Lexical and Morphological Features of Translational Lithuanian

Open access

Summary

In Lithuanian public and academic discourse, discussions about the influence of English have received considerable attention. Much has been written on the English borrowings in Lithuanian or various translation strategies applied at word, phrase or syntactic levels of language, whereas there have been only few attempts to investigate how Lithuanian translated from English differs from original language. This is why we found it interesting to investigate lexical an morphological features of translated Lithuanian applying the methods of corpus liguistics. For research purposes, we used a morphologically annotated comparable 4 mln. word corpus of original and translated fiction and popular science literature ORVELIT. It has been found that translations deviate in certain ways from original Lithuanian. Translated Lithuanian has: a lower lexical density, higher proportion of function words, shorter sentences, and higher proportion of list heads; translated fiction has a lower lexical variability and smaller proportion of low frequency words, whereas in popular science translations, these differences are less evident. Keyword analysis has shown content differences in originals and translations and the overuse of personal and possessive pronouns in popular science translations. The distribution of content and function words differs in originals and translations and in different registers. Translated Lithuanian has: more verbs (especially finite forms and adverbial participles), but less nouns and adjectives; fiction translations have less and popular science more adverbs than originals; there are more pronouns and prepositions in both popular science and fiction translations; depending on the register, there are higher or lower numbers of conjunctions, particles and interjections. Some of the differences may be explained by the English language interference as: the overuse of the optional 1st person pronoun in subject position, the overuse of optional preposition “su” with instrumental case, or the overuse of optional link verb in the complex predicate. In other words, the English influence is seen in transferring certain features obligatory for analytical language where omission would be a more natural choice in original Lithuanian. These findings in most cases agree with the previous research on translationese of other languages. It is hoped that the identified tendencies to over- or under-use certain lexical and morphological features as a result of English language interference might appear to be useful when editing and translating.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ambrazas V. (2006). Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

  • Bielinskienė A. Boizou L. Rimkutė E. (2017). Lietuvių kalbos morfologiškai ir sintaksiškai anotuoti tekstynai. Bendrinė kalba [elektroninis išteklius] 90 1–30.

  • Boizou L. Kapočiūtė-Dzikienė J. Rimkutė E. (2018). Deeper error analysis of Lithuanian morphological analyzers. Human language technologies - the Baltic perspective: proceedings of the 8th international conference Baltic HLT. Amsterdam/Berlin: IOS Press 18–25.

  • Brezina V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Brinkutė R. (2017). Gramatinių kategorijų pasiskirstymas morfologiškai anotuotame lietuvių kalbos tekstyne. Magistro darbas. Kaunas: VDU.

  • Dabašinskienė I. (2009). Šnekamosios lietuvių kalbos morfologinės ypatybės. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LX (90) 1–15.

  • Judžentis A. (2012). Lietuvių kalbos gramatinės kategorijos. Vilnius: VU leidykla.

  • Kapočiūtė-Dzikienė J. Rimkutė E. & Boizou L. (2017). A Comparison of Lithuanian morphological analyzers. K. Ekštein & V. Matoušek the Proceedings of the TSD 2017: Text Speech and Dialogue: 20th International Conference. Springer 47–56.

  • Kunilovskaya M. Morgoun N. Pariy A. (2018). Learner vs. professional translations into Russian: Lexical profiles. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research 10 (1) 33–52.

  • Laviosa S. (1998). Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta 43(4) 557–570.

  • Marcinkevičienė R. Kovalevskaitė J. Utka A. & Vaičenonienė J. (2012). An overview of multilingual processing for Lithuanian. Red. Cristina Vertan Walther v. Hahn. Multilingual processing in Eastern and Southern EU languages: low-resourced technologies and translation / Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 119–143.

  • Pažūsis L. (2014). Kalba ir vertimas. Vilniaus universitetas.

  • Radvilavičiūtė G. (2014). Draugiška aplinka anglų kalbai lietuvių galvose ir burnose. Prieiga per internetą:http://literaturairmenas.lt/2014-09-05-nr-3486/1963-publicistika/3093-giedra-radvilaviciute-draugiskaaplinka-anglu-kalbai-lietuviu-galvose-ir-burnose

  • Rimkutė E. (2006). Morfologinio daugiareikšmiškumo ribojimas kompiuteriniame tekstyne. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.

  • Rudaitienė V. (2014). Kalbų kontaktai ir lietuvių kalbos tradicija. Žmogus ir žodis 16(3) 111–121. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.zmogusirzodis.leu.lt/index.php/zmogusirzodis/article/viewFile/88/85

  • Scott M. (2016). WordSmith Tools Version 7 Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

  • Stubbs M. (1986). Lexical density: A technique and some findings. M. Coulthard Talking about text. Discourse Analysis 13 English Language Research (pp. 27–42). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

  • Stubbs M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-aided studies of language and culture. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

  • Tekorienė D. (2000). Anglų kalbos gramatika vidurinėms mokykloms. Vilnius: Vaga.

  • Tekorienė D. (2011). Lietuvių kalbos padalyvių ir pusdalyvių atitikmenys anglų kalboje. Vilnius: VU leidykla. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.esparama.lt/es_parama_pletra/failai/ESFproduktai/2011_Mokomoji_knyga_Pusdalyvio_ir_padalyvio_konstrukciju_vertimas.pdf

  • Vaičenonienė J. Kovalevskaitė J. & Ringailienė T. (2017). Tekstynais paremti vertimų kalbos tyrimai ir šaltiniai. Kalbų studijos 30 42–55. Vaičenonienė J. (2014). How relevant is the distinction between the original and translated texts in general corpora? Human Language Technologies – The Baltic Perspective (pp. 248–256). Amsterdam/Berlin: IOS Press.

  • Xiao R. & Hu X. (2015). Corpus-based studies of translational Chinese in English-Chinese translation. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Xiao R. & Dai G. (2014). Lexical and grammatical properties of translational Chinese: Translation universal hypotheses reevaluated from the Chinese perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory10(1) 11–55. Prieiga per internetą: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/64330/1/02_Xiao_and_Dai.pdf

Search