A corpus-based study of the mediation effect in translated and edited language

Haidee Kruger

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study investigating the hypothesis that the recurrent features, or universals, of translated language are primarily the result of a mediation process that is shared among different kinds of mediated language, rather than the particularities of bilingual language processing. The investigation made use of a comparable corpus consisting of a subcorpus of English texts translated from Afrikaans, a subcorpus of comparable edited English texts, and a subcorpus of comparable unedited (and also untranslated) English texts. The frequency and distribution of linguistic features associated with three of the universals of translated language (explicitation, normalisation/conservatism, and simplification) across the three subcorpora were analysed. The study was guided by the hypothesis that the frequency and distribution of linguistic features associated with the universals of translated language would demonstrate similarities in the two subcorpora of mediated text (i.e., the translated and edited subcorpus), as compared to the subcorpus of unmediated text (i.e., the unedited subcorpus). However, the study yields almost no evidence for a mediation effect that is shared by translated and edited language, at least not along the linguistic features investigated. There is, however, evidence for what appears to be a separate translation-specific effect, which seems likely to be more unconscious, more proceduralised and more related to the linguistic level alone. This offers some support for the hypothesis of universals of translated language that are unique to this kind of text mediation specifically. Furthermore, the findings of the study suggest that editing may involve a different kind of mediation effect altogether, which frequently remains invisible in conventional corpus-based studies comparing translated and non-translated language, and which requires further investigation.

Keywords
Table of contents

In the mid-1990s, Baker (1993, 1995, 1996) proposed four ‘universals’ of translated language: explicitation, simplification, normalisation/conservatism, and levelling out (see Olohan 2004; Zanettin 2012 for overviews). These ‘universals’ are defined as characteristics that all translated texts share, regardless of the language pair involved, the text type, or the context in which the translation takes place (Chesterman 2004, 3). Baker also suggested a new method for investigating these universals, namely the analysis of comparable corpora of translated and non-translated texts in the same language. In the almost two decades since the original hypotheses, there have been numerous corpus-based studies investigating these proposed universals. While there has been some variation in findings, and the method itself has been questioned (see Pym 2008), findings have indicated support for at least some of the hypotheses (see, amongst others, Baker 2004, 2007; Laviosa 1998; Mauranen 2000; Mutesayire 2004; Olohan and Baker 2000; Pápai 2004).

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.

