Résumés
Abstract
In line with recent studies about register and source language effects on translated language (Delaere, De Sutter, et al. 2012; De Sutter, Delaere, et al. 2012; Kruger and Van Rooy 2012; Delaere and De Sutter 2017), the aim of this paper is twofold: to further investigate the influence of register and source language, and to study any potential influence of the variable “cognateness” on translated language. We focus on specific onomasiological choices (lexical choices) in the semantic field of inchoativity, made by translators into Dutch and attested in corpus observations (Dutch translated texts in the Dutch Parallel Corpus). First, we performed a multinomial regression analysis on our dataset and carried out an Analysis of Deviance to determine whether the predictor variables “source language lexeme” and “register” (“text type”) have a significant influence on the response variable (the set of lexemes representing the onomasiological choice range in translated Dutch inchoativity). Doing a second multinomial regression analysis, followed by an Analysis of Deviance, we investigate the influence of the new variable “cognateness” on the translator’s onomasiological choice (in the target language). Classification trees were generated as statistics-based visualizations of onomasiological choice in translated Dutch (translated from French and translated from English) within the semantic field of inchoativity. The results of the statistical analyses show that register, source language, and cognateness significantly influence the specific lexical choices made by translators. In addition, the visualizations show how the onomasiological choice for some target lexemes can be predicted on the basis of a single source language lexeme, while other choices are more complex, and will also be determined by the register of the text.
Keywords:
- corpus-based,
- onomasiological choice,
- multinomial regression,
- inchoativity,
- classification tree
Résumé
À l’instar de plusieurs études récentes qui se sont penchées sur les effets de registre et de la langue source sur la langue traduite (Delaere, De Sutter, et al. 2012 ; De Sutter, Delaere, et al. 2012 ; Kruger et Van Rooy 2012 ; Delaere et De Sutter 2017), l’objectif du présent article est d’étudier davantage les influences possibles du registre et de la langue source ainsi que l’influence potentielle de la variable « degré d’apparentement » sur la langue traduite. Nous nous concentrons sur des choix onomasiologiques spécifiques (choix lexicaux) dans le champ sémantique de l’inchoativité, choix effectués par des traducteurs traduisant vers le néerlandais et attestés par des observations sur un corpus (textes traduits vers le néerlandais extraits du Dutch Parallel Corpus). Tout d’abord, nous effectuons une analyse de régression multinomiale sur l’ensemble des données. Ensuite une analyse de déviance est réalisée afin de déterminer si les variables prédictives « lexème » et « registre de la langue source » (type de texte) ont une influence significative sur la variable réponse (l’ensemble des lexèmes qui représentent les choix onomasiologiques éventuels pour exprimer l’inchoativité en néerlandais traduit). Avec une deuxième analyse de régression multinomiale suivie d’une analyse de déviance, nous étudions l’influence de la nouvelle variable « degré d’apparentement » sur le choix onomasiologique du traducteur (dans la langue cible). Des arbres de classification sont ensuite générés en tant que visualisations statistiques du choix onomasiologique en néerlandais traduit (traduit du français et traduit de l’anglais) dans le domaine sémantique de l’inchoativité. Les résultats des analyses statistiques montrent que le registre, la langue source et le degré d’apparentement influencent de manière significative les choix lexicaux spécifiques faits par les traducteurs. De plus, les visualisations montrent comment le choix onomasiologique pour certains lexèmes cibles peut être prédit sur la base du simple lexème de la langue source, alors que d’autres choix sont plus complexes et sont également déterminés par le registre du texte.
Mots-clés :
- étude sur corpus,
- choix onomasiologique,
- régression multinomiale,
- inchoativité,
- arbre de classification
Resumen
Al igual que varios estudios recientes sobre el registro y los efectos del idioma de partida en el idioma traducido (Delaere et al. 2012; De Sutter et al. 2012; Kruger y Van Rooy 2012; Delaere y De Sutter 2017), el objetivo de este artículo es investigar la influencia del registro y del idioma de partida en el idioma traducido así como la influencia potencial de la variable «grado de parentesco» en este mismo idioma traducido. Nos focalizamos en las opciones onomasiológicas específicas (opciones léxicas) en el campo semántico de la incoatividad, realizadas por traductores traduciendo hacia el neerlandés y confirmadas en observaciones de corpus (textos traducidos hacia el neerlandés extraídos del Dutch Parallel Corpus). Primero, realizamos un análisis de regresión multinomial seguido por un análisis de desviación para determinar si las variables predictoras «lexema» y «registro del lenguaje de partida» (tipo de texto) tienen una influencia significativa en la variable de respuesta (el conjunto de lexemas representando la oferta de opciones onomásiológicas en el campo de la incoatividad, traducida hacia el neerlandés). Con un segundo análisis de regresión multinomial seguido de un análisis de desviación, investigamos la influencia de la nueva variable «grado de parentesco» en la elección onomasiológica del traductor (en el idioma de destino). Generamos árboles de clasificación con el fin de ofrecer unas visualizaciones estadísticas de elección onomasiológica en neerlandés traducido (traducido del francés y traducido del inglés) dentro del campo semántico de la incoatividad. Los resultados de los análisis estadísticos muestran que el registro, el idioma de partido y el grado de parentesco influyen significativamente en las elecciones léxicas específicas de los traductores. Además, las visualizaciones muestran cómo se puede predecir algunas de las elecciónes onomasiológicas a partir del lexema en la lengua de partida, mientras que otras opciones son más complejas, y también estarán determinadas por el registro del texto.
