Current translation studies do not present a clear distinction between ‘translationese’ and ‘interlanguage’, giving rise to conceptual and terminology confusion. To disentangle these two concepts, we start with a relatively conservative working definition of translationese, then find it necessary to first differentiate between direct and inverse translations, according to whether the translator's L1 equals to TL or not. Taking Zhuangzi (a Daoist classic) as a case, we made both inter- and intra-speaker comparisons among Lin Yu-tang's inverse translation, James Legge's direct translation, and the two translators' creative works in English, with well-established language complexity metrics and quantitative methods. Results show that: (1) Inverse and direct translations are remarkably different in terms of complexity; (2) Inverse translation demonstrates both features of interlanguage and translationese, with the former mostly at lexical level and the latter at syntactic level; (3) Similar patterns are also discovered in Lin's other inverse translated works, suggesting our quantitative comparative method proposed may be reliable to some extent. Such results support our proposal that translationese and interlanguage should and can be differentiated for both theoretical and practical purposes.
Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. 1996. Introduction. In: Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B. & Johansson, M. (eds) Languages in Contrast: Papers from a Symposium on Text-Based. Lund: Lund University Press. 11‒16.
Altenberg, B. & Granger, S. 2002. Recent Trends in Cross-Linguistic Lexical Studies. In: Altenberg, B. & Granger, S. (eds) Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 3‒48.
As-Safi, A. & Ash-Sharifi, I. A. S. 1997. Naturalness in Literary Translation. Babel Vol. 43. No. 1. 60‒75.
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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 233‒250.
Baker, M. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target Vol. 12. No. 2. 241‒266.
Baker, M. & Saldanha, G. 2019. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Third Edition). London: Routledge.
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Mačhine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing Vol. 21. No. 3. 259‒274.
Beeby-Lonsdale, A. 1996. Teaching Translation from Spanish to English: Worlds beyond Words. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Campbell, S. 1998. Translation into the Second Language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Caplan, N. A. 2017. The Contributions of Joint Construction to Intermediate-Level ESL Students’ Independent Writing: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. PhD dissertation. University of Delaware.
Chesterman, A. 2004a. Beyond the particular. In: Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P. (eds) Translation Universals: Do They Exist?. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 33‒50.
Chesterman, A. 2004b. Hypotheses about translation universals. In: Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K. & Gile, D. (eds) Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from The EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1‒13.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The Significance of Learners' Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Vol. 5. No. 4. 161‒170.
Corder, S. P. 1971. Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Vol. 9. No. 2. 147‒160.
De Groot, A. M. B. 1997. The Cognitive Study of Translation and Interpretation: Three Approaches. In: Danks, J. H., Shreve, G. M., Fountain, S. B. & McBeath, M. (eds) Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. 25‒56.
Dubay, W. H. 2007. Smart Language: Readers, Readability and the Grading of Text. California: Costa Mesa.
Dye, O. A. 1971. The Effects of Translation on Readability. Language and Speech Vol. 14. No. 4. 392‒397.
Evert, S. & Neumann, S. 2017. The Impact of Translation Direction on Characteristics of Translated Texts: A Multivariate Analysis for English and German. In: De Sutter, G., Lefer, M. & Delaere, I. (eds) Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 47‒80.
Flesch, R. 1948. A New Readability Yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 32. No. 3. 221‒233.
Frawley, W. 1984. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation. In: Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives. London: Associated University Presses. 159‒175.
Gellerstam, M. 1986. Translationese in Swedish Novels Translated from English. Translation Studies in Scandinavia . Vol. 1. 88‒95.
Granger, S. 1998. Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Granger, S. 2018. Tracking the Third Code: A Cross-linguistic Corpus-Driven Approach to Meta-Discursive Markers. In: Čermáková, A. & Mahlberg, M. (eds) The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In Honour of Wolfgang Teubert. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 185‒204.
Halverson, S. L. 2003. The Cognitive Basis of Translation Universals. Target Vol. 15. No. 2. 197‒241.
Han, Z. & Tarone, E. 2014. Interlanguage: Forty Years Later. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopkinson, C. 2007. Factors in Linguistic Interference: A Case Study in Translation. Skase Journal of Translation & Interpretation Vol. 2. No. 1. 13‒23.
House, J. 2008. Beyond Intervention: Universals in Translation. Trans-kom Vol. 1. No. 1. 6‒19.
House, J. & Rehbein, J. 2004. Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hunt, K. W. 1965. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Johnson, M. D. 2017. Cognitive Task Complexity and L2 Written Syntactic Complexity, Accuracy, Lexical Complexity, and Fluency: A Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing. Vol. 37. 13‒38.
