Cover not available
Article In:
Linguistic Constructions
Edited by Beata Trawiński, Marc Kupietz and Kristel Proost
[Languages in Contrast 24:2] 2024
► pp. 197–225

French, Polish and Czech converbs

A contrastive corpus-based study

ORCID logo | Charles University in PragueCzech Republic
The study investigates the translation correspondence of Czech, Polish, and French converbs (transgressive, imiesłów przysłówkowy, and gérondif), using extensive data extracted from parallel corpora of fiction. Although the three converbs share significant syntactic and semantic properties (in terms of the range and proportion of different meanings conveyed), they differ in frequency and in stylistic characteristics (archaistic in Czech). The study shows that these differences are reflected in the proportion of the convergent translation counterparts, independently of the source language (more than 65% of convergent counterparts in translations into Polish, about 30% in translations into French, and only about 6% in Czech). The analysis of target languages showing high proportion of divergent counterparts (French and Czech) reveals that their distribution is shaped by the meaning of the source converb: distinction between accompanying circumstance vs. more informative meanings in Czech, and participant- vs. event-oriented content in French. This research advances our understanding of the expression of adverbial subordination across languages and demonstrates the research potential of parallel corpora, used as semantic and functional mirrors revealing distinctions within seemingly uniform categories in source languages.
Keywords: converb, translation correspondence, form-meaning mapping, accompanying circumstance, Czech/French/Polish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transgressive, imiesłów przysłówkowy and gérondif as converbs
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Meaning and translation correspondence of Czech, French, and Polish converbs
    • 4.1Meanings of Czech, French, and Polish converbs
    • 4.2Translation correspondence of Czech, French, and Polish converbs
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (51)
References
Altenberg, B., Granger, S. 2002. Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-Based Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnavielle, T. 1997. Le Morphème — ant: Unité et diversité. Étude historique et théorique. Paris — Louvain: Editions Peeters.Google Scholar
Behrens, B. and Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2010. The relation of Accompanying Circumstance across languages. Conflict between linguistic expression and discourse subordination? In Contrasting Meanings in Languages of the East and West, D. Shu and K. Turner (eds.), 531–551. Berlin — Bern — NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bojałkowska, K. 2010. Opis składniowy imiesłowów przysłówkowych we współczesnym języku polskim [Syntax of adverbial participles in contemporary Polish]. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu.Google Scholar
Čermák, P., Kratochvílová, D., Nádvorníková, O. and Štichauer, P. (eds.) 2020. Complex words, causatives, verbal periphrases and the gerund: Romance languages versus Czech (a parallel corpus-based study). Praha: Karolinum. Available at [URL] [last accessed 29 February 2024]. DOI logo
Coupe, A. R. 2006. Converbs. In Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 2nd Edition, 145–152. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czachor, M. W. 2019. Dystrybucja polskich imiesłowów: styl funkcjonalny i długość zdania [Distribution of Polish participles: functional style and sentence length]. Polonica, 39(1): 219–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F., Grepl, M. and Hlavsa, Z. 1987. Mluvnice češtiny 3 — Skladba [Grammar of Czech 3 — Syntax]. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Dvořák, E. 1970. Vývoj přechodníkových konstrukcí ve starší češtině [Evolution of transgressives in Old Czech]. Praha: Universita Karlova.Google Scholar
1983. Přechodníkové konstrukce v nové češtině [Transgressives in New Czech]. Praha: Universita Karlova.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. and Haug, D. (eds.). 2012. Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filiouchkina Krave, M. 2012. The meaning of Russian converbs. In Big Events, Small Clauses, C. Fabricius-Hansen and D. Haug (eds.), 323–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fournier, N. 2002. Grammaire du français classique. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Fried, M. 1994. The Complex Present Participles in Old Czech. Listy filologické 1171: 37–53.Google Scholar
Gast, V. 2012. Contrastive analysis: Theories and methods. In Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistic theory and methodology, B. Kortmann and J. Kabatek (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gettrup, H. 1977. Le gérondif, le participe présent et la notion de repère temporel. Revue Romane 12(2): 210–271.Google Scholar
Halmøy, O. 1982. Le gérondif: éléments pour une description syntaxique et sémantique. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
2003. Le gérondif en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms — Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, M. Haspelmathand, E. König (eds.), 1–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies, Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variation, D. van Olmen, T. Mortelmans and F. Brisard (eds.), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Available at DOI logo [last accessed 29 February 2024].Google Scholar