Palabras clave:
- estudio basado en datos de corpus,
- elección onomasológica,
- regresión multinomial,
- incoatividad,
- árbol de clasificación
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan (2003): Register Variation: A Corpus Approach. In: Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 175-96.
- Costa, Albert, Colomé Angels, and Caramazza, Alfonso (2000): Lexical Access in Speech Production. The Bilingual Case. Psicológica. 21:403-37.
- Chesterman, Andrew (2004): Hypotheses About Translation Universals. In: Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjaer and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-13.
- Delaere, Isabelle, De Sutter, Gert, and Plevoets, Koen (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):203-24.
- Delaere, Isabelle and De Sutter, Gert (2017): Variability of English Loanword Use in Belgian Dutch Translations. Measuring the Effect of Source Language and Register. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 81-112.
- De Sutter, Gert, Delaere, Isabelle, and Plevoets, Koen (2012): Lexical Lectometry in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Combining Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modeling. In: Michael Oakes and Ji Meng, eds. Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 325-45.
- Divjak, Dagmar and Fieller, Nick (2014): Cluster Analysis. Finding Structure in Linguistic Data. In: Dylan Glynn and Justyna Robinson, eds. Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 405-41.
- Diwersy, Sascha, Evert, Stefan, and Neumann, Stella (2014): A Weakly Supervised Multivariate Approach to the Study of Language Variation. In: Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Bernhard Wälchli, eds. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis. Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 174-204.
- Dyvik, Helge (2004): Translations as Semantic Mirrors. From Parallel Corpus to Wordnet. In: Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, eds. Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 311-26.
- Dyvik, Helge (2005): Translations as a Semantic Knowledge Source. In: Margit Langemets and Priit Penjam, eds. Proceedings of the Second Baltic Conference on Human Language Technologies. (HLT’2005: Second Baltic Conference on Human Language Technologies, Tallinn, 4-5 April 2005). Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian Language/Institute of Cybernetics (Tallinn University), 27-38.
- Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy, and Field, Zoë (2012): Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage Publications.
- Geeraerts, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stef, and Bakema, Peter (1994): The Structure of Lexical Variation. Meaning, Naming, and Context. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Halverson, Sandra L. (2015): Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms. The Case of ‘literal Translation.’ Translation Spaces. 4(2):310-40.
- Halverson, Sandra L. (2017): Gravitational Pull in Translation. Testing a Revised Model. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Hansen-Schirra, Silvia (2011): Between Normalization and Shining-Through. Specific Properties of English-German Translations and Their Influence on the Target Language. In: Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, et al., eds. Multilingual Discourse Production. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-62.
- Ivir, Vladimir (1987): Functionalism in Contrastive Analysis and Translation Studies. In: René Dirven and Vilém Fried, eds. Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 471-81.
- Kruger, Haidee, and Van Rooy, Bertus (2012): Register and the Features of Translated Language. Across Languages and Cultures. 13(1):33-65.
- Kruger, Haidee (2017): The Effects of Editorial Intervention. Implications for Studies of the Features of Translated Language. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina (2017): Exploratory Analysis of Dimensions Influencing Variation in Translation. The Case of Text Register and Translation Method. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Levenshtein, Vladimir (1966): Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady. 10(8):707-10.
- Macken, Lieve, De Clercq, Orphée, and Paulussen Hans (2011): Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus. Meta. 56(2):374-90.
- Mauranen, Anna (2008): Universal Tendencies in Translation. In: Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, eds. Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator. Clevedon/Tonawanda: Multilingual Matters, 32-48.
- Malkiel, Brenda (2009): Translation as a Decision Process. Evidence from Cognates. Babel. 55(3):228-43.
- Neumann, Stella (2014): Contrastive Register Variation, A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Paulussen, Hans, Macken, Lieve, Vandeweghe, Willy, et al. (2013): Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Parallel Corpus for Dutch-English and Dutch-French. In: Peter Spyns and Jan Odijk, eds. Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Results by the STEVIN Programme. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer, 185-99.
- Schepens, Job, Dijkstra, Ton, and Grootjen, Franc (2012). Distributions of Cognates in Europe as Based on Levenshtein Distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15(1):157-66.
- Schepens, Job, Dijkstra, Ton, Grootjen, Franc, et al. (2013). Cross-Language Distributions of High Frequency and Phonetically Similar Cognates. PLoS ONE. 8(5):e63006.
- Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1813/2004): On the Different Methods of Translating. (Translated by Susan Bernofsky) In: Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 43-63.
- Shlesinger, Miriam and Malkiel, Brenda (2005): Comparing Modalities: Cognates as a Case in Point. Across Languages and Cultures. 6(2):173-93.
- Teich, Elke (2003). Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Vandevoorde, Lore (2016): On Semantic Differences: A Multivariate Corpus-Based Study of the Semantic Field of Inchoativity in Translated and Non-Translated Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Ghent: Ghent University.
- Vandevoorde, Lore, Lefever, Els, Plevoets, Koen, et al. (2017): A Corpus-Based Study of Semantic Differences in Translation. The Case of Dutch Inchoativity. Target. 29(3): 388-415.
- Vandevoorde, Lore (forthcoming): Semantic Differences in Translation: Exploring the Field of Inchoativity. Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing. Berlin: Language Science Press.
- Xiao, Richard (2010): How Different Is Translated Chinese from Native Chinese? A Corpus-Based Study of Translation Universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 15(1):5-35.
10.7202/1006182ar