[ p. 385 ]References

Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
2010 “Translation Units and Grammatical Shifts: Towards an Integration of Product- and Process-based Translation Research”. In Translation and Cognition, ed. by Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications”. In Text and Technology:Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 17–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and some Suggestions for Future Research”. Target 7 (2): 223–243.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges that Lie Ahead”. In Translation: Studies in Language Engineering, in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (2): 167–193.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Patterns of Idiomaticity in Translated vs. Non-translated Text”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21 (1): 11–21.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, Bernd Meyer, and Demet Özçetin
2008 “Explicitness in Translation and Interpreting: A Critical Review and some Empirical Evidence (of an Elusive Concept)”. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2): 177–203.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer-Hohenwarter, Gerrit
2011 “ ‘Creative Shifts’ as a Means of Measuring and Promoting Translational Creativity”. Meta 56 (3): 663–692.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor
2010 “Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-inherent’ Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies”. Across Languages and Cultures 11 (1): 1–28.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia
2007 “Collocations in Translated Language: Combining Parallel, Comparable and Reference Corpora”. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2007), University of Birmingham, UK 27–30 July 2007, ed. by Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston, and Pernilla Danielssonhttp://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/publications​/CL2007​/paper​/15​_Paper​.pdf
2011 “Monolingual Comparable Corpora and Parallel Corpora in the Search for Features of Translated Language”. SYNAPS: A Journal of Professional Communication 26: 2–13.Google 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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Frederico Zanettin
2004 “When is a Universal not a Universal? Some Limits of Current Corpus-based Methodologies for the Investigation of Translation Universals”. In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranan and P. Kujamäki, 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1991Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
[ p. 386 ]
Butcher, Judith, Caroline Drake, and Maureen Leach
2006Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1993 “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies”. Target 5 (1): 1–20.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1997Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Teaching Strategies for Emancipatory Translation”. In Developing Translation Competence, ed. by Christina, Schäffner and Beverly Adab, 77–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Hypotheses about Translation Universals”. In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne
2009 “Towards a Model of Translation Competence and its Acquisition: The Longitudinal Study ‘TransComp’”. In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, ed. by Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, and Inger M. Mees, 11–37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. Google Scholar
2011 “Exploring Translation Competence Acquisition: Criteria of Analysis put to the Test”. In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 57–85. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
2003 “The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals”. Target 15 (2): 197–241.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
http://ice-corpora.net/ice/index.htm.
International Corpus of English: Home page.
http://ice-corpora.net/ice/design.htm.
International Corpus of English: Corpus Design.
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
2000 “Focus on Methodology in Think-aloud Studies in Translating”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research, ed. by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 71–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy
2001Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, and Bertus van Rooy
2012 “Register and the Features of Translated Language”. Across Languages and Cultures 13 (1): 33–65.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
1995Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, Sara
1997 “How Comparable can Comparable Corpora be?Target 9 (2): 289–319.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose”. Meta 43 (4): 557–570.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2000 “Strange Strings in Translated Language: A study on Corpora”. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies—Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 119–141. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Pekka Kujamäki
(eds) 2004Translation Universals: Do they Exist?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Casey, and Kate Swift
1995The Handbook of Non-sexist Writing for Writers,Editors and Speakers. London: Women’s Press. Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2009 “Expertise and Environment in Translation”. Mutatis mutandis 2 (1): 24–37.Google Scholar
[ p. 387 ]
Mutesayire, Martha
2004 “Apposition Markers and Explicitation: A Corpus-based Study”. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa 35 (1): 54–69.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Dalene
2003Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z. Cape Town: Pharos. 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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
2003 “How Frequent are the Contractions? A Study of Contracted Forms in the Translational English Corpus”. Target 15 (2): 59–89.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
PACTE
2003 “Building a Translation Competence Model”. In Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, ed. by Fabio Alves, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues”. Meta 50 (2): 609–619.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment: Knowledge of Translation and Efficacy of the Translation Process”. In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, ed. by John Kearns, 104–126. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
2011 “Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Project and Dynamic Translation Index”. In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, ed. by Sharon O’Brien, 30–56. London: Continuum. Google Scholar
Pápai, Vilma
2004 “Explicitation: A Universal of Translated Text?” In Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, ed. by Anna Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2005 “Explaining Explicitation”. In New Trends in Translation Studies:Honour of Kinga Klaudy, ed. by Krisztina Károly and Ágota, Fóris, 29–45. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar
2008 “On Toury’s Laws of how Translators Translate”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Douglas
2003Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Translation. London: Routledge. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike
2008WordSmith Tools, version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. http://​www​.lexically​.net​/wordsmith​/version5​/index​.html
Schwartz, Marilyn
1995Guidelines for Bias-free Writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M.
2006 “The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise”. Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1): 27–42.Google Scholar
StatSoft Inc
2011Statistica (data analysis software system), version 10. www​.statsoft​.com
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Universals—or a Challenge to the Very Concept?” In Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001, ed. byGyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær, and Daniel Gile, 15–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, Margherita, and Amanda Murphy
2008 “Descriptive Translation Studies and the Use of Corpora: Investigating Mediation Universals”. In Corpora for University Language Teachers, ed. by Carol Taylor Torsello, Katherine Ackerley, and Erik Castello, 141–166. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
Westin, Ingrid
2002Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 388 ]
Williams, Donna A.
2005Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada: A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Ottawa. http://​www​.scribd​.com​/doc​/7630845​/Recurrent​-Features​-of​-Translation​-in​-Canada​-a​-Corpus​-Based​-Study.
Zanettin, Frederico
2012Translation-driven Corpora. Manchester: St Jerome. Google Scholar