Klaudy, K. 2010. Specification and Generalisation of Meaning in Translation. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk, B. & Thelen, M. (eds) Meaning in Translation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 81‒104.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. 1992. Effects of First Language on Second Language Writing: Translation Versus Direct Composition. Language Learning Vol. 42. No. 2. 183‒215.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lanstyák, I. & Heltai, P. 2012. Universals in Language Contact and Translation. Across Languages and Cultures Vol. 13. No. 1. 99‒121.
Laviosa, S. 2014. The English Comparable Corpus: A Resource and a Methodology. In: Bowker, L., Cronin, M., Kenny, D. & Pearson, J. (eds) Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge. 101‒112.
Liu, Y., Zheng, B. & Zhou, H. 2019. Measuring the Difficulty of Text Translation: The Combination of Text-Focused and Translator-Oriented Approaches. Target Vol. 31. No. 1. 125‒149.
Lu, X. & Ai, H. 2015. Syntactic Complexity in College-Level English Writing: Differences Among Writers with Diverse L1 Backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing Vol. 29. 16‒27.
Mancilla, R. L., Polat, N. & Akcay, A. O. 2017. An Investigation of Native and Nonnative English Speakers’ Levels of Written Syntactic Complexity in Asynchronous Online Discussions. Applied Linguistics Vol. 38. No. 1. 112‒134.
Mauranen, A. 2000. Strange Strings in Translated Language: A Study on Corpora. In: Olohan, M. (ed) Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge. 119‒142.
Mauranen, A. 2004. Corpora, Universals and Interference. In: Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P. (eds) Translation Universals: Do They Exist?. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 65‒82.
McEnery, T. & Xiao, R. 2007. Parallel and Comparable Corpora: What is Happening? In: Anderman, G. & Rogers, M. (eds) Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 18‒31.
Mraček, D. 2018. Inverse Translation: The More Challenging Direction. Linguistica Pragensia Vol. 28. No. 2. 202‒221.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Vol. 9. No. 2. 115‒124.
Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
Newmark, P. 1991. About Translation. Clevedon Philadelphia Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olohan, M. 2001. Spelling Out the Optionals in Translation: A Corpus Study. UCREL Technical Papers Vol. 13. 423‒432.
Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Pérez-Paredes, P. & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. 2019. Researching Learner Language through POS Keyword and Syntactic Complexity Analyses. In: Götz, S. & Mukherjee, J. (eds) Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101‒127.
Pokorn, N. K. 2005. Challenging the Traditional Axioms: Translation into a Non-Mother Tongue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Qi, Y. & Jiang, Y. 2016. Establishment of a Model for Quality Assessment of Translated Literary Works Based on Quantitative Linguistic Characteristics and Corpora. Journal of Xidian University (Social Science Edition ) Vol. 26. No. 1. 84‒92.
Schaeffer, M. & Carl, M. 2013. Shared Representations and the Translation Process: A Recursive Model. Translation and Interpreting Studies Vol. 8. No. 2. 169‒190.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Vol. 10. No. 1‒4. 209‒231.
Sun, B. & Yue, M. 2018. A Quantitative Study on the Global Complexity Features of SCI Papers by Chinese and Native English Researchers. Chinese Journal of ESP Vol. 2. 1‒11.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2002. Translationese ‒ A Myth or an Empirical Fact? A Study into the Linguistic Identifiability of Translated Language. Target Vol. 14. No. 2. 207‒220.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2005. The Monitor Model Revisited: Evidence from Process Research. Meta: journal des traducteurs Vol. 50. No. 2. 405‒414.
Toury, G. 1979. Interlanguage and Its Manifestations in Translation. Meta: journal des traducteurs Vol. 24. No. 2. 223‒231.
Venuti, L. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Wang, K. & Qin, H. 2009. A Parallel Corpus-Based Study of General Features of Translated Chinese. Foreign Language Research Vol. 1. 102‒105.
Wang, Q. & Li, D. 2012. Looking for Translator’s Fingerprints: A Corpus-Based Study on Chinese Translations of Ulysses. Literary and Linguistic Computing Vol. 27. No. 1. 81‒93.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy & Complexity. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Legge, J. 1880. The Religions of China: Confucianism and Taoism Described and Compared with Christianity. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Legge, J. 1962. The Texts of Taoism. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Lin, Y. 1939. Moment in Peking. New York: John Day Co.
Lin, Y. 1944. Chuangtse, Mystic and Humorist. In: The Wisdom of China. London: Michael Joseph.
Lin, Y. 1948. The Wisdom of Laotse. New York: The Modern Library.