Cover not available
Commentary published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 3:2 (2022) ► pp.150–159
Commentary

Killing two burdens with one stone

How contrastive corpus linguistics can help overcome constrained communication effects in L2 learning and L2-to-L1 translation

ORCID logo | Université de Lille | CNRS, UMR 8163 STL
ORCID logo | Université de Lille | CNRS, UMR 8163 STL
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Case study: Passives with an extraposed complement clause in English and French
    • 2.1The English and French PECC construction: General frequency, main uses, and alternatives
    • 2.2The English and French PECC construction from a learner and translation perspective
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.22012.lap
References
Algeo, J.
(2006) British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, B. & Meyer, T.
(2012) Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), May 2012, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Chuquet, H. & Paillard, M.
(1989) Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais-français. Edition révisée. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
De Sutter, G., Cappelle, B., De Clercq, O., Loock, R., & Plevoets, K.
(2017) Towards a corpus-based, statistical approach to translation quality: Measuring and visualizing linguistic deviance in student translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 161, 25–39.Google Scholar
De Sutter, G. & 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
Ellis, N.
(2005) At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. & Paquot, M.
(2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S.
(2015) Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S. L.
(2018) Metalinguistic Knowledge/Awareness/Ability in Cognitive Translation Studies: Some Questions. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, (57), 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koehn, P.
(2005) Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of MT Summit X 1. 79–86.Google Scholar
Kotze, H.
(2022) Translation as constrained communication: Principles, concepts and methods. In S. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Corpus-based Translation Studies (pp. 67–97). London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T.
(2019) A syntactic analysis of the introductory it pattern in non-native-speaker and native-speaker student writing. In M. Mahlberg & V. Wiegand (Eds.), Corpus linguistics, Context and Culture (pp. 307–338). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. & Darbelnet, J.
(1995) [1958] Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. [Originally published in French: Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar