Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Using profile-based correspondence analysis for measuring linguistic distances between language varieties.

Isabelle Delaere, Gert De Sutter and Koen Plevoets
Ghent University | University College Ghent
Abstract

With this article, we seek to support the law of growing standardization by showing that texts translated into Belgian Dutch make more use of standard language than non-translated Belgian Dutch texts. Additionally, we want to examine whether the use of standard vs. non-standard language can be attributed to the variables text type and source language. In order to achieve that goal, we gathered a diverse set of linguistic variables and used a 10-million-word corpus that is parallel, comparable and bidirectional (the Dutch Parallel Corpus; Macken et al. 2011). The frequency counts for each of the variables are used to determine the differences in standard language use by means of profile-based correspondence analysis (Plevoets 2008). The results of our analysis show that (i) in general, there is indeed a standardizing trend among translations and (ii) text types with a lot of editorial control (fiction, non-fiction and journalistic texts) contain more standard language than the less edited text types (administrative texts and external communication) which adds support for the idea that the differences between translated and non-translated texts are text type dependent.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Much corpus-based research in translation studies aims to show that in translated language, as opposed to non-translated language, certain universal linguistic features of translation can be detected, irrespective of the source language (Baker [ p. 204 ]1993). Baker (1993, 243) mentions a number of “features which seem, intuitively, to be linked to the nature of the translation process rather than to the confrontation of specific linguistic systems”. The features include the idea that in translated texts there is more explicitness and less ambiguity, that there is a preference for conventional grammaticality, a tendency to avoid repetition and a tendency to exaggerate features of the target language.

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

Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 222 ]
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
Ben-Shahar, Rina
1994 “Translating Literary Dialogue: A Problem and its Implications for Translation into Hebrew.” Target 6 (2): 195–212.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Adriano Ferraresi
2011 “Practice, Description and Theory Come Together: Normalization or Interference in Italian Technical Translation?” Meta 56 (2): 226–246.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bush, Peter
2001 “Literary Translation — Practices.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 127–130. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1997 Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert, Isabelle Delaere, and Koen Plevoets
2012 “Lexical Lectometry in Corpusbased Translation Studies. Combining Profile-based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modelling.” In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research, ed. by Michael P. Oakes and Ji Meng, 325–345. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Speelman
1999 Convergentie en divergentie in de nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael
2007 Correspondence Analysis in Practice 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
1998 “Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually do with Words.” Meta 43 (4): 515–523.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Lexical Hide-and-Seek: Looking for Creativity in a Parallel Corpus.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 93–104. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Landauer, Thomas, and Susan Dumais
1997 “A Solution to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and the Representation of Knowledge.” Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240.   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
Malmkjær, Kirsten
1997 “Punctuation in Hans Christian Andersen’s Stories and in their Translations into English.” In Nonverbal Communication and Translation, ed. by Fernando Poyatos, 151–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2008 “Universal Tendencies in Translation.” In Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, ed. by Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, 32–48. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
May, Rachel
1997 “Sensible Elocution: How Translation Works in & upon Punctuation.” The Translator 3 (1): 1–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Stella
2011 Contrastive Register Variation. A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2008 “Scientific and Technical Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Second Edition, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 240–43. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Mona Baker
2000 “Reporting that in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?” Across Languages and Cultures 1 (2): 141–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 223 ]
Øverås, Linn
1998 “In Search of the Third Code. An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43 (4): 557–570.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penninckx, Willy, Paul Buyse, and Willy Smedts
2001 Correct taalgebruik. Kortrijk-Heule: UGA.Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen
2008 Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch–Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
In progress “The Correspondence Analysis of Linguistic Profiles.”Google Scholar
Plevoets, Koen, Dirk Speelman, and Dirk Geeraerts
2007 “The Distribution of t/v Pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.” In Variational Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Barron, 181–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, Tiina
2003 “Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children’s Literature.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 18 (4): 389–406.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2008 “On Toury’s Laws of how Translators Translate.” In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Investigations in Honor of Gideon Toury, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiczigel, Jeno
1996 “Bootstrap Tests in Correspondence Analysis.” Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis 12 (2): 107–117.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salton, Gerard, Andrew Wong, and Chung-Shu Yang
1975 “A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing.” Communications of the ACM 18 (1): 613–620.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Nelia
1998 Normalisation and Readers’ Expectations: A Study of Literary Translation with Reference to Lispector’s A Hora Da Estrela. Doctoral dissertation. University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Dirk Geeraerts
2003 “Profile-based Linguistic Uniformity as a Generic Method for Comparing Language Varieties.” Computers and the Humanities 37 (3): 317–337.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Erich
2001 “Translations English-German: Investigating the Relative Importance of Systemic Contrasts and of the Text Type ‘translation’.” SPRIKreports 7: 1–49.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic
2000 “Conventionality, Creativity, and Translated Text: The Implications of Electronic Corpora in Translation.” In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 73–91. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Strang, Gilbert
2009 Introduction to Linear Algebra. Wellesley: Wellesley-Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Teich, Elke
2003 Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985 Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a “Minority” Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar