguistic Account of the History of the Genitive Alternation in Singapore English.” InModeling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties Edited by S. C. Deshors . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g61.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g61.10gri [Google Scholar]
  18. Grosjean, François
    2013 “Bilingualism: A Short Introduction.” InThe Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Edited by F. Grosjean , and P. Li , 5–25. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia , Stella Neumann , and Erich Steiner
    2007 “Cohesive Explicitness and Explicitation in an English-German Translation Corpus.” Languages in Contrast7 (2): 241–265. doi: 10.1075/lic.7.2.09han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.09han [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawkins, John
    2003 “Why Are Zero-marked Phrases Close to their Heads?” InDeterminants of Grammatical Variation in English. Edited by G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf , 175–204. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110900019.175
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.175 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. House, Juliane
    2004 “Explicitness in Discourse Across Languages.” InNeue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft. Edited by J. House , W. Koller , and K. Schubert , 185–208. Bochum: AKS.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Immonen, Sini
    2006 “Translation as a Writing Process: Pauses in Translation Versus Monolingual Text Production.” Target18 (2): 313–336. doi: 10.1075/target.18.2.06imm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18.2.06imm [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2013 “The Development of Comment Clauses.” InThe Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change With Corpora. Edited by B. Aarts , J. Close , G. Leech , and S. Wallis , 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kajzer-Wietrzny, Marta
    2018 “Interpretese vs Non-native Language Use: The Case of Optional That .” InMaking Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Edited by M. Russo , C. Bendazzoli , and B. Defrancq , 97–114. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Klaudy, Kinga
    2009 “The Asymmetry Hypothesis in Translation Research.” InTranslators and Their Readers. Edited by R. Dimitriu , and M. Shlesinger , 283–303. Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolbe-Hanna, Daniela , and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2015 “Grammatical Variation.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Edited by D. Biber , and R. Reppen , 161–179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kruger, Haidee
    2012 “A Corpus-Based Study of the Mediation Effect in Translated and Edited Language.” Target24 (2): 355–388. doi: 10.1075/target.24.2.07kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.2.07kru [Google Scholar]
  31. Kruger, Haidee , and Bertus van Rooy
    2012 “Register and the Features of Translated Language.” Across Languages and Cultures13 (1): 33–65. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 “Verb Complement Clauses in Afrikaans: A Case for Constructional Differentiation.” Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016a “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]
  34. 2016b “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]
  35. Kruger, Haidee
    . (in press). “That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicitness in Translated English.” Across Languages and Cultures.
    [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. Matras, Yaron
    2009Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809873
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809873 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mondorf, Britta
    2014 “(Apparently) Competing Motivations in Morpho-syntactic Variation.” InCompeting Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Edited by B. MacWhinney , A. Malchukov , and E. Moravcsik , 209–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Müller, Dalene , and Sebastian Pistor
    2011Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z (Write Afrikaans from A to Z). 2nd ed.Cape Town: Pharos.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Neumann, Stella
    2014Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 251. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Olohan, Maeve , and Mona Baker
    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]
  42. Paolillo, John C.
    2013 “Individual Effects in Variation Analysis: Model, Software, and Research Design.” Language Variation and Change25: 89–118. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000270
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000270 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pym, Anthony
    2005 “Explaining Explicitation.” InNew Trends in Translation Studies. Edited by K. Károly , and Á. Fóris , 29–34. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2015 “Translating as Risk Management.” Journal of Pragmatics85: 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  45. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. Available athttps://www.R-project.org/.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Redelinghuys, Karien , and Haidee Kruger
    2015 “Using the Features of Translated Language to Investigate Translation Expertise: A Corpus-Based Study.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics20 (3): 293–325. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red [Google Scholar]
  48. Rohdenburg, Günter
    1996 “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English.” Cognitive Linguistics7 (2): 149–182. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  49. Roland, Douglas , Jeffrey L. Elman , and Victor S. Ferreira
    2006 “Why Is That? Structural Prediction and Ambiguity Resolution in a Very Large Corpus of English Sentences.” Cognition98: 245–272. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, Mike
    2013Wordsmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. www.lexically.net/wordsmith/version6/index/html.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Séguinot, Candace
    1988 “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction1 (2): 106–113. doi: 10.7202/037024ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/037024ar [Google Scholar]
  52. Shank, Christopher , Julie van Bogaert , and Koen Plevoets
    2016 “The Diachronic Development of Zero Complementation: A Multifactorial Analysis of the That/Zero Alternation with Think, Suppose, and Believe .” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory12 (1): 31–72.10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0074 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen
    2012 “Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice.” Language Variation and Change24: 135–178. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  54. Tagliamonte, Sali A. , and Jennifer Smith
    2005 “No Momentary Fancy! The Zero “Complementizer” in English Dialects.” English Language and Linguistics9 (2): 289–309. doi: 10.1017/S1360674305001644
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001644 [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson, Sandra A. , and Anthony Mulac
    1991 “The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer That in Conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics15: 237–251. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90012‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-M [Google Scholar]
  56. Thomason, Sarah Grey
    2001Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/03032‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03032-1 [Google Scholar]
  57. Thomason, Sarah Grey , and Terrence Kaufman
    1988Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Torres Cacoullos, Rena , and James A. Walker
    2009 “On the Persistence of Grammar in Discourse Formulas: A Variationist Study of That .” Linguistics47 (1): 1–43. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Rooy, Bertus
    2017 “South African English.” InThe Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Edited by M. Filppula , J. Klemola , and D. Sharma , 508–530. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wasserman, Ronel , and Bertus van Rooy
    2014 “The Development of Modals of Obligation and Necessity in White South African English Through Contact with Afrikaans. Journal of English Linguistics42 (1), 31–50. doi: 10.1177/0075424213514588
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213514588 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wulff, Stefanie , Nicholas Lester , and Ma. Teresa Martínez García
    2014 “ That-Variation in German and Spanish L2 English.” Language and Cognition6 (2): 271–299. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.5
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.5 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wulff, Stefanie , Stefan Th. Gries , and Nicholas A. Lester
    2018 “Optional That in Complementation by German and Spanish learners.” InWhat Is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research. Edited by A. Tyler , L. Huan , and H. Jan . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110572186‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186-004 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wulff, Stefanie , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2015 “Prenominal Adjective Order Preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A Multifactorial Corpus Study.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism5 (1): 122–150. doi: 10.1075/lab.5.1.05wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.05wul [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
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