Translationese – a myth or an empirical fact? A study into the linguistic identifiability of translated language

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, University of Joensuu

This paper reports on a study in which subjects were asked to distinguish translations from originally produced (non-translated) texts. The aim was to identify the linguistic features shared by texts assumed to be translations, as well as those shared by texts assumed to be originally produced. The results show (i) that translations were not readily identifiable, and (ii) that the feature that seemed to guide the subjects’ decisions was the frequency vs. scarcity of target language specific (unique) items in the texts: their frequency led subjects to assume—correctly or incorrectly—that a text was original rather than translated. It is concluded that the unique items in non-translations vs. translations deserve further research in respect of their frequency and the impressions they make on readers.

Table of contents

Translationeseis a term often used in discussion on the qualities of translated language. It has a pejorative ring, like that of similar terms such as journalese, officialese and legalese (see Fowler 1965). It is one of the challenges of Transla-tion Studies to find out by empirical research if translations are indeed systematically different from originally produced texts. If it turns out that they are different, we must try to find out why. We should also find out if translating perhaps inevitably causes phenomena that make the language of translated texts different from that of non-translated texts.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.


Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research”. Target 7. 223–243.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead”. Harold Somers, ed. Terminology, LSP and translation: Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1996 175–186.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2001 “Classifying translation universals”. Paper read at the Third International EST Congress “Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies”, Copenhagen, 30th August to 1st September, 2001.
Flint, Aili
1980Semantic structure in the Finnish lexicon: Verbs of possibility and sufficiency. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
[ p. 218 ]
Fowler, H.W.
1965 [first edition: 1926] A dictionary of modern English usage. Second edition, revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Güttinger, Fritz
1963Zielsprache: Theorie und Technik des Übersetzens. Zürich: Manesse Verlag.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
1987 “Avoiding personal reference in Finnish”. Jef Verschueren and Marcella Bertucelli-Papi, eds. The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1987 00–00.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervey, Sandor
1998 “Speech acts and illocutionary function in translation methodology”. Leo Hickey, ed. The pragmatics of translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 1998 10–24.Google Scholar
Kalasniemi, Mirja
1992Ocenocnyj suffiks -#k-v russkom jazyke [The evaluative suffix -#k-in Russian]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. [Studia philologica Jyväskyläensia 27.]Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
1996 “Comparable corpora: Towards a corpuslinguistic methodology for the empirical study of translation”. Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Translation and meaning Part 3. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool 1996 153–163.Google Scholar
1997The English comparable corpus (ECC): A resource and a methodology for the empirical study of translation. Manchester: UMIST. [Doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2000 “Strange strings in translated language: A study on corpora”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies I: Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome 2000 119–141.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
forthcoming. “Unique items—Over-or under-represented in translated language”. Paper read at the Conference “Universals in Translation—Do they Exist?”. Savonlinna, 19–20th October, 2001.   DOI logo
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda and Shoshana Blum-Kulka
1987 “Identifying and interpreting translated texts: On the role of pragmatic adjustment”. Gideon Toury, ed. Translation across cultures. New Delhi: Bahri 1987 61–73.Google Scholar