The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp. 261-281
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
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
1. 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.
2. Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2), 223-243.
3. 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.
4. Baker, M. 2004. A corpus-based view of similarity and difference in translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2), 167-193.
5. Baker, M. 2007. Patterns of idiomaticity in translated vs. non-translated text. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21(1), 11-21.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Connor, U. 1990. Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 24(1), 67-87.
17. Cook, V. 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42(4), 557-591.
18. Cumming, A. 1990. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7(4), 482-511.
19. Chen, J. W. 2006. Explicitation through the Use of Connectives in Translated Chinese: A Corpus-study. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
20. Chesterman, A. 2004a. Beyond the particular. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamaki, eds., Translation Universals: Do They Exist?, 33-49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
21. 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.
22. Chesterman, A. 2010. Why study translation universals? In R. Hartama-Heinonen and P. Kukkonen, eds., Kiasm, 38-48. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
23. 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.
24. Chambers, J. K., P. Trudgill and N. Schilling¬Estes. 2004. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. London: Blackwell.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Cobb, T. Vocabulary statistics v.3 [computer program]. Accessed 5 January 2021 at https://www.lextutor.ca/stats/
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Grabowski, L. 2012. On translation universals in selected contemporary Polish literary translations. Studies in Polish Linguistics 7, 165-183.
36. Hartley, J. 2002. Notetaking in non-academic settings: A review. Applied Cognitive Psychology 16, 559-574.
37. 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.
38. Hartmann, R. R. K. and F. C. Stork. 1972. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Essex: Applied Science Publishers.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. 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.
47. Kennedy, G. 1988. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
48. Kenny, D. 2001. Lexis and Creativity in Translation. A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
49. Kern, R. 1994. The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 441-461.
50. 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.
51. Koppel, M. and N. Ordan. 2011. Translationese and its dialects. Paper presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Laufer, B. and I. S. P. Nation. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 307-322.
55. Laviosa, S. 1998a. The corpus-based approach: A new paradigm in translation studies. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4), 474-479.
56. Laviosa, S. 1998b. Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4), 557-570.
57. Laviosa, S. 2002. Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. New York: Rodopi.
58. 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.
59. Lee, Y. C. 2018. The hallmarks of L2 writing viewed through the prism of translation universals. Linguistic Research 35, 171-205.
60. 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.
61. Malmkjær, K. 2005. Norms and nature in translation studies. Synaps 16, 13-19.
62. Malmkjær, K. 2012. Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63. Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37(3), 513-527.
64. 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.
65. McEnery, T. and A. Wilson. 2001. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
66. 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.
67. McEnery, T., R. Xiao and Y. Tono. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge.
68. Newmark, P. 1991. The curse of dogma in translation studies. Lebende Sprachen 36(3), 105-108.
69. Nation, I. S. P. 2013. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
71. Pennebaker, J. and A. Graybeal. 2001. Patterns of natural language use: Disclosure, personality, and social integration. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10, 90-93.
72. 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.
73. Pennebaker, J. W., R. J. Booth and M. E. Francis. 2007. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: A Text Analysis Program. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
74. Pennebaker, J. W. 2011. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Pennebaker, J. and L. King. 1999. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6), 1296-1312.
80. Perani, D., D. Stanislas, F. Grassi and J. Mehler. 1996. Brain processing of native and foreign languages. NeuroReport 7(15), 2439-2444.
81. 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.
82. Qi, D. S. 1998. An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing processes. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54(3), 413-435.
83. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
84. Rabinovich, E. and W. Winter. 2015. Unsupervised identification of translationese. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3, 419-432.
85. 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.
86. Secara A. 2005. Translation evaluation: A state of the art survey. In Proceedings of the eCoLoRe-MeLLANGE Workshop, 39-44.
87. Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(3), 209-231.
88. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
89. 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.
90. Toury, G. 1979. Interlanguage and its manifestations in translation. Meta: Translations’ Journal 24(2), 223-231.
91. Toury, G. 1995. Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. Volansky, V., N. Ordan and S. Wintner. 2015. On the features of translationese. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit 30, 98-118.
95. Xiao, R. 2009. How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15, 5-35.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.