Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 17:1 (2017) ► pp.18–42

A contrastive analysis of reporting clauses in comparable and translated academic texts in English and Italian

| University of Turin (Italy)
This article investigates the use of finite reporting clauses with that-clause complementation (e.g. I will suggest that…) as devices for the expression of stance in academic texts (Hyland and Tse 2005; Charles 2006). These constructions are compared to their functional equivalents in Italian, i.e. reporting clauses with che (‘that’) complementiser. The comparison is carried out using a corpus-based approach, involving the analysis of a parallel corpus of Political Science papers in English and their translations into Italian, as well as a comparable corpus of articles originally written in Italian within the same discipline. Thanks to their ability to convey evaluative meanings, reporting clauses are analysed as structures that may provide insights into the epistemological negotiations taking place in the encounter of different research traditions through the practice of translation.
Keywords: reporting clauses, academic writing, translation, epistemology, corpus-based approach, English/Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reporting that-clauses, writer stance and epistemology
  • 3.Cross-linguistic observations
  • 4.Materials and methods
    • 4.1From Socialist Register to Socialist Register Italia
    • 4.2Design criteria in the compilation of the comparable corpus
    • 4.3Analytical procedure
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Source
    • 5.2Grammatical subject
    • 5.3Type of verb
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 13 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.02mol
References (43)
References
Acquaviva, P. 1991. Frasi argomentali: completive e soggettive. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II1, L. Renzi and G. Salvi, G. (eds), 633–674. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Adduci, M. and Cerimele M. 2009. Socialist Register Italia. Milano: Edizioni Punto Rosso.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C. 1991. Il passivo personale con e senza cancellazione dell’agente: verso un approccio multidimensionale. In Tra rinascimento e strutture attuali: Saggi di linguistica italiana (Atti del primo convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Siena, 28–31 marzo 1989, vol. 11), L. Giannelli, N. Maraschio, T. Poggi Salani and M. Vedovelli (eds), 373–385. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Becher, T. 1981. Towards a Definition of Disciplinary Cultures. Studies in Higher Education 6(2): 109–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. 2007. Epistemicide! The Tale of a Predatory Discourse. The Translator 13(2): 151–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johanasson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1999. A Register Perspective on Grammar and Discourse: Variability in the Form and Use of English Complement Clauses. Discourse Studies 1(2): 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calaresu, E. 2004. Testuali parole. La dimensione pragmatica e testuale del discorso riportato. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2006. The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dor, D. 2005. Towards a Semantic Account of That ­Deletion in English. Linguistics 43(2): 345–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressen, D. 2003. Geologists’ Implicit Persuasive Strategies and the Construction of Evaluative Evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4): 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. 2002 [1977]. Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 1984. That or Zero? A Look at the Choice of Object Clause Connective in a Corpus of American English. English Studies 65(6): 519–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S. and Manning, E. 1996. Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2005. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2): 123–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ji, M. and Oakes, M. P., 2012. A Corpus study of early English translations of Cao Xueqin’s Hongloumeng. In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research, M. P. Oakes and M. Ji (eds), 177–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. 2006. ‘ That is the Question’: Complementizer Omission in Extraposed that­Clauses. English Language and Linguistics 10(2): 371–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, S. P., 1994. Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Martínez, I. A., 2005. Native and Non-Native Writer’s Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3): 174–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molino, A. 2010. Personal and Impersonal Authorial References: A Contrastive Study of English and Italian Linguistics Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2): 86–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A. I., 2008. The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-Cultural Studies. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W Rozycki (eds), 25–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortara Garavelli, B. 1995. Il discorso riportato. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III1, L. Renzi, G. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 427–470. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Mur Dueñas, P. 2007. ‘I/we focus on’: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Self-Mentions in Business Management Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2): 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur Dueñas, P. 2011. An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12), 3068–3079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. C. 2005. Markers of Attribution in English and Italian Opinion Articles: A Comparative Corpus-Based Study. ICAME Journal 291: 131–150.Google Scholar
Olohan, M. 2001. Spelling out the Optionals in Translation: A Corpus Study. UCREL Technical Papers 131: 423–432.Google Scholar
2002. Leave it out! Using a Comparable Corpus to Investigate Aspects of Explicitation in Translation. Cadernos de Tradução IX1: 153–169.Google 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
Pérez-Llantada, C. 2012. Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization: The Impact of Culture and Language. Continuum: London.Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni (eds), 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renzi, L. and Salvi, G. (eds). 1991. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II1. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Renzi, L., Salvi, G. and Cardinaletti, A. (eds). 1995. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III1. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. 1991. La frase semplice. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. I., L. Renzi (ed.), 29–114. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2011. WordSmith Tools (Version 6.0). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Storms, G. 1966. That-clauses in Modern English. English Studies 47(1–6): 249–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suárez, L. and Moreno, A. 2008. The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Book Reviews of Literature. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W. Rozycki (eds), 147–165. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tadros, A. 1993. The Pragmatics of Text Averral and Attribution in Academic texts. In Data, description, discourse, M. Hoey (ed.), 98–114. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., and Mulac, A. 1991. The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer that in Conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wanner, D. 1981. Surface Complementizer Deletion: Italian che - Ø. Journal of Italian Linguistics 6(1): 47–82. Google Scholar
Wandruszka, U. 1991. Frasi subordinate al congiuntivo. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II1, L. Renzi and G. Salvi (eds), 415–482. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Shang, Xin
2023. When Contrastive Analysis meets Translation Studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:2 ► pp. 186 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.