Article In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Between source language constructions and target language expectations

An analysis of passive constructions in translated and non-translated Spanish

ORCID logo | Universitat Jaume I
ORCID logo | Universitat de València-IULMA

This paper is situated within Cognitive Translation Studies (CTS). It follows Halverson’s Gravitational Pull Hypothesis (2003, 2010, 2017, 2024), a framework that explains the translation process and its outcome by invoking the cognitive mechanisms of the bilingual mind. The paper adopts the cognitive, multi-method approach of the GPH to describe and compare the use of Spanish passive constructions in a multilingual comparable corpus of translated and non-translated texts. In doing so, it pushes the boundaries of the model by: (a) following an onomasiological rather than a semasiological approach; (b) focusing on constructions rather than lexical items; and (c) explicitly incorporating the aspect of translator socialisation into the hypothesis formulation, thereby taking into account the situatedness of translation. The results provide evidence in support of the GPH, as salience of a construction in the source or target language leads to its overrepresentation in the translated texts, and non-salience leads to its underrepresentation.

Keywords: translation, passive constructions, Gravitational Pull Hypothesis, overrepresentation, underrepresentation, onomasiological salience
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Passive constructions in translation
    • 2.2Cognitive factors affecting translation
    • 2.3Semasiological vs onomasiological salience
  • 3.Operationalisation: Adapting the GPH to analyse a category of constructions
    • 3.1Magnetism: Onomasiological salience of the TL construction
    • 3.2Gravitational pull: Salience of matching SL constructions
    • 3.3Connectivity
  • 4.Materials and methods
    • 4.1Object of study: Passive construal and passive constructions
    • 4.2Data
      • 4.2.1Corpus data
      • 4.2.2Experimental data
    • 4.3Procedure
      • 4.3.1Research Phase I. The establishment of the translational salience of Spanish passive constructions
      • 4.3.2Research Phase II: Quantitative corpus study
  • 5.Translational salience of passive constructions
    • 5.1Onomasiological salience of TL passive constructions
    • 5.2Salience of formally equivalent SL constructions
      • 5.2.1Structure of the passive category in English
      • 5.2.2Structure of the passive category in German
      • 5.2.3Comparative frequencies
    • 5.3Connectivity
  • 6.Quantitative corpus study: Passive constructions in translated and non-translated Spanish
    • 6.1Hypotheses
      • Hypothesis A. The construction ser+PP will be overrepresented
      • Hypothesis B. Se-constructions will be overrepresented
      • Hypothesis C. The impersonal active (3rd p. pl.) will be underrepresented
    • 6.2Results and discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Zeschel, A., & Hilpert, M.
(2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
(1993) Corpus linguistics and translation studies. Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balzer, B.
(1999) Gramática funcional del alemán. Madrid: Ediciones de la Torre.Google Scholar
Bisiada, M.
(2019) Translated language or edited language? A study of passive constructions in translation manuscripts and their published versions. Across Languages and Cultures, 20 (1), 35–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boswijk, V., & Coler, M.
(2020) What is salience? Open Linguistics 6 1, 713–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartagena, N., & Gauger, H. M.
(1989) Vergleichende Grammatik Spanisch-Deutsch. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Drosdowski, G., Augst, G., Gelhaus, H., Gipper, H., Mangold, M., Sitta, H., Wellmann, H., & Winkler, C.
(Eds.) (1984) Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim & Wien & Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Echeverría, C. I., & González-Fernández, C. A.
(2019) From Hispanisms to Anglicisms: Examining the perception and treatment of native linguistic features associated with interference in translator training. Languages, 4 (2), 42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engel, U.
(1988) Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, A. L.
(2016) A corpus-based contrastive study of the passive and related constructions in English and Swedish. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
García Yebra, V.
(1997) La voz pasiva francesa y su traducción al español. Thélème. Revista Complutense de Estudios Franceses, 11 1, 347–53.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2009) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gili Gaya, S.
(1961) Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona: Spes.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Halverson, S.
(2003) The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15 (2), 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Cognitive translation studies: Developments in theory and method. In G. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 349–369). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Developing a cognitive semantic model: Magnetism, Gravitational pull, and questions of data and method. In G. De Sutter, M. A. Lefer & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies. New methods and theoretical traditions (pp. 9–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024) The gravitational pull hypothesis: status and prospects. In J. Marco & I. Tello (Eds.), Towards an empirical verification of the gravitational pull hypothesis. Evidence from the COVALT Corpus (pp. 21–52). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hareide, L.
(2017a) The translation of formal source-language Lacunae. An empirical study of the over-representation of target-language specific features and the unique items hypotheses. In M. Ji, L. Hareide, D. Li & M. Oakes (Eds.), Corpus methodologies explained: An empirical approach to translation studies (pp. 137–87). Milton Park & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017b) Is there gravitational pull in translation? A corpus-based test of the gravitational pull hypothesis on the language pairs Norwegian-Spanish and English Spanish. In M. Ji, L. Hareide, D. Li, & M. Oakes (Eds.), Corpus methodologies explained: An empirical approach to translation studies (pp. 188–231. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hill, S., Mayberry, M., & Baranowski, E.
