Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 20:3 (2015) ► pp.293–325

Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise

A corpus-based study

| North-West University
| Macquarie University

The study reported on in this article set out to test the hypothesis that linguistic operationalisations of the features of translated language will demonstrate significant differences in the work of experienced and inexperienced translators. A custom-built comparable English corpus was used, comprising three subcorpora: translations produced by experienced translators, translations by inexperienced translators, and non-translated texts. A number of linguistic operationalisations were selected for three of the features of translated language: explicitation, simplification and normalisation. The differences in these linguistic features in the three subcorpora were analysed, using parametric or non-parametric ANOVA, and T-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests as post-hoc tests where applicable. The findings of the study indicate substantial (though not unqualified) support for the hypothesis. It is argued that experience-related variation in register sensitivity, language competence, awareness of written language conventions and sensitivity to translation norms are the main factors contributing to expertise.

Keywords: translation expertise, corpus-based translation studies, simplification, features of translated language, explicitation, normalisation
Published online: 28 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red
References
Alves, F., & Gonçalves, J.L
(2007) Modelling translator’s competence: Relevance and expertise under scrutiny. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger & R. Stolze (Eds.), Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies (pp. 41–55). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., & Hansen-Schirra, S
(2010) Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product and process-based translation research. In G.M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp. 109–141). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., & Vale, D
(2011) On drafting and revision in translation: A corpus linguistics oriented analysis of translation process data. TC3: Compution, Corpora, Cognition, 1(1), 105–122.Google Scholar
Angelelli, C.V
(2009) Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C.V. Angelelli & H.E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and Assessment In Translation and Interpreting Studies (pp. 13–48). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M
(1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In H.L. Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering In Honour of Juan C. Sager (pp. 175–186). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, N., Meyer, B., & Özçetin, D
(2008) Explicitness in translation and interpreting: A critical review and some empirical evidence (of an elusive concept). Across Languages and Cultures, 9(2), 177–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, V
(2011) When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target, 23(1), 26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, S
(2011) Monolingual comparable corpora and parallel corpora in the search for features of translated language. SYNAPS – A Journal of Professional Communication, 261, 2–13.Google Scholar
Bernardini, S., & Ferraresi, A
(2011) Practice, description and theory come together: Normalization or interference in Italian technical translation. Meta, 56(2), 226–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D
(1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S
(2004) [1986]. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 290–305). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Levenston, E.A
(1984) Universals of lexical simplification. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 119–139). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Bullon, S., Krishnarmurthy, R., Manning, E., & Todd, J
(Eds.) (1990) Collins COBUILD English Grammar Dictionary. London, UK: Collins.Google Scholar
Castagnoli, S
(2008) Regularities and variations in learner translations: A corpus-based study of conjunctive explicitation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A
(2004) Hypotheses about translation universals. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001 (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Translation studies forum: Universalism in translation studies. Translation Studies, 7(1), 82–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S
(2009) Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: The longitudinal study ‘TransComp’. In S. Göpferich, A.L. Jakobsen & I.M. Mees (Eds.), Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results In Translation Process Research (pp. 11–37). Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., & Jääskeläinen, R
(2009) Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we, and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 169–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, M.I.M
(2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S
(2011) Between normalization and shining-through: Specific properties of English-German translations and their influence on the target language. In S. Kranich, V. Becher, S. Höder & J. House (Eds.), Multilingual Discourse Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives (pp. 133–162). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., & Steiner, E
(2007) Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast, 7(2), 241–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, J
(2008) Beyond intervention: universals in translation? Trans-kom, 1(1), 6–19.Google Scholar
ICE (International Corpus of English)
(2012) International Corpus of English: Homepage. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2015).Google Scholar
Kenny, D
(1998) Creatures of habit? What translators usually do with words. Meta, 43(4), 515–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Kruger, A
(2002) Corpus-based translation research: Its development and implication for general, literary and Bible translation. Acta Theologica Supplementum 2, 22(1), 70–106.Google Scholar
Kruger, H., & Van Rooy, B
(2012) Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, S
(1998) Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta, 43(4), 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. New York, NY: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2008) Universals. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 306–310). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Smith, N., & Rayson, P
(2012) English style on the move: Variation and change in stylistic norms in the twentieth century. Language & Computers, 76(1), 69–98.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K
(2005) Norms and nature in translation studies. SYNAPS – A Journal of Professional Communication, 161, 13–19.Google Scholar
Martín, R.M
(2009) Expertise and environment in translation. Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción, 2(1), 24–37.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A., & Kujamäki, P
(Eds.) (2004) Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, J
(1998) A computer-assisted approach to the analysis of translation shifts. Meta, 43(4), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, S
(2013) The borrowers: Researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target, 25(1), 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, M., & Baker, M
(2000) Reporting that in translated English: Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Øverås, L
(1998) In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta, 43(4), 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE
(2009) Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision making. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 207–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation poject and dynamic translation index. In S. O’Brien (Ed.), Cognitive Explorations of Translation (pp. 30–53). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Peters, P
(2004) The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A
(2003) Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: In defence of a minimalist approach. Meta, 48(4), 481–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Explaining explicitation. In K. Károly & A. Fóris (Eds.), New Trends in Translation Studies: In Honour of Kinga Klaudy (pp. 29–34). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
(2011) Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for moments of perplexity and dispute. In A. Pym (Ed.), Translation Research Projects 3 (pp. 75–110). Tarragona, Italy: Intercultural Studies Group (pp. 75–110). Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2015).Google Scholar
Saldanha, G
(2008) Explicitation revisited: Bringing the reader into the picture. Trans-kom, 1(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
Scott, M
(2008) WordSmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2015).Google Scholar
Shreve, G
(2002) Knowing translation: Cognitive and experiential aspects of translation expertise from the perspective of expertise studies. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (pp. 150–171). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
StatSoft Inc
(2012) STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System). Version 11.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S
(2004) Unique items: Over- or under-represented in translated language? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation Universals: Do They Exist? (pp. 176–184). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J.A
(2009) On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that . Linguistics, 47(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G
(2012) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, D
(2005) Recurrent features of translation in Canada: A corpus-based study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Xiao, R
(2010) How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? A corpus-based study of translation universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R., He, L., & Yue, M
(2010) In pursuit of the third code: Using the ZJU corpus of translational Chinese in translation studies. In R. Xiao (Ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp. 182–214). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Xiao, R., & Yue, M
(2009) Using corpora in translation studies: The state of the art. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics (pp. 237–261). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zanettin, F
(2012) Translation-Driven Corpora. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
(2013) Corpus methods for descriptive translation studies. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 951: 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 14 other publications