Hnátková, M., Křen, M., Procházka, P. and Skoumalová, H. 2014. The SYN-series corpora of written Czech. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 160–164. Reykjavík: ELRA.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the use of corpora in contrastive studies. Amsterdam — Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlík, P., Nekula, M. and Rusínová, Z. 1996. Příruční mluvnice češtiny [Handbook of Czech Grammar]. Praha: NLN.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. and Vuillaume, M. 2016. L’énigme du gérondif négatif. In Négation et référence, Daval, R., Frath, P., Hilgert, E. and Palma, S., 199–214. Reims: ÉPURE. [URL] [last accessed 29 February 2024].
Kocková, J. 2022. Neurčité tvary slovesné v češtině, ruštině a němčině a jejich vzájemná ekvivalence [Non-finite verb forms in Czech, Russian, and German and their mutual equivalence]. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
König, E. and van der Auwera, J. 1990. Adverbial participles, gerunds and absolute constructions in the languages of Europe. In Toward a typology of European languages, J. Bechert, G. Bernini and C. Buridant (eds.), 57–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English. Problems of control and interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Čapka, T., Čermáková, A., Hnátková, M., Chlumská, L., Jelínek, T., Kováříková, D., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H., Škrabal, M., Truneček, P., Vondřička, P. and Zasina, A. 2019. Corpus SYN, version 8 from 12. 12. 2019. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha 2019. Available at: [URL]
Lehmann, Ch. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Typological Studies in Language 181, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malá, M. and Šaldová, P. 2015. English non-finite participial clauses as seen through their Czech counterparts. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14(1): 232–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nádvorníková, O. 2013a. — Paul se rase en chantant, dit-il en bafouillant: Quels types de manière pour le gérondif en français ? Acta Universitatis Carolinae — Philologica — Romanistica Pragensia 19(2): 31–44.Google Scholar
2013b. Les gérondifs antéposés : quelles relations avec les contextes de gauche et de droite ? Verbum 35(1–2): 161–174.Google Scholar
2021a. Stylistic normalisation, convergence and cross-linguistic interference in translation: The case of the Czech transgressive. In Empirical Studies in Translation and Discourse, M. Bisiada (ed.), 53–93. Berlin: Language Science Press. Available at [URL] [last accessed 29 February 2024].
2021b. Le gérondif et le participe présent en français contemporain : Différence revisitée a la lumière de leur compatibilité avec les verbes de perception. In Sens (inter)dits. Verbes et architectures syntatico-discursives vol. 2, C. Lacassain-Lagoin, F. Marsac, W. Ucherek, K. Chovancova and M. Zázrivcová (eds.), 67–84. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
2021c. Contexts and consequences of sentence splitting in translation (English-French-Czech). Research in Language 19(3): 229–250. Available at DOI logo [last accessed 29 February 2024].Google Scholar
2023. Český přechodník jako konverbum: Korpusová analýza překladových a nepřekladových textů [The Czech transgressive as converb: A corpus-based analysis of translated and non-translated texts. Praha: Vydavatelství FF UK. Available at [URL] [last accessed 28 May 2024].
Forthcoming. The Czech converb confronted with its French and Polish counterparts: Investigation of diachronic factors shaping the properties of converbs. In Diachronic, Typological, and Areal Aspects of Converbs, Coticelli, P., Dahl, E. and Zivojinovic, J. (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nedjalkov, V. P. 1995. Some typological parameters of converbs. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, M. Haspelmath and E. König (eds.), 97–137. Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, I. V. 1998. Converbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, J. van der Auwera (ed.), 420–455. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A., Bańko, M., Górski, R. L. and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2012. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.Google Scholar
Ramm, W. 2012. German wobei-clauses in translation. In Big Events, Small Clauses, C. Fabricius-Hansen and D. Haug (eds.), 391–423. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. 2021. Pseudocoordination, serial verb constructions and multi-verb predicates: The relationship between form and structure. PhD Thesis. Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at [URL] [last accessed 29 February 2024].
Schultze-Berndt, E., and Himmelmann, N. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8(1): 59–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II1. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, B. 2001. Converbs. In Language Typology, and Language Universals, vol. 21, 1112–1123. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vangaever, J. 2021. Categories under pressure: the gerund and the present participle from Late Latin to Old French. PhD Thesis. Universiteit Gent. Available at [URL] [last accessed 29 February 2024].
Wójcik, A. 2023. The decline of Czech transgressives — a memento mori for the Polish language?. Polonica 43(1): 193–206. Available at DOI logo [last accessed 29 February 2024].Google Scholar
Wróbel, H. 1975. Składnia imiesłowów czynnych we współczesnej polszczyźnie [Syntax of active participles in contemporary Polish]. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
2001. Gramatyka języka polskiego. Kraków: OD NOWA.Google Scholar