View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, Poland Phone:+48 61 829 3776
  • 2 Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku, FI–20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland Phone: +358 29 450 5000
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription

USD  $360.00

Empirical Translation Studies have recently extended the scope of research to other forms of constrained and mediated communication, including bilingual communication, editing, and intralingual translation. Despite the diversity of factors accounted for so far, this new strand of research is yet to take the leap into intermodal comparisons. In this paper we look at Lexical Diversity (LD), which under different guises, has been studied both within Translation Studies (TS) and Second Language Acquisition (SLA). LD refers to the rate of word repetition, and vocabulary size and depth, and previous research indicates that translated and non-native language tends to be less lexically diverse. There is, however, no study that would investigate both varieties within a unified methodological framework. The study reported here looks at LD in spoken and written modes of constrained and non-constrained language. In a two-step analysis involving Exploratory Factor Analysis and linear mixed-effects regression models we find interpretations to be least lexically diverse and written non-constrained texts to be most diverse. Speeches delivered impromptu are less diverse than those read out loud and the non-constrained texts are more sensitive to such delivery-related differences than the constrained ones.

  • Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In: Baker, M., Francis, G., Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds) Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233250.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baker, M. 1996. Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead. In: Somers, H. (ed.) Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager. Benjamins Translation Library 18: 175186.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bartłomiejczyk, M. 2006. Strategies of Simultaneous Interpreting and Directionality. Interpreting Vol. 8. No. 2. 149174.

  • Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., Miličević, M. 2016. From EPIC to EPTIC. Exploring Simplification in Interpreting and Translation from an Intermodal Perspectiv. Target Vol. 28. No. 1. 6186.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Chesterman, A. 2004. Beyond the Particular. In: Mauranen, A., Kujamäki, P. (eds) Translation Universals. Do They Exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. 2010. Why Study Translation Universals? Acta Translatologica Helsingiensia Vol. 1. 3848.

  • Corpas Pastor, G., Mitkov, R., Afzal, N., Pekar, V. 2008. Translation Universals. Do They Exist? A Corpus-Based NLP Study of Convergence and Simplification. Proceedings of 8th AMTA conference. 7581.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D., Jarvis, S. 2011. Predicting Lexical Proficiency in Language Learner Texts Using Computational Indices. Language Testing Vol. 28. No. 4. 561580.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Sutter, G., Lefer, M.-A. 2019. On the Need for a New Research Agenda for Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Multi-Methodological, Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Approach. Perspectives 0.0: 123. DOI: .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Defrancq, B., Plevoets, K., Magnifico, C. 2015. Connective Items in Interpreting and Translation. Where Do They Come From? Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015. Switzerland: Springer, 195222.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Déjean le Féal, K. 1982.Why Impromptu Speech is Easy to Understand. In: Enkvist, N. E. (ed.) Impromptu Speech. A Symposium. Åbo: Åbo Akademi. 221239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Egbert, J., Staples, S. 2019. Doing Multi-Dimensional Analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. In: Sardinha, T. B., Pinto M. V. (eds) Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Research Methods and Current Issues. London: Bloomsbury Academics. 2742.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Engber, C. A. 1995. The Relationship of Lexical Proficiency to the Quality of ESL Compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing Vol. 4. No. 2. 139155.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Miličević, M., Petrovic, M., Lefer, M.-A. 2019. Simplified or Not Simplified? The Different Guises of Mediated English at the European Parliament. Meta https//dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal:213292 (4 July, 2019).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grabowski, Ł. 2012. On Translation Universals in Selected Contemporary Polish Literary Translations. Studies in Polish Linguistics Vol. 7. 165183.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gries, S. 2015. The Most Under-Used Statistical Method in Corpus Linguistics. Multi-Level (and Mixed-Effects) Models. Corpora Vol. 10. No. 1. 95125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gumul, E. 2017. Explicitation and Directionality in Simultaneous Interpreting. Linguistica Silesiana Vol. 38. 311329.

  • Halverson, S. 2003. The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals. Target Vol. 15. No. 2. 197241.

  • Harley, B., King, M. L. 1989. Verb Lexis in the Written Compositions of Young L2 Learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition Vol. 11. No. 4. 415440.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ivaska, I., Bernardini, S. 2020. Constrained Language Use in Finnish: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics Vol. 43. No. 1. 3357.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ivaska, I., Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S. (submitted). Syntactic properties of constrained English. A corpus-driven approach.

  • Jarvis, S. 2002. Short Texts, Best-Fitting Curves and New Measures of Lexical Diversity. Language Testing Vol. 19. No. 1. 5784.

  • Jarvis, S. 2013a. Capturing the Diversity in Lexical Diversity. Language Learning Vol. 63. 87106.

  • Jarvis, S. 2013b. Defining and Measuring Lexical Diversity. In: Jarvis, S., Daller, M. (eds) Vocabulary Knowledge. Human Ratings and Automated Measures. 1344.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jarvis, S. 2017. Grounding Lexical Diversity in Human Judgments. Language Testing Vol. 34. No. 4. 537553.

