1887
image of Lexical bundles in formulaic interpreting
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Inspired by , this article investigates some key characteristics of formulaic interpreting, understood as the recurrent use of linguistic formulae in interpreted texts. Using a Chinese-English corpus of consecutive interpreting in the political setting (CICPPC), the study quantitatively investigates some features of 4-gram lexical bundles in interpreted text, i.e., their discourse functions and relationships to the source text, and qualitatively studies characteristics of specific instances of lexical bundles. The patterns are described both in terms of equivalence, shifts, and additions, as well as ‘constraints on formulaicity,’ a generalization that captures the tension involved between frequency-driven selection and the need to establish a translational relationship. It is suggested that equivalence typical of form-based rendition and addition typical of meaning-based rendition are subject to lower constraints, while greater constraints pertain in the case of shifts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19037.li
2022-03-15
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, Annelie and Britt Erman
    2012 “Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach.” English for Specific Purposes31(2): 81–92.   10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, Laurence
    2020 “AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software].” Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  3. Arnon, Inbal and Neal Snider
    2010 “More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language62(1): 67–82.   10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aston, Guy
    2016 “How the corporation can help the interpreter walk the tightrope.” InCorpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting: From Theory to Applications, ed. byGloria Corpas Pastor and Miriam Seghiri, 219–238. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018 “Acquiring the language of interpreters: A Corpus-based Approach.” InMaking Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies, ed. byMariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli and Bart Defrancq, 83–96. Singapore: Springer.   10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8_5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Avner, Ehud Alexander, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner
    2014 “Identifying translationese at the word and sub-word level.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities31(1): 163–175.   10.1093/llc/fqu047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu047 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas and Federica Barbieri
    2007 “Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers.” English for Specific Purposes26(3): 263–286.   10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Viviana Cortes
    2004 “If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks.” Applied Linguistics25(3): 371–405.   10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  9. Breeze, Ruth
    2013 “Lexical bundles across four legal genres.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(2): 229–253.   10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  10. Corpas Pastor, Gloria and Miriam Seghiri
    (ed) 2016Corpus-based Approaches to Translation and Interpreting: From Theory to Applications. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.   10.3726/b10354
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b10354 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cortes, Viviana
    2013 “The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes12(1): 33–43.   10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Csomay, Eniko
    2013 “Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse.” Applied Linguistics34(3): 369–388.   10.1093/applin/ams045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams045 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dam, Helle V.
    2001 “On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter11: 27–55. hdl.handle.net/10077/2445
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Cock, Sylvie
    1998 “A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics3(1): 59–80.   10.1075/ijcl.3.1.04dec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.3.1.04dec [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, Nick C.
    1996 “Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition18(1): 91–126.   10.1017/S0272263100014698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014698 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2002 “Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition24(2): 143–188.   10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, Nick C., Rita Simpson-Vlach, and Carson Maynard
    2008 “Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL.” TESOL Quarterly42(3): 375–396.   10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferraresi, Adriano and Maja Miličević
    2017 “Phraseological patterns in translation and interpreting. Similar or different?” InEmpirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions, ed. byGert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere, 157–182. Berlin: De Gruyter.   10.1515/9783110459586‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110459586-006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Forchini, Pierfranca and Amanda Murphy
    2008 “N-grams in comparable specialized corpora: Perspectives on phraseology, translation, and pedagogy.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(3): 351–367.   10.1075/ijcl.13.3.06for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.3.06for [Google Scholar]
  20. Fu, Rongbo
    2016 “Comparing modal patterns in Chinese-English interpreted and translated discourses in diplomatic setting.” Babel62(1): 104–121.   10.1075/babel.62.1.06fu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.06fu [Google Scholar]
  21. Gile, Daniel
    (ed) 2009Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (2nd edition), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Henriksen, Line
    2007 “The song in the booth: Formulaic interpreting and oral textualisation.” Interpreting9(1): 1–20.   10.1075/intp.9.1.02hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.02hen [Google Scholar]
  23. Hu, Kaibao and Tao Qing
    2013 “The Chinese-English Conference Interpreting Corpus: Uses and Limitations.” Meta58(3): 626–642.   10.7202/1025055ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1025055ar [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, Ken
    2008 “As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation.” English for Specific Purposes27(1): 4–21.   10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Isham, William P.
    1994 “Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization.” InBridging the Gap: Empirical research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. bySylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 191–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   10.1075/btl.3.15ish
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.15ish [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones, Roderick
    (ed) 1998Conference Interpreting Explained. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly
    2005 “Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation.” Across Languages and Cultures6(1): 13–28.   10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lederer, Marianne
    (ed) 1981La Traduction Simultanée. Paris: Minard Lettres Modernes.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, Xin
    2018 “Mediation through modality shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting.” Babel64(2): 269–293.   10.1075/babel.00036.li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00036.li [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Yang
    2016 “A corpus-based interpreting exploration into pragmatic functions of prefabricated chunks.” Modern Foreign Languages39(2): 246–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2017 “A corpus-based exploration into the use of lexical bundles and students’ interpreting proficiency: A study based on PACCEL.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching296(5): 88–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Yang and Sandra L. Halverson
    2020 “A Corpus-based Exploration into Lexical Bundles in Interpreting.” Across Languages and Cultures21(1): 1–22.   10.1556/084.2020.00001
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2020.00001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Yang and Wang Nan
    2012 “The exploration into the alleviating effects of prefabricated chunks on simultaneous interpreting.” Foreign Language World148(1): 61–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mauranen, Anna
    2013 “Speaking professionally in an L2: Issues of corpus methodology.” InVariation and Change in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. byJulia Bamford, Silvia Cavalieri, and Giuliana Diani, 5–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.21.05mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.21.05mau [Google Scholar]
  35. Paquot, Magali
    2013 “Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(3): 391–417.   10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq [Google Scholar]
  36. Plevoets, Koen and Bart Defrancq
    2018 “The cognitive load of interpreters in the European Parliament: A corpus-based study of predictors for the disfluency uh(m).” Interpreting20(1): 1–32.   10.1075/intp.00001.ple
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00001.ple [Google Scholar]
  37. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2016Introducing Interpreting Studies (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
  38. Russo, Mariachiara, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq
    (eds) 2018Making Way in Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑6199‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6199-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Seleskovich, Danica
    (ed) 1975Langage, langues et mémoire. Paris: Minard.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Setton, Robin
    (ed) 1999Simultaneous Interpretation: A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shlesinger, Miriam and Noam Ordan
    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]
  42. Shrefler, Nathan
    2011 “Lexical bundles and German bibles.” Literary and Linguistic Computing26(1): 89–106.   10.1093/llc/fqq014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq014 [Google Scholar]
  43. Simpson-Vlach, Rita and Nick C. Ellis
    2010 “An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research.” Applied Linguistics31(4): 487–512.   10.1093/applin/amp058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058 [Google Scholar]
  44. Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna and Ron Martinez
    2014 “The idiom principle revisited.” Applied Linguistics36(5): 549–569.   10.1093/applin/amt054
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt054 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stubbs, Michael and Isabel Barth
    2003 “Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings.” Functions of Language10(1): 61–104.   10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu [Google Scholar]
  46. Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta
    (ed) 2004 A Voice of its Citizens or a Modern Tower of Babel?Ph.D. dissertationUniversity of Tampere, Finland.
  47. Wang, Binhua
    (ed) 2013A descriptive study of norms in interpreting. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, Wenyu and Yan Huang
    2011 “Investigating the use of chunks in Chinese-English interpretation by college English Majors.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching260(5): 73–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013 “The use of chunks and the quality of oral interpretation: An empirical study.” Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education152(4): 28–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Ying
    2017 “Lexical bundles in spoken academic ELF.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(2): 187–211.   10.1075/ijcl.22.2.02wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.02wan [Google Scholar]
  51. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1958Philosophical Investigations, Trans. byG. E. M. Anscombe. USA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wray, Alison
    2000 “Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice.” Applied linguistics21(4): 463–489.   10.1093/applin/21.4.463
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.4.463 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhong, Weihe
    (ed) 2006A Coursebook of Interpreting between English and Chinese. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19037.li
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/tis.19037.li
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