Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.261-281
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 27 Feb 2021 Revised 15 Mar 2021 Accepted 25 Mar 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202103.261

Function Words as Markers of Translationese: A Corpus-based Approach to Mental Translation in Second Language Writing

Younghee Cheri Lee
Lecturer, Dept. of English Education, Chung-Ang University, Tel: 02-820-5391 cheriberry@cau.ac.kr


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Driven by the linguistic values of closed-class words, this article seeks to provide a multifaceted account of function words as markers of translationese, thereby aiming to reconceptualize the universal trait of translational manifestations found in non-translated L2 writing. To that end, using comparable monolingual English corpora from two different disciplines, this study implemented a two-fold analysis to compare a conventional analytical model (i.e., “all-token variable” of function words) with a modified approach (i.e., “subset variables” of function words). The “all-token” method has been one of the most unstable measures in the studies of translation universals (TU) and still lacks a coherent understanding of how specific function words should be attested in their predictive roles in translationese. As contrasted with conventional TU assumptions, it was evidenced that the “all-token” function words outperformed only in a single domain, a result that distanced from the universal traits of translationese. Instead, as one of the subset variables, auxiliary verbs demonstrated a higher predictive and universal power as a newly attested translationese marker. Thus, this article argues that the notion of translationese should be reframed as “universal” translationese and “domain-specific” translationese, respectively. The rationale lies in that the predictive roles of subset function words have been overshadowed by the inconsistent analytical method implemented in translation studies to date.

Keywords:

function words, translationese, Translation Universals (TU), mental translation, second language (L2) writing, non-nativeness

