Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 items :

  • "Corpus-based translation studies" x
Clear All

Press. Dimitrova, Brigitta, Englund. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins House, Juliane. 1977. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Kaibao, Hu. 2016. Introducing Corpus-based Translation Studies. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Kruger, Alet, Wallmach Kim, Jeremy Munday (Eds). 2011. Corpus-Based Translation Studies Research and Applications. New York: Continuum. Laviosa, Sara. 2003. “Corpus-based translation studies: Where does it come from? Where is it going?” in

. Corpus-based translation studies: The challenges that lie ahead. In: Sager, Juan C.-Somers, H. L. (eds), Terminology, LSP, and translation studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 175-186. Blakemore, D. 2006. Discourse markers. In: Horn, Laurence R.-Ward, L. Gregory (eds), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 221-240. Olohan, M.-Baker, M. 2000. Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2): 141-158. Becher, V. 2011. When

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.

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 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233-250. BAKER, M., 1995. Corpora in Translation Studies An Overview and Some Suggestions for Future Research. Target 7:2, pp. 223–243.. BAKER, M., 1996. Corpus-based Translation Studies. The Challenges that Lie Ahead. In H. Somers, ed. Terminology, LSP and Translation . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175-86. BAKER, M., 1999

]. Milan: Giuffrè. Giampieri, Patrizia. 2018a. Online parallel and comparable corpora for legal translations. Altre Modernità, 20 : 237-252. Giampieri, Patrizia. 2018b. The web as corpus and online corpora for legal translations. Comparative Legilinguistics 33 : 35-55. Laursen, Anne Lise and Ismael Arinas Pellón. 2012. Text Corpora in Translator Training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6(1) : 45-70. Laviosa, Sara. 2002. Corpus-based Translation Studies. Theory, Findings, Applications . Ámsterdam / Nueva York: Rodopi. Makowska Aleksandra. 2016. Creating

. Klein, W. (1985). Ellipse, Fokusgliederung und thematischer Stand. In Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke (1)31. Meyer-Herrmann, R. & Rieser, H. (eds.). Tübingen: Niemeyer, p. 1-24. Kunz, K., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Menzel, K. et al. (forthcoming). GECCo - an empirically-based comparison of English-German cohesion. In New ways of analysing translational behaviour in corpus-based translation studies. TILSM series. De Sutter, G., Delaere, I. & Lefer, M.-A. (eds.). Mouton de Gruyter. Duden-Online: 'Ellipse' Available at: http://www.duden.de/node/664771/revisions

author of Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, findings, applications (Brill/Rodopi, 2002). Her recent publications include two monographs, Translation and Language Education: Pedagogic approaches explored (Routledge, 2014), and Linking Wor(l)ds: Contrastive analysis and translation, with a Digital Workbook, Practising English Vocabulary and Grammar, by Richard D.G. Braithwaite (Liguori, 2014). She is also Guest Editor of Translation in the Language Classroom: Theory, research and practice (Special Issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, Volume 8

, Jessica E. The reading of Formulaic Sequences in a Native and Non-native Language: An Eye Movement Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Arizona, 2007. Print. Gile, Daniel. “Translation Research Versus Interpreting Research”. Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Ed. Christina Schäffner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2004. 10-34. Print. Ji, Meng and Michael P. Oakes. “A Corpus Study of Early English Translations of Cao Xueqin’s Hongloumeng”. Quantitative Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies. Eds. Michael P. Oakes and Meng Ji. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2012

Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, ss. 1318-1326. Laviosa, Sara. 2002. Corpus-based Translation studies. Theory, Findings, applications. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi. (M): Malmsten, Bodil. 1999. Efter konferensen. I: Malmsten, Bodil Undergångarens sånger. Stockholm: Bok för alla. Malmkjær, Kirsten. 1998. Love thy neighbour: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators. Meta 43 (4), ss. 534-541. -2008. Norms and Nature in Translation Studies. I: Anderman, Gunilla & Margaret

. 2002. Corpus-based translation studies: Theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lee, Changsoo. 2013. Using lexical bundle analysis as discovery tool for corpus- based translation research. Perspectives 21(3): 378-395. Mauranen, Anna. 1998. Form and sense relations as seen through parallel corpora. In W. Teubert, E. Tognini-Bonelli and N. Volz (eds.). Proceedings of the Third European Seminar “Translation Equivalence”. Montecatini Terme, Italy October 16-18, 1997, 159-173. Germany: The TELRI Association e.V. Mauranen, Anna. 2000. Strange strings in