(2014) Bilingual grammar of English-Spanish syntax. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Kenny, D., & Satthachai, M.
(2018) Explicitation, unique items and the translation of english passives in thai legal texts. Meta, 63 (3), 604–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavid, J., Arús, J., & Zamorano-Mansilla, J. R.
(2010) Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish. A contrastive study with English. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1975) A communicative grammar of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lefer, M. A., & De Sutter, G.
(2022) Using the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis to explain patterns in interpreting and translation: The case of concatenated nouns in mediated European Parliament discourse. In M. Kajzer-Wietrzny, A. Ferraresi, I. Ivaska & S. Bernardini (Eds.), Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical investigations (pp. 133–159). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
López Guix, J. G., & Minett Wilkinson, J.
(2014) Manual de traducción inglés-castellano. Teoría y práctica. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Marco, J.
(2019) Living with Parallel Corpora. The potentials and limitations of their use in translation research. In I. Doval & M. T. Sánchez Nieto (Eds.), Parallel Corpora for contrastive and translation studies: New resources and applications (pp. 39–56). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Testing the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis on modal verbs expressing obligation and necessity in Catalan through the COVALT Corpus. In M. Bisiada (Ed.), Empirical studies in translation and discourse (pp. 27–52). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
(2024) Methodology. In J. Marco & I. Tello (Eds.), Towards an empirical verification of the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis. Evidence from the COVALT Corpus (pp. 53–76). Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molés-Cases, T., & Oster, U.
(2019) Indexation and analysis of a parallel corpus using CQPweb: the COVALT PAR_ES corpus (EN/FR/DE>ES). In I. Doval & M. T. Sánchez Nieto (Eds.), Parallel Corpora for contrastive and translation studies. New resources and applications (pp. 197–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, R.
(2013) More than a way with words: The interface between cognitive linguistics and cognitive translatology. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation (pp. 75–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oster, U.
(2019) Anteposició i posposició de l’adjectiu en textos originals i traduïts. In Molés-Cases, T. & M. D. Oltra Ripoll (Eds.), El corpus COVALT: Model de llengua, sociologia del traductor i anàlisi traductològica (pp. 117–140). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
Oster, U., & I. Navarro-Ferrando
(2024) Passive constructions in Spanish texts translated from English, German and French. In Marco, J. & I. Tello (Eds.), Towards an empirical verification of the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis: Evidence from the COVALT corpus (pp. 77–110). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
in preparation). On the passive construction and its translation.
Olalla-Soler, C., Franco Aixelá, J., & Rovira-Esteva, S.
(2020) Mapping cognitive translation and interpreting studies: A bibliometric approach. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 19 1, 25–52.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española
(2010) Nueva gramática de La Lengua Española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J.
(2013) Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation (pp. 283–307). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossell Ibern, A. Ma.
(1996) Manual de traducción. Alemán – castellano. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J.
(2007) Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–313). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J., & Günther, F.
(2016) Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 1, 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(1985) Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language, 61 (4), 821–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A.
(2010) From third plural to passive: Incipient, emergent and established passives. Diachronica, 27 (1), 73–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, E.
(2001) Contrast and commonality between English and German in system and text. A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
(2003) Cross-linguistic variation in system and text. a methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
(2004) Unique items – over- or under-represented in translated language? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals. Do they exist? (pp. 177–84). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valero Garcés, C.
(2012) Inglés y español mano a mano: Dos lenguas y dos formas de ver el mundo. Cuadernos Cervantes, Época II.Google Scholar
Vandevoorde, L.
(2020) Semantic differences in translation: Exploring the field of inchoativity. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Ayora, G.
(1977) Introducción a la traductología. Curso básico de traducción. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, K.
(2021) Cognitive linguistics and translation studies. In X. Wen & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 526–542). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, K., & Muñoz Martín, R.
(2020) Cognitive translation studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 19 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Xiao, R., McEnery, T., & Qian, Y.
(2006) Passive Constructions in English and Chinese. A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6 (1), 109–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar