Cover not available
Part of
Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings
Edited by Bertus van Rooy and Haidee Kotze
[Contact Language Library 60] 2024
► pp. 191–222

Chapter 7
The complex case of constrained communication

A corpus-driven, multilingual and multi‑register search for the common ground between non‑native and translated language

 | University of Turku
 | University of Bologna
 | University of Bologna
In this study we explore the common ground between second-language writing and translated language as instances of constrained language use. Our research design involves three languages (English, Finnish, Italian), two constraining languages and two different registers in each of the three languages. These are compared in terms of frequency of syntactic structures (part-of-speech [POS] bigrams), adopting a corpus-driven method combining keyness analysis and multidimensional analysis. No general constrainedness effects that apply irrespective of languages and registers were observed, but our results point to the centrality of the opposition between verbal and nominal orientation for distinguishing constrained from unconstrained varieties. We conclude with suggestions on how our method and findings could lead to a deeper understanding of constrained language use, and be extended to different modes of language production and to language contact research in general.
Keywords: constrained language, second language, translated language, random forests, multidimensional analysis, dependency bigrams, Universal Dependencies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Collocations as signals of constrained language use from a multilingual perspective: Challenges and how to address them
    • 2.1Variation and cross-linguistic comparability
    • 2.2Locating constrainedness effects: What features should be used?
    • 2.3Collocations in focus
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Data used
    • 3.2Method
      • 3.2.1A cross-linguistically comparable feature set
      • 3.2.2Methodological workflow
      • 3.2.3Keyness analysis and factor solutions
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1English Dimension 1: Nominal vs. verbal orientation
    • 4.2Finnish Dimension 1: Verbal vs. nominal orientation
    • 4.3Italian Dimension 1: Verbal vs. nominal orientation
  • 5.Discussion: What constrainedness effects are common across languages?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/coll.60.07iva
References (55)
References
Bernardini, Silvia. (2011). Monolingual comparable corpora and parallel corpora in the search for features of translated language. Synaps, 26, 2–13.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2014). Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 7–34. DOI logo Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. (2012). English is less rich in manner-of-motion verbs when translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(2), 173–195.Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip, & Schmitt, Norbert. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157–177.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, & Staples, Shelley. (2019). Doing multi-dimensional analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. In Tony Berber Sardinha, & Marcia Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp. 99–114). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Eskola, Sari. (2002). Syntetisoivat rakenteet käännössuomessa: Suomennetun kaunokirjallisuuden ominaispiirteiden tarkastelua korpusmenetelmillä [Synthesising structures in translated Finnish: A corpus-based analysis of the special features of Finnish literary translations]. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
. (2004). Untypical frequencies in translated language: A corpus-based study on a literary corpus of translated and non-translated Finnish. In Anna Mauranen, & Pekka Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 83–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Adriano, & Miličević, Maja. (2017). Phraseological patterns in interpreting and translation: Similar or different? In Gert de Sutter, & Marie-Aude Lefer (Eds.), New ways of analysing translational behaviour (pp. 157–82). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Filipović, Luna, & Hawkins, John A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51, 145–176. DOI logo Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, Costas. (2018). Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. In Charlotte Taylor, & Anna Marchi (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse: A critical review (pp. 225–258). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gentil, Guillaume. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 6–23. DOI logo Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, & Bestgen, Yves. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52, 229–252. DOI logo Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Janet L. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–22). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. (2014). Edistyneen oppijansuomen avainrakenteita: Korpusnäkökulma kahden kielimuodon tyypillisiin rakenteellisiin eroihin [Key structures in advanced learner Finnish: Corpus approach towards structural differences between two language forms]. Virittäjä 118, 161–193.Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari, & Bernardini, Silvia. (2020). Constrained language use in Finnish: A corpus-driven approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 43(1), 33–57. DOI logo Google Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari, Ferraresi, Adriano, & Bernardini, Silvia. (2022). Syntactic properties of constrained English: A corpus-driven approach. In Sylviane Granger, & Marie-Aude Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 133–157). London: Bloomsbury. DOI logo Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Schoichi. (2015). A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(2), 161–210. DOI logo Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. DOI logo Google Scholar
Kaiser, Henry F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31–36. DOI logo Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Hiroe, & Rinnert, Carol. (2013). L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 4–33. DOI logo Google Scholar
Kolehmainen, Leena, Meriläinen, Lea, & Riionheimo, Helka. (2014). Interlingual reduction: Evidence from language contacts, translation and second language acquisition. In Heli Paulasto, Lea Meriläinen, Helka Riionheimo, & Maria Kok (Eds.), Language contacts at the crossroads of disciplines (pp. 3–32). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kotze, Haidee. (2020). Converging what and how to find out why. In Lore Vandevoorde, Joke Daems, & Bart Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp. 333–371). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. (2014). Translations as a locus of language contact. In Juliane House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 96–115). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee. (2017). The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. In Gert de Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, & Isabelle Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 113–155). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, & Van Rooy, Bertus. (2016). Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide, 37(1), 26–57. DOI logo Google Scholar
. (2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English. English World-Wide, 39(2): 214–242. DOI logo Google Scholar
Kursa, Miron, & Rudnicki, Witold. (2010). Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles, 36, 1–13. DOI logo Google Scholar
Lanstyák, István, & Heltai, Pál. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99–121. DOI logo Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. (2006). New resources, or just better old ones? The holy grail of representativeness. In Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf, & Carolin Biewer (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web (pp. 133–149). Language and Computers 59. Leiden: Brill. DOI logo Google Scholar
Lefer, Marie-Aude, & Vogeleer, Svetlana. (2013). Interference and normalization in genre-controlled multilingual corpora: Introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 1–21. DOI logo Google Scholar
Marco, Josep. (2009). Normalisation and the translation of phraseology in the COVALT corpus. Meta, 54(4), 842–856. DOI logo Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, & Kujamäki, Pekka. (2004). Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mein, Erika L. (2012). Biliteracy in context: The use of L1/L2 genre knowledge in graduate studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(6), 653–667. DOI logo Google Scholar
Nawal, Al-Fattah. (2018). Cognitive load theory in the context of second language academic writing. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3, 385–402. DOI logo Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Ginter, Filip, Goldberg, Yoav, Hajič, Jan, Manning, Christopher D., McDonald, Ryan, Petrov, Salv, Pyysalo, Sampo, Silveira, Natalia, Tsarfaty, Reut, & Zeman, Daniel. (2016). Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016). 〈[URL]〉
O’Brien, Sharon. (2006). Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(3), 185–205. DOI logo Google Scholar
Perridon, Harry, & Sleeman, Petra. (2011). The noun phrase in Germanic and Romance: Common developments and differences. Linguistik Aktuell, 171, 1–22. DOI logo Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 〈[URL]〉
Rabinovich, Ella, Nisioi, Sergiu, Ordan, Noam, & Wintner, Shuly. (2016). On the similarities between native, non-native and translated texts. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1870–1881). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logo Google Scholar
Revelle, William. (2018). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. 〈[URL]〉
Romaine, Suzanne. (2001). Multilingualism. In Mark Aronoff, & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 541–556). Blackwell. DOI logo Google Scholar
Sjöholm, Kaj. (1995). The influence of cross-linguistic, semantic and input factors on the acquisition of English phrasal verbs. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Erich. (2005). Explicitation, its lexicogrammatical realisation, and its determining (independent) variables: Towards an empirical and corpus-based methodology. SPRIKreports, 36, 1–42.Google Scholar
. (2008). Empirical studies of translations as a mode of language contact: “Explicitness” of lexicogrammatical encoding as a relevant dimension. In Peter Siemund, & Noemi Kintana (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages (pp. 317–341). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo Google Scholar
Straka, Milan, & Straková, Jana. (2017). Tokenizing, POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe. In Proceedings of the CoNLL 2017 shared task: Multilingual parsing from raw text to universal dependencies (pp. 88–99). Association for Computational Linguistics. 〈[URL]〉
Szymor, Nina. (2018). Translation: Universals or cognition? A usage-based perspective. Target, 30(1), 53–86. DOI logo Google Scholar
Teich, Elke. (2003). Cross-linguistic variation in system and text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. (2004). Unique items – over- or under-represented in translated language? In Anna Mauranen, & Pekka Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 177–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Upton, Thomas A., & Connor, Ulla. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), 313–329. DOI logo Google Scholar
Williams, Jessica. (1987). Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide, 8(2), 161–199. DOI logo Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo Google Scholar
Wright, Marvin N., & Ziegler, Andreas. (2017). Ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software, 77, 1–17. DOI logo Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Granger, Sylviane
2024. From early to future learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 10:2 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.