A corpus-based study of semantic differences in translation: The case of inchoativity in Dutch

Lore Vandevoorde, Els Lefever, Koen Plevoets and Gert De Sutter

Abstract

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:
Publication history
Table of contents

The notion of meaning has always been at the core of Translation Studies: in his paper on the Translator’s Task ([1923] 2004), Walter Benjamin reflected on whether translators should express “what is meant” or rather “the way of meaning it”; in 1958, Vinay and Darbelnet formulated a number of translational procedures out of a primary concern with how meaning is (or should be) transferred through translation. More recent work on semantic preferences (Bednarek 2008) and semantic prosody (Kenny 1998; Xiao and McEnery 2006; Dam-Jensen and Korning Zethsen 2008; Korning Zethsen 2008) has raised an awareness of the relevance of corpus-based research in semantics for Translation Studies (Dam-Jensen and Korning-Zethsen 2008). In addition, recent studies by Delaere, De Sutter, and Plevoets (2012) and by Diwersy, Evert, and Neumann (2014), as well as the studies presented in the edited volumes by Oakes and Ji (2012) and De Sutter, Lefer, and Delaere (2017) introduced multivariate statistics into corpus-based Translation Studies (henceforth CBTS), allowing for more empirical research on language variation in translational environments.

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.

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2008 “Semantic Preference and Semantic Prosody Re-examined.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4 (2): 119–139. CrossrefGoogle 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
1999Longman 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delaere, Isabelle, Gert De Sutter, and Koen Plevoets
2012 “Is Translated Language More Standardized Than Non-translated Language? Using Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis for Measuring Linguistic Distances between Language Varieties.” Target 24 (2): 203–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere
eds. 2017Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
2007Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Second edition. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. CrossrefGoogle 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. 47, 57–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Second edition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, et al.
2012Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. http://​ans​.ruhosting​.nl/.
House, Juliane
2013 “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target 25 (1): 46–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Translation Quality Assessment. Past and Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2016Translation 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 7: 249–262.Google Scholar
Lebart, Ludovic, André Salem, and Lisette Berry
1998Exploring Textual Data. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macken, Lieve, Orphée De Clercq, and Hans Paulussen
2011 “Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus.” Meta 56 (2): 374–390. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Michael, and Meng Ji
eds. 2012Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Michel
2004A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism [Studies in Bilingualism, 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, Koen
2015 “Svs: Tools for Semantic Vector Spaces.” Ghent University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2014R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
1993Cottage und co., Idea, Start vs. Begin. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Karin Aijmer
2007The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: a Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Ryota, and Hidetoshi Shimodaira
2006 “Pvclust: An R Package for Assessing the Uncertainty in Hierarchical Clustering.” Bioinformatics 22 (12): 1540–1542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teich, Elke
2003Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandevoorde, Lore
2016On 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
1958Stylistique 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar