Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 29:3 (2017) ► pp.388–415

A corpus-based study of semantic differences in translation

The case of inchoativity in Dutch

ORCID logo | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
This paper presents a corpus-driven, statistical method for the visualization of semantic structure, thereby tackling the under-researched issue of semantics in corpus-based Translation Studies. We aim to investigate the influence of translation on the structure of semantic fields and in particular the extent to which the structure of the semantic field of inchoativity differs between original, non-translated Dutch and translated Dutch. The visualizations of the semantic field of inchoativity show that translated Dutch indeed differs from non-translated Dutch on the semantic level. Based on the exploration of the semantic fields, we furthermore formulate some hypotheses concerning the presence of the so-called universal tendencies of translation on the semantic level.
Keywords: translational hypothesis, corpus-based, statistical, semantic differences, semantic field, translation universals, inchoativity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Lexeme retrieval
    • 2.2From lexeme retrieval to the compilation of comparable data sets for translated and non-translated language
    • 2.3Visualization of data sets
  • 3.The semantic field of inchoativity in translated and non-translated language
    • 3.1Retrieval
    • 3.2Visualization
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1The semantic field of inchoativity for SourceDutch
    • 4.2The semantic field of inchoativity for TransDutchENG
    • 4.3The semantic field of inchoativity for TransDutchFR
    • 4.4Provisional conclusions
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15009.van
References (47)
References
Aijmer, Karin, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2004. “A Model and a Methodology for the Study of Pragmatic Markers: The Semantic Field of Expectation.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (10): 1781–1806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt, and Sylviane Granger. 2002. “Recent Trends in Cross-Linguistic Lexical Studies.” In Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-Based Approaches, ed. by Bengt Altenberg and Sylviane Granger, 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2008. “Semantic Preference and Semantic Prosody Re-examined.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4 (2): 119–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. (1923) 2004. “The Task of the Translator.” Translated by Harry Zohn. In The Translation Studies Reader. Second edition, ed. By Lawrence Venuti, 75–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey N. Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dam-Jensen, Helle, and Karin Korning Zethsen. 2008. “Translator Awareness of Semantic Prosody.” Target 20 (2): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. 2017. Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, and Nick Fieller. 2014. “Cluster Analysis. Finding Structure in Linguistic Data.” In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, ed. by Dylan Glynn and Justyna Robinson, 405–441. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, and Stefan Gries. 2009. “Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics. A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian.” In Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomasczyk and Katarzyna Dziwirek, 273–296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Diwersy, Sascha, Stefan Evert, and Stella Neumann. 2014. “A Weakly Supervised Multivariate Approach to the Study of Language Variation.” In Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis. Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech, ed. by Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Bernhard Wälchli, 174–204. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1998. “A Translational Basis for Semantics.” In Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, ed. by Stig Johansson and Signe Oksefjell, 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Translations as Semantic Mirrors. From Parallel Corpus to Wordnet.” In Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23), ed. Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, 309–326. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Translations as a Semantic Knowledge Source.” In The Second Baltic Conference on Human Language Technologies. Proceedings, ed. by Margit Langemets and Priit Penjam, 27–38. Tallinn: Institute of Cybernetics (Tallinn University of Technology), Institute of the Estonian Language.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Second edition. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.” In Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, ed. by Michael Greenacre and Raul Primicerio, 89–98. Bilbao: Fundación BBVA.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2012. “Behavioral Profiles: A Fine-Grained and Quantitative Approach in Corpus-Based Lexical Semantics.” In Methodological and Analytic Frontiers in Lexical Research, ed. by Gonia Libben, Gary Jarema and Chris Westbury, vol. 471, 57–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Second edition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, et al. 2012. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [URL].
House, Juliane. 2013. “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target 25 (1): 46–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Translation Quality Assessment. Past and Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2016. Translation as Communication across Languages and Cultures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenset, Gard B., and Barbara McGillivray. 2012. “Multivariate Analyses of Affix Productivity in Translated English.” In Oakes and Ji 2012, 301–324.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 1998. ”Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words.” Meta 43 (4): 515–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korning Zethsen, Karin. 2008. “Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: Extended Units of Meaning and their Implications for Translation Studies.” Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series. Themes in Translation Studies 71: 249–262.Google Scholar
Lebart, Ludovic, André Salem, and Lisette Berry. 1998. Exploring Textual Data. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macken, Lieve, Orphée De Clercq, and Hans Paulussen. 2011. “Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus.” Meta 56 (2): 374–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortier, Liesbeth, and Liesbeth Degand. 2009. “Adversative Discourse Markers in Contrast: The Need for a Combined Corpus Approach.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (3): 338–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Veronique Hoste, and Ineke Schuurman. 2013. “The Construction of a 500 Million Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch.” In Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch: Results by the Stevin-Programme, ed. by Peter Spyns and Jan Odijk, 219–247. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism [Studies in Bilingualism, 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, Koen. 2015. “Svs: Tools for Semantic Vector Spaces.” Ghent University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1993. Cottage und co., Idea, Start vs. Begin. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Introspection and Computer Corpora. The Meaning and Complementation of Start and Begin.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Lexicography, ed. by Arne Zettersten and Viggo Hjornager Pedersen, 223–239. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2013. “English Adverbs of Essence and Their Equivalents in Dutch and French.” In Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: a Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Ryota, and Hidetoshi Shimodaira. 2006. “Pvclust: An R Package for Assessing the Uncertainty in Hierarchical Clustering.” Bioinformatics 22 (12): 1540–1542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke. 2003. Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandevoorde, Lore. 2016. On Semantic Differences. A Multivariate Corpus-Based Study of the Semantic Field of Inchoativity in Translated and Non-translated Dutch. PhD thesis Ghent University.Google Scholar
Vandevoorde, Lore, Pauline De Baets, Els Lefever, Koen Plevoets, and Gert De Sutter. 2016. “Distributional and Translational Solutions to the Visualization of Semantic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Dutch.” In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vossen, Piek, Isa Maks, Roxane Segers, Hennie van der Vliet, and Hetty van Zutphen. 2008. “The Cornetto Database: Architecture and Alignment Issues of Combining Lexical Units, Synsets and an Ontology.” Paper presented at the Fourth International GlobalWordNet Conference, Szeged, Hungary.
Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2006. “Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and Near Synonymy. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Applied Linguistics 27 (1): 103–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

de Baets, Pauline & Gert de Sutter
2023. How do translators select among competing (near-)synonyms in translation?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Vandevoorde, Lore
2019. Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch. Meta 63:3 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Marco, Josep
2018. Connectives as indicators of explicitation in literary translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 30:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.