Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 22:1 (2010) ► pp.40–70

Shifts in repetition vs. shifts in text meaning

A study of the textual role of lexical repetition in non-literary translation

| Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
This study focuses on the discoursal role of repetition, exploring the way shifts in repetition patterns in text trigger coherence shifts, altering the meaning potential of translations. As repetition in translation has been hypothesized to be affected by certain universals of translation, the paper also offers initial data to support the universals of explicitation and avoiding repetition. Lexical repetitions are investigated using Hoey’s (1991) theory in a corpus of Hungarian—English news texts. Analyses reveal considerable shifts in repetition in translations; however, these differences are not statistically significant. The corpus also provides evidence for repetition shifts affecting the macropropositional structure of target texts, leading to macropropositional shifts, which alter the global meaning of translations compared to sources.
Keywords: repetition, cohesion, coherence, text meaning, shift, macroproposition, non-literary translation, translation universal, explicitation, avoidance of repetition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The study of lexical repetition in text and translation
    • 2.1The ambivalent nature of repetition
    • 2.2The study of lexical cohesion as various forms of lexical repetition
  • 3Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1The corpus
    • 4.2Procedures of analysis
    • 4.3Quantitative measures in the analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Quantitative analyses
    • 5.2Qualitative analysis of the combinations of repetition bonds
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 July 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.04kar
References (42)
References
Abdulla, Adnan K. 2001. “Rhetorical Repetition in Literary Translation”. Babel 47:4. 289–303.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words. London: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies.Implications and Applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Rognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and Technology. Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. 233–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ari, Nitsa. 1998. “The Ambivalent Case of Repetitions in Literary Translation. Avoiding Repetitions: A “Universal” of Translation?”. Meta 43:1. 68–78.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshama and Eddie A. Levenston. 1983. “Universals of Lexical Simplification”. Claus Faerch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London and New York: Longman, 1983. 119–139.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshama. 1986. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”. Juliane House and Shoshama Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 1986. 17–35.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, David. 1988. “Ideational Meaning and the ‘Existential Fabric’ of a Poem”. Robin P. Fawcett and David Young, eds. New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 2., Theory and Application. London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. 174–218.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C.. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia and Jerry Morgan. 1981. “Pragmatics, Grammar, and Discourse”. Peter Cole, ed. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 167–181.Google Scholar
Gutwinski, Waldemar. 1976. Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael and Ruquaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruquaiya. 1984. “Coherence and Cohesive Harmony”. James Flood, ed. Understanding Reading Comprehension., Delaware: International Reading Association, 1984. 181–219.Google Scholar
Hatch, Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 1999. “Implications of Research into Translator Invisibility”. Target 11:2. 201–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jabr, Abdul-Fattah M.. 2001. “Arab Translators’ Problems at the Discourse Level”. Babel 47:4. 304–322.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2004. “The Fate of The Families of Medellín: Tampering with a Potential Translation Universal in the Translation Class”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation Universals: Do they exist?, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 205–214.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Károly, Krisztina. 2002. Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga. 2003. Languages in Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly. 2000. “The Text-organizing Function of Lexical Repetition in Translation”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. 143–160.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Lexical Repetition in Professional and Trainees’ Translation”. Eva Hung, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4, Building Bridges, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002. 99–114.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lotfipour-Saedi, Kazem. 1997. “Lexical Cohesion and Translation Equivalence”. Meta 42:1. 185–192.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1991. “Lexical Cohesion and Specialized Knowledge in Science and Popular Science Texts”. Discourse Processes. 141. 1–26.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory M. Shreve. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Dudley W. 1995. “Repetition in Nonnative Speaker Writing: More than Quantity”. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 17:2. 185–209.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations”. Discourse Processes 15:1. 1–35.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Translator 1:2. 193–214.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Susan. 1994. “Aspects of Cohesion in Monologue”. Applied Linguistics 15:1. 58–75.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1977. Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930–1945. Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
. 1991. “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Tom Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies: The State of the Art: Proceedings from the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA.: Rodopi, 1991. 179–192.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea. 1995. “Patterns of Lexis: How much can repetition tell us about discourse coherence?”. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1995. 268–280.Google Scholar
Winter, E. O.. 1977. “A Clause-relational Approach to English Texts”, Instructional Science 6. 1–92.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Abritta, Alejandro
2023. La repetición en las traducciones homéricas: consideraciones teóricas y análisis de casos. Literatura: teoría, historia, crítica 25:2 DOI logo
Jiang, Yue & Jiang Niu
2022. A corpus-based search for machine translationese in terms of discourse coherence. Across Languages and Cultures 23:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Zhanhao & Yuan Tao
2017. Translation Universals of Discourse Markers in Russian-to-Chinese Academic Texts: A Corpus-based Approach. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 62:4 ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Yuan & Zhanhao Jiang
2017. Translation universals of kak structures: a corpus-based approach. Russian Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2013. News Discourse in Translation: Topical Structure and News Content in the Analytical News Article. Meta 57:4 ► pp. 884 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2014. Referential cohesion and news content. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26:3 ► pp. 406 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2017. Logical relations in translation: the case of Hungarian–English news translation. Perspectives 25:2 ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Chapter 8. Summary and conclusions. In Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.