Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 18:2 (2018) ► pp.230–251

Contrasting pronominal subjects

A cross-linguistic corpus study of English, Italian and Slovene

| University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
| University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)

Pronominal subject use constitutes a potential challenge in translation because of cross-linguistic differences: while the subject must be expressed in non-null subject languages, this is not necessary in null subject languages. The aim of the paper is twofold: first, to show that the type of source language influences the frequency of personal pronouns in translation, and second, to establish whether translations into a null subject language differ from comparable target language originals in terms of pronominal subject use. The study is based on the analysis of a 625,000-word corpus comprising original and translated popular science texts in Slovene and the corresponding source texts in English and Italian. The results confirm that pronominal subjects are more frequent in translations from English, a non-null subject language; furthermore, they are more frequent in translations than in comparable originals. Untypical cohesive patterns are identified in translations and possible reasons for their presence are explored.

Keywords: pronominal subject, translation, corpus analysis, English / Slovene, Italian / Slovene
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pronominal subjects as cohesive devices
  • 3.Corpus and procedure
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequency of pronominal subjects
    • 4.2Classification of pronominal subjects
      • 4.2.1Disambiguation
        • Contrast
        • Comparison
        • Coordinate structure
      • 4.2.2Emphasis
    • 4.3Source text – target text correspondence
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16007.pis
References
Barbosa, P. Duarte, M. E. and Kato, M. A.
2005 Null Subjects in European and Brasilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4(2):11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S.
2006 A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3):259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, V.
2011 When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 23(1):26–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
1997 Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed), 33–63. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981/1988 Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa Lecture. 5th Edition. Dordrecht/Providence: Floris Publications.Google Scholar
Cordin, P.
2001 I pronomi personali. Caratteristiche generali. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, L. Renzi, G. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 549–563. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Dardano, M. and Trifone, P.
1995 Grammatica italiana con nozioni di linguistica. Third edition. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A.
2009 Subject Expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of Contact with Catalan. PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N.
2004 Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change 16(1):49–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. R.
2003 On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. Language and Computers 46(1): 225–240.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G.
2008 Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Papp and M. B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 1–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
2007 Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 241–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N.
1983 The Pro Drop Parameter in child grammars. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 21. Stanford, Ca: Stanford Linguistics Association, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. 126–130.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. J.
(eds) 1989 The Null Subject Parameter. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordercht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K.
2005 Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, K.
2007 A method for investigating coreference in translations and originals. Languages in Contrast 7(2):267–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. and Díaz, L.
1999 Topic-drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research 15(1):1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marco, J.
2012 An analysis of explicitation in the COVALT corpus: The case of the substituting pronoun one (s) and its translation into Catalan. Across Languages and Cultures 13(2):229–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A.
2005 Contrasting languages and varieties with translational corpora Languages in Contrast 5(1):73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, M. and 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: Journal des traducteurs/ Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4): 557–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, G. and Musacchio, M. T.
2010 When a Clue is not a Clue. A corpus-driven study of explicit vs. implicit signalling of sentence links in popular economics translation. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 121:63–76.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. and Navarro, S.
2003 Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language 30(2):371–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D.
1968 Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. PhD Thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Platzack, C.
1987 The Scandinavian languages and the Null Subject Parameter. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 5(3):377–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reindl, D. F.
1997 Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages. Slovene Linguistic Studies 11:24–39.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1982 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A.
2009 Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, T. Biberauer, I. Roberts and M. Sheehan (eds), 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, D.
2001 Literal translation. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and K. Malmkjaer (eds), 125–127. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
2009 Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax – pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5):951–973. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silveira, R.
2008 Cohesive devices and translation: An analyis. Cadernos de Tradução 1(2):421–433.Google Scholar
Scott, M.
2008 WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F.
2006 Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3):339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serratrice, L.
2007 Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics 39(6):1058–1087. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toporišič, J.
2004 Slovenska slovnica “Slovene Grammar”. Maribor: Obzorja.Google Scholar
Trebits, A.
2009 Conjunctive cohesion in English language EU documents – A corpus-based analysis and its implications. English for Specific Purposes 28(3):199–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F.
2004 First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3):257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L.
1985 The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35(1):47–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar