Cover not available
Article published In:
Converging paradigms in contrastive and translation studies: Crosslinguistic corpus perspectives
Edited by Silvia Bernardini and Adriano Ferraresi
[Languages in Contrast 23:2] 2023
► pp. 252–275

Functional hybridity in translation

A multifactorial perspective on the English gerund in the language pairs English-German and English-Dutch

ORCID logo | KU Leuven (Belgium)
ORCID logo | KU Leuven (Belgium)
The present study addresses a topic on the crossroads between contrastive linguistics and translation studies as we seek to investigate how the English verbal gerund is used in translated and non-translated English, as well as how it is translated into German and Dutch. Instead of merely analysing frequencies throughout a corpus, we aim to map out usage profiles and translation strategies through a multi-methodological and multifactorial approach, thereby offering a more contextualized approach to the English verbal gerund. On the basis of data from CroCo and DPC, two parallel and comparable corpora for the language pairs English-German and English-Dutch, a set of over 6,000 verbal gerunds was annotated. A hierarchical configural frequency analysis was conducted to uncover different usage profiles or ‘types’ of verbal gerunds. Second, a conditional inference tree and a random forest analysis were modelled to select the best predictors to help distinguish between a nominal or a clausal translation solution. In addition to providing more insight into the status of English verbal gerunds in translation, this paper offers new perspectives on two broader debates in contrastive linguistics and translation studies, viz. the ‘loose-fit’ or ‘tight-fit’ status of constructions and the treatment of unique items respectively.
Keywords: gerund, nominalization, unique item, corpus-based translation studies, Dutch/English/German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The English gerund: Views from contrastive linguistics and translation studies
    • 2.1English gerunds as ‘loose-fit’ structures
    • 2.2English gerunds as ‘unique items’
  • 3.Research questions and methodology
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Data and methodology
      • 3.2.1Data extraction and annotation
      • 3.2.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Functional subtypes
      • 4.1.1Functional subtypes in CroCo
      • 4.1.2Functional subtypes in DPC
      • 4.1.3Functional subtypes: Interim summary
    • 4.2Translation equivalents
  • 5.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00029.mae
References (46)
References
Berg, T. 2014. Boundary Permeability: A Parameter for Linguistic Typology. Linguistic Typology 18(3): 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Compounding in German and English: A Quantitative Translation Study. Languages in Contrast 17(1): 43–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkovec, M. and N. Madin. 2019. ggparty: ‘ggplot’ visualizations for the ‘partykit’ package. R package version 1.0.0.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2012. English is less Rich in Manner-of-Motion Verbs when Translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures 13(2): 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A. 2007. What is a Unique Item? In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger and R. Stolze (eds), 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defrancq, B. and G. Rawoens. 2016. Assessing Morphologically Motivated Transfer in Parallel Corpora. Target 28(3): 372–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, U. 2002. Nominalization and Argument Structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 271: 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G., Lefer, M-A. and Delaere, I. (eds). 2017. Empirical Translation Studies. New Methodologies and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G. and Lefer, M.-A. 2020. On the Need for a New Research Agenda for Corpus-Based Translation Studies: A Multi-methodological, Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Approach. Perspectives 28(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., Kosterk, D. and Leuschner, T. (eds). 2020. German and Dutch in Contrast. Synchronic, Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L., Heyvaert, L. and Maekelberghe, C. 2015. How do Gerunds Conceptualize Events? A Diachronic Study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4): 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Castejón, M. Á. 2012. Contrastive Analysis and Translation Study from a Corpus Linguistics Perspective. International Journal of English Studies 12(2): 111–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2004. HCFA 3.2 – A Program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R for Windows.Google Scholar
2020. On Classification Trees and Random Forests in Corpus Linguistics: Some Words of Caution and Suggestions for Improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 617–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S. 2003. The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals. Target 15(2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Steiner, E. 2012. Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hareide, L. 2017. The Translation of Formal Source-Language Lacunas: An Empirical Study of the Over-Representation of Target-Language Specific Features and the Unique Items Hypotheses. In Corpus Methodologies Explained. An Empirical Approach to Translation Studies, M. Ji, L. Hareide, D. Li and M. Oakes, 137–187. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. 2014. Constructing a Schema. Word-Class Changing Morphology in a Usage-Based Perspective. In Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014, M. Hilpert. and S. Flach (eds), 235–251. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, L. 2008. On the Constructional Semantics of Gerundive Nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 9–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. 1997. 14.8.2 Nominalisaties behorend tot type 1. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [URL]
Hawkins, J. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2009. The German Mit-Predicative Construction. Constructions and Frames 1(1): 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T. and Zeileis, A. 2015. Partykit: A Modular Toolkit for Recursive Partitioning in R. Journal of Machine Learning Research 161: 3905–3909.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. and Gast, V. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts (2nd ed). Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Macken, L., De Clercq, O. and Paulussen, H. 2011. Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus. Meta 56(2): 374–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maekelberghe, C. 2020. The Present-Day English Gerund System: A Cognitive-Constructionist Account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. Modeling Variation in the English Gerund System. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues, L. Sommerer and E. Keizer (eds), 136–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menzel, K. 2010. Identifying English Gerunds and their Translation Equivalents in an English-German Translation Corpus. Master’s Dissertation. Universität des Saarlandes.
Neumann, S. 2021. Is German More Nominal than English? Evidence from a Translation Corpus. In New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics, R. Enghels, B. Defrancq and M. Jansegers (eds), 127–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ross, J. R. 1973. Nouniness. In Fuzzy grammar, B. Aarts, D. Denison, E. Keizer and G. Popova (eds), 91–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, D. 2008. Lattice: Multivariate Data Visualization with R. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, H-J. 2001. Scales between Nouniness and Verbiness. In Language Typology and Language Universals (vol. 11), Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationsswissenschaft 20, M. Haspelmath (ed.), 495–509. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scott, A. K. 2010. Accounting for the Semantic Extension of Derived Action Nouns. Journal of Linguistics 461: 711–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbina, T., Hintzen, S., Niemietz, P. and Neumann, S. 2017. Changes of Word Class During Translation – Insights from a Combined Analysis of Corpus, Keystroke Logging and Eye-Tracking Data. In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Čulo and S. Hofmann (eds), 177–208. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. 2012. A Characterization of the Resource Based on Shallow Statistics. In Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, S. Hansen-Schirra, S. Neumann and E. Steiner (eds), 71–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. and Baayen, H. R. 2012. Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2004. Unique Items ― Over- or Under-Represented in Translated Language? In Translation universals. Do they exist?, P. Kujamäki and A. Mauranen (eds), 177–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B. 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Van Landeghem, J. 2015. -ing Seen through its Dutch Translation Equivalents: A Contrastive Parallel Treebank-Based Study. Master’s Dissertation, University of Leuven.
von Eye, A. 1990. Introduction to Configural Frequency Analysis: The Search for Types and Antitypes in Cross-Classifications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar