An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language
Adam Mickiewicz University
This article investigates cohesion in the spoken and written registers of constrained language varieties to highlight the similarities and differences in the cohesion patterns of mediated (i.e., interpreted and translated) and non-native texts with respect to original texts produced by native speakers. In particular, it examines how different types of cohesive devices are distributed across spoken and written native, non-native, and mediated speeches originally delivered impromptu and read out at the plenary sessions of the European Parliament. The dataset comes from the European Translation and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC) (Ferraresi and Bernardini 2019). The context provides a rare opportunity to examine the spoken and written registers of professional communication, both mono- and multilingual, in a relatively homogenous setting. First, in the exploratory analysis, I investigate the distribution of different types of cohesive devices across the investigated varieties drawing on mosaic plots and correspondence analysis. Thereafter, I make use of regression modelling of the overall frequency of cohesive devices across the examined varieties to evaluate the effect of constrainedness, mode of delivery, and individual variation. The results indicate that non-native and mediated texts do diverge from native production in the use of cohesive devices, but in different ways.
For decades the notion of universality has perplexed scholars focused on investigating the features that are supposed to typify translations, such as simplification and explicitation. The “quest for universals [which] is no more than the usual search for patterns and generalizations that guides empirical research in general” (Chesterman 2014, 87), has now turned to similar patterns in other forms of language-contact influenced or constrained communication. Blum-Kulka (1986, 19) suggested investigating “different type[s] of interlanguages” including translation and L2 language. Lanstyák and Heltai (2012, 99) hypothesised that translation and non-native production share the main constraint of having to manage two languages and the ensuing “linguistic uncertainty resulting from the parallel activation of two languages.” Non-native production is an example of descriptive language use (i.e., it does not depend on any other text). Any kind of translation, on the other hand, is additionally constrained by interpretive language use, which means that it is dependent on the source text. I use the term ‘mediated’ to refer to such interpretative language use. In this article, I discuss different spoken and written varieties of what may be called constrained language and compare them to unconstrained varieties. Altogether six varieties are examined:
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, edited by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker
2015 “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48.
Bentz, Christian, and Bodo Winter
2014 “Languages with More Second Language Learners Tend to Lose Nominal Case.” In Quantifying Language Dynamics: On the Cutting Edge of Areal and Phylogenetic Linguistics, edited by Søren Wichmann and Jeff Good, 96–124. Leiden: Brill.
Bernardini, Silvia, Adriano Ferraresi, and Maja Miličević
2016 “From EPIC to EPTIC – Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspective.” Target 28 (1): 61–86.
1986 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, edited by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.
Defrancq, Bart, Koen Plevoets, and Cédric Magnifico
2015 “Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation: Where Do They Come From?” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015: Current Approaches to Discourse and Translation Studies, edited by Jesús Romero-Trillo, 195–222. Switzerland: Springer.
2019 “A Many-Sided, Multi-Purpose Corpus of EU Parliament Proceedings.” In Parallel Corpora for Contrastive and Translation Studies: New Resources and Applications, edited by Irene Doval and M. Teresa Sánchez Nieto, 123–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ivaska, Ilmari, Adriano Ferraresi, and Silvia Bernardini
Forthcoming. “Syntactic Properties of Constrained English: A Corpus-Driven Approach.” In Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Translation Studies edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude LeferLondonBloomsbury
2018a “Interpretese vs. Non-Native Language Use: The Case of Optional That.” In Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, edited by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 97–113. Singapore: Springer.
2018b “Translationese, Interpretese and Foreignese – What Do They Have in Common?” Paper delivered at Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 12–14 September 2018.
Kotze, Haidee, Minna Korhonen, Adam Smith, and Bertus van Rooy
Forthcoming. “Salient Differences Between Oral Parliamentary Discourse and its Official Written Records: A Comparison of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Analysis Methods.” In Parliamentary Discourse Across Time and Space: Using Big Data to Study Language and Society edited by Minna Korhonen, Haidee Kotze, and Jukka TyrkköAmsterdamJohn Benjamins
2018 “Alternations in Contact and Non-Contact Varieties: Reconceptualising That-Omission in Translated and Non-Translated English Using the MuPDAR Approach.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1 (2): 251–290.
Lanstyák, István, and Pál Heltai
2012 “Universals in Language Contact and Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 99–121.
2013A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Louwerse, Max M., Philip M. McCarthy, Danielle S. McNamara, and Arthur C. Graesser
2004 “Variation in Language and Cohesion Across Written and Spoken Registers.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 26: 843–848.
2000 “Strange Strings in Translated Language: A Study on Corpora.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome.
2007 “Translation – Transcript – Interpretation: Notes on the European Parliament Verbatim Report of Proceedings.” Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 249–254.
2015The Frequency and Variability of Conjunctive Adjuncts in the Estonian–English Interlanguage Corpus. MA diss. University of Tartu.
2000 “Reporting That in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158.
Ordan, Noam, and Miriam Shlesinger
2012 “More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting.” Target 24 (1): 43–60.
1998 “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570.
2007 “On Shlesinger’s proposed equalizing universal for interpreting.” In Interpreting Studies and Beyond: A Tribute to Miriam Shlesinger, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 175–190, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.
2004 “Explicitation of Clausal Relations: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Clause Connectives in Translated and Non-Translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, edited by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 165–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
R Core Team
2013R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
Rabinovitch, Ella, Sergiu Nisioi, Noam Ordan, and Shuly Wintner
2016 “On the Similarities between Native, Non-Native and Translated Texts.” In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1, edited by Katrin Erk and Noah A. Smith, 1870–1881. Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics.
1988 “Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 1 (2): 106–113.