To be specified published in:
English Text Construction
Vol. 10:1 (2017) ► pp. 78–105

Key words and translated cohesion in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and one of its Italian translations

| University of Birmingham
| University of Birmingham
In this paper, we explore the potential of a corpus approach to study translated cohesion. We use key words as starting points for identifying cohesive networks in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and discuss how these networks contribute to the construction of literary meanings in the text. We focus on the role of repetition as a key element in establishing cohesive networks between lexical items. We specifically discuss the implications of our method for the analysis of cohesion in translated texts. A comparison of Lovecraft’s original novel and a translation into Italian provides us with a nuanced understanding of the complex nature of cohesive networks. Finally, we discuss the broader issue of applying models and methods from corpus linguistics to corpus stylistic analysis.
Keywords: cohesive networks, key words, corpus stylistics, literary translation, Lovecraft
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 15 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.05mas

Full-text

Key words and translated cohesion in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and one of its Italian translations
References

References

Alexander, Neal
2015 On literary geography. Literary Geographies 1 (1): 3–6.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
2011 In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan, Geoffrey Leech & Stig Johansson
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, Juliane House & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen, 17–36.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery & Stephen Wattam
2015 Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (2): 139–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Čermáková, Anna
2015 Repetition in John Irving’s novel A Widow for One Year: A corpus stylistics approach to literary translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (3): 355–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2009 Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet . International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (1): 29–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael
1991 Patterns of Lexis in Text. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houellebecq, Michel
2004 H. P. Lovecraft, Against the World, Against Life. San Francisco, CA: McSweeney’s.Google Scholar
Hu, Helen Chau
1999 Cohesion and coherence in translation theory and pedagogy. Word 50 (1): 33–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis 2000 Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janicker, Rebecca
2006 New England narratives: Space and place in the fiction of H. P. Lovecraft. Extrapolation 48 (1): 54–70.Google Scholar
Joshi, Sunand Tryambak
2001 Explanatory notes. In H. P. Lovecraft: The Thing on the Doorstep and Other Weird Stories, Sunand Tryambak Joshi (ed.). London: Penguin, 367–443.Google Scholar
Kachroo, Balkrishan
1984 Textual cohesion and translation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 29 (2): 128–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kneale, James
2006 From beyond: H. P. Lovecraft and the place of horror. Cultural Geographies 13: 106–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krein-Kühle, Monika
2002 Cohesion and coherence in technical translation: The case of demonstrative reference. In Linguistics and Translation Studies. Translation Studies and Linguistics. Linguistica Antverpiensia, Leona Van Vaerenbergh (ed.). Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen, 41–53.Google Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski, & José Manuel Martinez
2016 Beyond identity coreference: Contrasting indicators of textual coherence in English and German. In Proceedings of CORBON at NAACL-HLT2016 , San Diego.
Leiber, Fritz Jr
2001 A literary Copernicus. In Discovering H. P. Lovecraft, Darrell Schweitzer (ed.). Holicong, PA: Wildside Press, 7–16.Google Scholar
Lotfipour-Saedi, Kazern
1997 Lexical cohesion and translation equivalence. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 42 (1): 185–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louw, Bill
1993 Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 157–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lovecraft, Howard Phillips
2009 [1927] Supernatural horror in literature. Online edition at 〈http://​www​.hplovecraft​.com​/writings​/texts​/essays​/shil​.aspx〉 (Last accessed May 2016).Google Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela
2005 English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in ELT. Special issue of the International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11 (3): 363–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Literary style and literary texts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 346–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela & Dan McIntyre
2011 A case for corpus stylistics: Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale . English Text Construction 4 (2): 204–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mastropierro, Lorenzo
2015 - ly adverbs in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and in two Italian translations: A corpus stylistic approach to literary translation. In Spazi della Memoria, Luisa Pontrandolfo (ed.). Bari: Edizioni dal Sud, 217–241.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony
2009 Keywords and moral panics: Mary Whitehouse and media censorship. In What’s in a Word-list? Investigating Word Frequency and Keyword Extraction, Dawn Archer (ed.). Farnham: Ashgate, 93–124.Google Scholar
Nesi, Hilary & Helen Basturkmen
2006 Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11 (3): 283–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2004 Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Øverås, Linn 1998 In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 43 (4): 557–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Punter, David
1996 The Literature of Terror: The Modern Gothic. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ralickas, Vivian
2007 “Cosmic horror” and the question of the sublime in Lovecraft. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 18 (3): 364–398.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike
2016a WordSmith Tools Manual. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Available at 〈lexically​.net​/downloads​/version7​/HTML​/index​.html​?getting​_started​.htm〉 (last accessed May 2016).Google Scholar
2016b WordSmith Tools (Version 7) [Computer software]. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul
2004 Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
2004 Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988 Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2015 Contrastive studies of cohesion and their impact on our knowledge of translation. Target 27 (3): 351–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michel
2002 Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1987 Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 63 (3): 574–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thacker, Andrew
2005 The idea of critical literary geography. New Formations 57: 56–73.Google Scholar
Thornbury, Scott
2010 What can a corpus tell us about discourse? In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keeffe & Michael McCarthy (eds). London: Routledge, 270–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toolan, Michael
2009 Narrative Progression in the Short Story. A Corpus Stylistic Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trebits, Anna
2009 Conjunctive cohesion in English language EU documents: A corpus-based analysis and its implications. English for Specific Purposes 28 (3): 199–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Brian
2010 Wmatrix, key concepts and the narrators in Julian Barnes’s Talking it Over . In Language and Style. Dan McIntyre & Beatrix Busse (eds). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 364–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Geluso, Joe & Roz Hirch
2019. The reference corpus matters. Register Studies 1:2 ► pp. 209 ff. Crossref logo
Lugea, Jane
2018. The year’s work in stylistics 2017. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 27:4 ► pp. 329 ff. Crossref logo
Mastropierro, Lorenzo
2018. Key clusters as indicators of translator style. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 30:2 ► pp. 240 ff. Crossref logo
Mastropierro, Lorenzo & Kathy Conklin
2019. Racism and dehumanisation in Heart of Darkness and its Italian translations: A reader response analysis. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 309 ff. Crossref logo
Čermáková, Anna & Michaela Mahlberg
2018.  In The Corpus Linguistics Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 87], ► pp. 223 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.