References

  • Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli, eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, 233-250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak]
  • Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2), 223-243. [https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.03bak]
  • Baker, M. 1996. Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In H. Somers, ed., Terminology, LSP and Translation, 175-186. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak]
  • Baker, M. 2004. A corpus-based view of similarity and difference in translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2), 167-193. [https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.2.02bak]
  • Baker, M. 2007. Patterns of idiomaticity in translated vs. non-translated text. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21(1), 11-21. [https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.21.02bak]
  • Baroni, M. and S. Bernardini. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3), 259-274. [https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqi039]
  • Bangert-Drowns, R., M. M. Hurley and B. Wilkinson. 2004. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 74, 29-58. [https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029]
  • Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Bernardini, S. and F. Zanettin. 2004. When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, eds., Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, 51-62, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.05ber]
  • Bialystok, E., F. Craik and G. Luk. 2008. Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 34(4), 859-873. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.859]
  • Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024]
  • Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871]
  • Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House and S. Blum-Kulka, eds., Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, 17-35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  • Campbell, R. S. and J. W. Pennebaker. 2003. The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing style and physical health. Psychological Science 14, 60-65. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01419]
  • Cao, Y. and R. Xiao. 2013. A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora 8(2), 209-234. [https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0041]
  • Connor, U. 1990. Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 24(1), 67-87.
  • Cook, V. 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42(4), 557-591. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x]
  • Cumming, A. 1990. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7(4), 482-511. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007004003]
  • Chen, J. W. 2006. Explicitation through the Use of Connectives in Translated Chinese: A Corpus-study. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
  • Chesterman, A. 2004a. Beyond the particular. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamaki, eds., Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, 33-49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.04che]
  • Chesterman, A. 2004b. Hypotheses about translation universals. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjar and D. Gile, eds., Claims, Changes, and Challenges in Translation Studies, 1-13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.50.02che]
  • Chesterman, A. 2010. Why study translation universals? In R. Hartama-Heinonen and P. Kukkonen, eds., Kiasm, 38-48. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
  • Chung, C. K. and J. W. Pennebaker. 2012. Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): Pronounced “Luke,”... and other useful facts. In P. M. McCarthy and C. B. Denecke, eds., Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation, and Resolution, 206-229. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012]
  • Chambers, J. K., P. Trudgill and N. Schilling¬Estes. 2004. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. London: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756591]
  • Chung, C. K. and J. W. Pennebaker. 2013. Using computerized text analysis to track social processes. In T. Holtgraves, ed., Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, 219-23. New York, NY: Oxford.
  • Chung, C. K. and J. W. Pennebaker. 2007. The psychological functions of function words. In K. Fiedler, eds., Social Communication, 343-359. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Cobb, T. Vocabulary statistics v.3 [computer program]. Accessed 5 January 2021 at https://www.lextutor.ca/stats/
  • Frawley, W. 1984. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley, ed., Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives, 159-175. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
  • Gaspari, F. and S. Bernardini. 2008. Comparing non-native and translated language: Monolingual Comparable Corpora with a Twist. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive Translation Studies.
  • Gellerstam, M. 1986. Translationese in Swedish novels translated from English. In L. Wollin and H. Lindquist, eds., Translation Studies in Scandinavia, 88-95. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
  • Gellerstam, M. 1996. Translations as a source for cross-linguistic studies. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg and M. Johansson, eds., Languages in Contrast, 53-6. Lund: Lund University Press.
  • Goh, G. Y. 2007. How authentic is the language of Korean middle school English textbooks? A corpus-based analysis. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 7(2), 191-210. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.7.2.200706.191]
  • Goh, G. Y. and Y. C. Lee. 2016. A corpus-based study of translation universals in English translations of Korean newspaper texts. Cross-Cultural Studies 45, 109-143. [https://doi.org/10.21049/ccs.2016.45..109]
  • Goh, G. Y., Y. C. Lee and D. Y. Kim. 2016. A corpus-based study of translation universals in thesis/dissertation abstracts. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 16(4), 819-849. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.16.4.201612.819]
  • Grabowski, L. 2012. On translation universals in selected contemporary Polish literary translations. Studies in Polish Linguistics 7, 165-183.
  • Hartley, J. 2002. Notetaking in non-academic settings: A review. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16, 559-574. [https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.814]
  • Hartley, J., E. Sotto and J. W. Pennebaker. 2002. Style and substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones. Social Studies of Science 32, 321¬334. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002005]
  • Hartmann, R. R. K. and F. C. Stork. 1972. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Essex: Applied Science Publishers.
  • Harwood, N. 2005. We do not seem to have a theory... the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26(3), 343-75. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012]
  • Hayes, J. R. and L. Flower. 1980. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg, eds., Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach, 3-30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Heberlein, A. S., R. Adolphs, J. W. Pennebaker and D. Tranel. 2003. Effects of damage to right-hemisphere brain structures on spontaneous emotional and social judgments. Political Psychology 24, 705-726. [https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00348.x]
  • Hönig, H. G. 1991. Holmes’s ‘mapping theory’ and the landscape of mental translation processes. In M. Kitty, V. Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens, eds., Translation Studies: State of the Art, 77-91. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
  • Hu, X. and R. Xiao. 2014. How different is English translation from native writings of English? A multi-feature statistical model for linguistic variation analysis. In Papers from the 35th ICAME Conference on Corpus Linguistics, Context and Culture, 106-107.
  • Hu, X., R. Xiao and A. Hardie. 2019. How do English translations differ from native English writings? A multi-feature statistical model for linguistic variation analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(2), 347-382. [https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0047]
  • Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773]
  • Illisei, I., D. Inkpen, G. C. Pastor and M. Ruslan. 2010. Identification of translationese: A machine learning approach. In Papers from the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 503-511. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12116-6_43]
  • Kennedy, G. 1988. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
  • Kenny, D. 2001. Lexis and Creativity in Translation. A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
  • Kern, R. 1994. The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 441-461. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013450]
  • Keys, C. W. 1999. Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36, 1044-1061. [https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J]
  • Koppel, M. and N. Ordan. 2011. Translationese and its dialects. Paper presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Kunilovskaya, M. and E. Lapshinova-Koltunski. 2019. Translationese features as indicators of quality in English-Russian human translation. Paper presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics. [https://doi.org/10.26615/issn.2683-0078.2019_006]
  • Kuo, C. 2019. Function words in statistical machine-translated Chinese and original Chinese: A study into the translationese of machine translation systems. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit 34, 752-771. [https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy050]
  • Laufer, B. and I. S. P. Nation. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307-322. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307]
  • Laviosa, S. 1998a. The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in translation studies. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4), 474-479. [https://doi.org/10.7202/003424ar]
  • Laviosa, S. 1998b. Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4), 557-570. [https://doi.org/10.7202/003425ar]
  • Laviosa, S. 2002. Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. New York: Rodopi.
  • Lee, Y. C. 2017. The Hallmarks of L2 Writers’ Texts Viewed through the Prism of Translation Universals: A Corpus-based Approach to English Research Abstracts of Scholarly Journal Articles. Doctoral Dissertation, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
  • Lee, Y. C. 2018. The hallmarks of L2 writing viewed through the prism of translation universals. Linguistic Research 35, 171-205. [https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.35..201809.007]
  • Lee, Y. C. 2019. Spotting non-nativeness in L2 texts: A statistical approach to translationese. Studies in English Language and Literature 45(1), 367-388. [https://doi.org/10.21559/aellk.2019.45.1.017]
  • Malmkjær, K. 2005. Norms and nature in translation studies. Synaps 16, 13-19.
  • Malmkjær, K. 2012. Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37(3), 513-527. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3588402]
  • Mauranen, A. 2007. Universal tendencies in translation. In G. Anderman and M. Rogers, eds., Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator, 32-48. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599873-006]
  • McEnery, T. and A. Wilson. 2001. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • McEnery, T. and R. Xiao. 2007. Quantifying constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. In Papers from the Corpus Linguistics Conference, 27-30.
  • McEnery, T., R. Xiao and Y. Tono. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Newmark, P. 1991. The curse of dogma in translation studies. Lebende Sprachen 36(3), 105-108. [https://doi.org/10.1515/les.1991.36.3.105]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2013. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656]
  • Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640005]
  • Pennebaker, J. and A. Graybeal. 2001. Patterns of natural language use: Disclosure, personality, and social integration. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10, 90-93. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00123]
  • Pennebaker, J. W. 2003. The social, linguistic, and health consequences of emotional disclosure. In J. Suls and K. A. Wallston, eds., Social Psychological Foundations of Health and Illness, 288-313. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753552.ch11]
  • Pennebaker, J. W., R. J. Booth and M. E. Francis. 2007. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: A Text Analysis Program. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
  • Pennebaker, J. W. 2011. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. New York: Bloomsbury Press. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(11)62167-2]
  • Pennebaker, J. W. and C. K. Chung. 2013. Counting little words in big data: The psychology of individuals, communities, culture, and history. In J. Laszlo, J. P. Forgas and O. Vincze, eds., Social Cognition and Communication, 173-184. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Pennebaker, J. W., R. J. Booth, R. L. Boyd and M. E. Francis. 2015. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc.
  • Pennebaker, J. W., R. L. Boyd, K. Jordan and K. G. Blackburn. 2015. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC 2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc.
  • Pennebaker, J. W., M. R. Mehl and K. G. Niederhoffer. 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology 54, 547-577. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041]
  • Pennebaker, J. and L. King. 1999. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6), 1296-1312. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296]
  • Perani, D., D. Stanislas, F. Grassi and J. Mehler. 1996. Brain processing of native and foreign languages. NeuroReport 7(15), 2439-2444. [https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199611040-00007]
  • Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni, eds., Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, 311-328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.75.24pym]
  • Qi, D. S. 1998. An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing processes. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54(3), 413-435. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.3.413]
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Rabinovich, E. and W. Winter. 2015. Unsupervised identification of translationese. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3, 419-432. [https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00148]
  • Ransdell, S. and M.-L. Barbier. 2002. An introduction to new directions for research in L2 writing. In S. Ransdell and M.-L. Barbier, eds., New Directions for Research in L2 Writing, 1-10. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0363-6_1]
  • Secara A. 2005. Translation evaluation: A state of the art survey. In Proceedings of the eCoLoRe-MeLLANGE Workshop, 39-44.
  • Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(3), 209-231. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209]
  • Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tausczik, Y. and J. W. Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(1), 24-54. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676]
  • Toury, G. 1979. Interlanguage and its manifestations in translation. Meta: Translations’ Journal 24(2), 223-231. [https://doi.org/10.7202/004502ar]
  • Toury, G. 1995. Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4]
  • Toury, G. 2004. Probabilistic explanations in translation studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals? In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, eds., Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, 15-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.48.03tou]
  • Uzawa, K. 1996. Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 5, 271-294. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90005-3]
  • Volansky, V., N. Ordan and S. Wintner. 2015. On the features of translationese. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit 30, 98-118. [https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt031]
  • Xiao, R. 2009. How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15, 5-35. [https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia]
  • Xiao, R. and G. Dai. 2014. Lexical and grammatical properties of translational Chinese: Translation universal hypotheses reevaluated from the Chinese perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10, 11-55. [https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0016]
  • Xiao, R. 2015. Contrastive corpus linguistics: Cross-linguistic contrast of English and Chinese. In B. Zou, S. Smith and M. Hoey, eds., Corpus Linguistics in the Chinese Context, 98-113. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440037_3]
  • Wang, W. and Q. Wen. 2002. L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11, 225-246. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00084-X]