  • Jarvis, S. 2019. Automated tools for investigating Lexical Diversity. Exploring what writers do differently when they try to increase their LD. Paper presented at the AAAL 2019 Conference, Atlanta (GA).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johansson, V. 2009. Lexical Diversity and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing. A Developmental Perspective. Lund Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 53. 6179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kaiser, H. F. 1974. An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika Vol. 9. No. 1. 3136. DOI: .

  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. 2015. Simplification in Interpreting and Translation. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 16. No. 2. 233255.

  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. 2018. Interpretese vs. Non-Native Language Use: The Case of Optional That. In: Russo, M., Defrancq, B. (eds) Making Way in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies. Singapore: Springer. 97113.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Koppel, M., Ordan, N. 2011. Translationese and Its Dialects. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Vol. 1. Association for Computational Linguistics. 13181326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H. 2018. Expanding the Third Code: Corpus-Based Studies of Constrained Communication and Language Mediation. In: Granger, S., Lefer, M. A., Penha-Marion, L. (eds) Book of abstracts. Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies conference (5th edition). CECL papers 1 (9–12). Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université Catholique de Louvain.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger H. 2019. That Again: A Multivariate Analysis of the Factors Conditioning Syntactic Explicit ness in Translated English. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 20. No. 1. 133.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., De Sutter, G. 2018. Alternations in Contact and Non-Contact Varieties. Reconceptualising That-Omission in Translated and Non-Translated English Using the MuPDAR Approach. Translation, Cognition and Behavior Vol. 1. No. 2. 251290.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., van Rooy. B. 2016a. Syntactic and Pragmatic Transfer Effects in Reported-Speech Constructions in Three Contact Varieties of English Influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences Vol. 56. 118131. DOI: .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., van Rooy, B. 2016b. Constrained Language: A Multidimensional Analysis of Translated English and a Non-Native Indigenised Variety of English. English World-Wide Vol. 37. No. 1. 2657. DOI: .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., van Rooy, B. 2018. Register Variation in Written Contact Varieties of English. English World-Wide Vol. 39. No. 2. 214242. doi:.

  • Lanstyák, I., Heltai, P. 2012. Universals in Language Contact and Translation. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 13. No. 1. 99121. DOI: .

  • Laviosa, S. 1998. Core Patterns of Lexical Use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose. Meta Vol. 43. No. 4. 557570.

  • Linnarud, M. 1973/1976. Lexical Density and Lexical Variation. An Analysis of the Lexical Texture of Swedish Students’ Written Work. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. Vol. 7. 4552.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Linnarud, M. 1986. Lexis in Composition. A Performance Analysis of Swedish Learners, Written English. Malmo, Sweden: Liber Forlag.

  • Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., Durán, P. 2004. Lexical Diversity and Language Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • McCarthy, P. M., Jarvis, S. 2010. MTLD, Vocd-D, and HD-D. A Validation Study of Sophisticated Approaches to Lexical Diversity Assessment. Behavior Research Methods Vol. 42. No. 2. 381392.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moses, E. R. Jr. 1959. A Study of Word Diversification. Speech Monographs Vol. 26. 308312.

  • Olohan, M., Baker, M. 2000. Reporting That in Translated English. Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 1. No. 2. 141158.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pöchhacker, F. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.

  • Rabinovich, E., Nisioi, S., Ordan, N., Wintner, S. 2016. On the Similarities Between Native, Non-Native and Translated Texts. In: Antal van, den Bosch (ed.) Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (7–12 August 2016, Berlin, Germany). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computing Machinery. 18701881.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Revelle, W. 2018. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sandrelli, A., Bendazzoli, C. 2005. Lexical Patterns in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Preliminary Investigation of EPIC (European Parliament Interpreting Corpus). Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, Conference e-journal.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shlesinger, M. 1989. Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis. Tel Aviv University, Faculty of the Humanities, Department of Poetics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shlesinger, M., Ordan, N. 2012. More Spoken or More Translated? Exploring a Known Unknown of Simultaneous Interpreting. Target Vol. 24. No. 1. 4360.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ulrych, M., Murphy, A. 2008. Descriptive Translation Studies and the Use of Corpora. Investigating Mediation Universals. In: Torsello, C. T., Ackerley, K., Castello, E. (eds) Corpora for University Language Teachers. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang. 141166.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams, D. A. 2005. Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada. A Corpus-Based Study. University of Ottawa.

  • Winter, B. 2019. Statistics for Linguists. An Introduction Using R. London: Routledge.

  • Wulff, S., Lester, N., Martinez-Garcia, M. T. 2014. That-Variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition Vol. 6. No. 2. 271299.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Xiao, R., Hu. X. 2015. The Features of Translational Chinese and Translation Universals. In: Xiao, R., Hu, X. (eds) Corpus-Based Studies of Translational Chinese in English–Chinese Translation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 157167.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yule, C. U. 1944. The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jul 2020 0 0 0
Aug 2020 0 0 0
Sep 2020 0 0 0
Oct 2020 0 0 0
Nov 2020 0 0 0
Dec 2020 237 24 12
Jan 2021 43 7 4