This paper presents an empirical study on the proportion of cognate words (cognate ratios) in translated Dutch texts, compared to cognate words ratio in texts originally written in Dutch. To this end, we compiled a gold standard with manually verified cognate pairs for both studied language pairs, viz. English–Dutch and French–Dutch. In this study, we propose three hypotheses about how translators deal with cognates: (1) translators use the high degree of formal and semantic overlap between cognate translations to their advantage so as to produce the “easiest and fastest” translation (default translation hypothesis), (2) the higher the level of cognateness between a source and target language, the higher the cognate ratio in translated texts will be (cognate facilitation effect), (3) the higher the level of cognateness between the two languages, the more translators will be hesitant to use cognate translations (fear of false friends hypothesis). The results show a mixed picture: whereas not much evidence has been found for the first two hypotheses (depending on the respective language pair), the third hypothesis was confirmed. Further evidence, however, is needed from other language pairs, as cognate-receptiveness appears to be language-specific.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words. Routledge.
Broersma, M., Carter, D., & Acheson, D. J. (2016). Cognate costs in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1461). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01461.
Christoffels, I. K., & de Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting. A cognitive perspective. In J. F. Kroll, & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 454–479). Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. The language library. Blackwell (6th ed.).
de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. Psychology Press.
Defrancq, B. (2015). Corpus-based research into the presumed effects of short EVS. Interpreting, 17(1), 26–45.
Gellerstam, M. (1986). Translationese in Swedish novels translated from English. In L. Wollin, & H. Lindquist (Eds.), Translation studies in scandinavia. Proceedings from the Scandinavian Symposium on translation theory (SSOTT) II (Vol. 75, pp. 88–95). Lund Studies in English. CWK Gleerup.
Halverson, S. (2015). Cognitive translation studies and the merging of empirical paradigms. The case of ‘Literal Translation’. Translation Spaces, 4(2), 310–340.
Halverson, S. (2018). Metalinguistic knowledge/awareness/ability in cognitive translation studies: Some questions. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 57(June), 11–28.
Hansen-Schirra, S., Nitzke, J., & Oster, K. (2017). Predicting cognate translation. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 3–22). Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 7. Language Science Press.
Labat, S., Vandevoorde, L., & Lefever, E. (2019). Annotation guidelines for labeling English–Dutch cognate pairs, version 1.0. Technical report, Ghent University, LT3 19–02.
Lefever, E., Labat, S., & Singh, P. (2020). Identifying cognates in English–Dutch and French–Dutch by means of orthographic information and cross-lingual word embeddings. In 12th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020), 4089–4094. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Levenshtein V. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.
Macken, L., De Clercq, O., & Paulussen, H. (2011). Dutch parallel corpus: A balanced copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta, 56(2), 374–390.
Malkiel, B. (2009). Translation as a decision process. Evidence from cognates. Babel, 55(3), 228–243.
Mitkov, R., Pekar, V., Blagoev, D., & Mulloni, A. (2007). Methods for extracting and classifying pairs of cognates and false friends. Machine Translation, 21(1), 29–53.
Munday, J. (2009). Routledge companion to translation studies. Routledge.
Och, F. J., & Ney, H. (2003). A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 19–51.
Oster, K. (2017). The influence of self-monitoring on the translation of cognates. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 23–39). Language Science Press.
Otwinowska, A. (2015).Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, awareness, activation, Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094394.
Pym, A. (2015). Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics, 85(August), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010.
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., & Grootjen, F. (2012). Distributions of cognates in Europe as based on Levenshtein distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(1), 157–166.
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & van Heuven W. J. B. (2013). Cross-language distributions of high frequency and phonetically similar cognates. Plos One, 8(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063006.
Shlesinger, M. (2000). Strategic allocation of working memory and other attentional resources in simultaneous interpreting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Shlesinger, M., & Malkiel, B. (2005). Comparing modalities: Cognates as a case in point. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(2), 173–193.
Shreve, G. M. (2012). Bilingualism and translation. In Y. Gambier, & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 3, pp. 1–6). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3.bil1.
Tokowicz, N. (2014). Lexical processing and second language acquisition (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203551387.
Venuti, L. (2012). Translation changes everything. Routledge.
Vintar, S., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2005). Cognates: Free rides, false friends or stylistic devices? A corpus-based comparative study. In G. Barnbrook, P. Danielsson, & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Meaningful texts. The extraction of semantic information from monolingual and multilingual corpora (pp. 208–221). Continuum.
Yujian, L., & Bo, L. (2007). A normalized Levenshtein distance metric. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(6), 1091–1095.