Alasmri, Ibrahim & Haidee Kruger
2018. Conjunctive markers in translation from English to Arabic: a corpus-based study. Perspectives 26:5 ► pp. 767 ff. DOI logo
De Sutter, Gert & Marie-Aude Lefer
2020. On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: a multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer & Bram Vanroy
2023. Is linguistic decision-making constrained by the same cognitive factors in student and in professional translation?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
François, Thomas & Marie-Aude Lefer
2022. Revisiting simplification in corpus-based translation studies: Insights from readability research. Meta 67:1 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo
Granger, Sylviane & Marie-Aude Lefer
2023. Learner translation corpora. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ji, Meng & Pierrette Bouillon
2021. Predicting the Linguistic Accessibility of Chinese Health Translations: Machine Learning Algorithm Development. JMIR Medical Informatics 9:10 ► pp. e30588 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee
2019. That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicitness in Translated English. Across Languages and Cultures 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee & Gert De Sutter
2018. Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Kruger, Haidee & Bertus van Rooy
2016. Syntactic and pragmatic transfer effects in reported-speech constructions in three contact varieties of English influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences 56 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka & Łucja Biel
2023. Terminological collocations in trainee and professional legal translations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Kanglong
2020. Corpus-Assisted Translation Teaching: An Overview. In Corpus-Assisted Translation Teaching [Corpora and Intercultural Studies, 7], ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Mattioli, Virginia
2022. La tendencia hacia la simplificación en el discurso especializado y no-especializado: ampliando el alcance de los estudios de traducción basados en corpus al análisis multidiscursivo. TRANS: Revista de Traductología 26:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Pang, Shuangzi & Kefei Wang
2023. Sketching the changing patterns in kaleidoscopes: New developments in corpus-based studies of translation features (2001–2021). Research in Corpus Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Yue, Yan
2021. The role of registerial expertise in translators’ logical choices: A case study of the Chinese medicine classic Huang Di Nei Jing. Meta: Journal des traducteurs 66:3 ► pp. 690 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 may 2024. 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.