Authors:
Ruimin Ma School of Foreign Studies, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China

Search for other papers by Ruimin Ma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2269-1917
,
Yue Jiang School of Foreign Studies, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China

Search for other papers by Yue Jiang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0310-2657
, and
Jiajun Qian School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China

Search for other papers by Jiajun Qian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9143-0206
Restricted access

Abstract

To explore if translation-intrinsic features are apparent in other types of bilingualism-influenced constrained language use such as non-native production, this study approaches syntactic and typological properties of constrained English translated from Chinese and written by native Chinese speakers via two cognitively-motivated dependency metrics, viz. mean dependency distance (MDD) and dependency direction (DDir). Results of this study show that translated English (both L1 and L2) and non-native English differ from the non-constrained native English in a similar way yet to a slightly different extent, but not from each other in both indicators. Syntactically, bilingually-constrained varieties exhibit reduced syntactic complexity with shorter MDDs, suggesting a simplification tendency. Typologically, cross-linguistic influences are detected in constrained varieties for being more head-final in word-order primed by the source or native language Chinese. Surprisingly, it seems that language directionality affects, albeit marginally, the affinity between constrained varieties, with non-native English being more syntactically and typologically similar to translated English from L1 than from L2.

  • Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233250). John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bartoń, K. (2023). MuMIn: Multi-Model inference. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., & Roberts, I. (2014). A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(2), 169225.

  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 1735). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, D., & Manning, C. D. (2014). A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Y. Marton (Ed.), In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 740750). Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. (2004). Beyond the particular. In A. Mauranen, & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (Vol. 48, pp. 3349). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chesterman, A. (2010). Why study translation universals? Acta Translatologica Helsingiensia (ATH), 1, 3848.

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D., Nivre, J., & Zeman, D. (2021). Universal dependencies. Computational Linguistics, 47(2), 255308.

  • De Sutter, G., & Lefer, M.-A. (2020). On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: A multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives, 28(1), 123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fan, L., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Can dependency distance and direction be used to differentiate translational language from native language? Lingua, 224, 5159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferraresi, A. (2019). Collocations in contact: Exploring constrained varieties of English through corpora. Textus(1), 203222.

  • Ferraresi, A., & Bernardini, S. (2023). Comparing collocations in translated and learner language: In search of a method. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 9(1), 126154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2018). Visualizing fit and lack of fit in complex regression models with predictor effect plots and partial residuals. Journal of Statistical Software, 87(9), 127.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gaspari, F., & Bernardini, S. (2010). Comparing non-native and translated language: Monolingual comparable corpora with a twist. In R. Xiao (Ed.), Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies (pp. 215234). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 176.

  • Gildea, D., & Temperley, D. (2010). Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science, 34(2), 286310.

  • Gries, S. Th (2021). Generalized linear) mixed‐effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning, 71(3), 757798.

  • Halverson, S. L. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197241.

  • Hudson, R. (1995). Measuring syntactic difficulty. Unpublished paper. Retrieved June 20, 2022 from http://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Difficulty.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hudson, R. (2010). An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ivaska, I., & Bernardini, S. (2020). Constrained language use in Finnish: A corpus-driven approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 3357.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ivaska, I., Bernardini, S., & Ferraresi, A. (2018). Detecting traces of constrained communication: A corpus-driven approach to mapping of the intersection between learner language and translated language. In S. Granger, M.-A. Lefer, & L. Penha-Marion (Eds.), Book of abstracts. Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies conference (5th edition). CECL papers 1 (pp. 8587). Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université catholique de Louvain.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ivaska, I., Ferraresi, A., & Bernardini, S. (2022). Syntactic properties of constrained English: A corpus-driven approach. In S. Granger, & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 133157). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2015). The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications–Based on a parallel English–Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences, 50, 93104.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jiang, J., Ouyang, J., & Liu, H. (2019). Interlanguage: A perspective of quantitative linguistic typology. Language Sciences, 74, 8597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2018). Interpretese vs. non-native language use: The case of optional that. In M. Russo, C. Bendazzoli, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Making way in corpus-based interpreting studies (pp. 97113). Springer Singapore.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2022). An intermodal approach to cohesion in constrained and unconstrained language. Target, 34(1), 130162.

  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., & Grabowski, Ł. (2021). Formulaicity in constrained communication: An intermodal approach. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 13, 148183.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., & Ivaska, I. (2020). A multivariate approach to lexical diversity in constrained language. Across Languages and Cultures, 21(2), 169194.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kotze, H. (2020). Converging what and how to find out why an outlook on empirical translation studies. In L. Vandevoorde, J. Daems, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp. 333371). NY: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kotze, H. (2022). Translation as constrained communication: Principles, concepts and methods. In S. Granger, & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 6797). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H. (2018). Expanding the third code: Corpus-based studies of constrained communication and language mediation. In S. Granger, M.-A. Lefer, & L. Penha-Marion (Eds.), Book of abstracts. Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies conference (5th edition). CECL papers 1 (pp. 912). Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université catholique de Louvain.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2016a). Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and a non-native indigenised variety of English. English World-Wide, 37(1), 2657.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2016b). Syntactic and pragmatic transfer effects in reported-speech constructions in three contact varieties of English influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences, 56, 118131.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English: A multidimensional analysis. English World-Wide, 39(2), 214242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lanstyák, I., & Heltai, P. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99121.

  • Lefer, M.-A., & Vogeleer, S. (2013). Interference and normalization in genre-controlled multilingual corpora: Introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 27, 121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenth, R. (2023). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.

  • Liang, J., Fang, Y., Lv, Q., & Liu, H. (2017). Dependency distance differences across interpreting types: Implications for cognitive demand. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861883.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, H. (2008). Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9(2), 159191.

  • Liu, H. (2010). Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua, 120(6), 15671578.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, Y., Cheung, A. K. F., & Liu, K. (2023). Syntactic complexity of interpreted, L2 and L1 speech: A constrained language perspective. Lingua, 286, 103509.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, H., Hudson, R., & Feng, Z. (2009). Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 161174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manchón, R. M. (2013). Writing. In F. Grosjean, & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 100115). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mauranen, A., & Kujamäki, P. (2004). Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Niu, R., & Liu, H. (2022). Effects of syntactic distance and word order on language processing: An investigation based on a psycholinguistic treebank of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51, 10431062.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborne, T., & Gerdes, K. (2019). The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of universal dependencies (UD). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ouyang, J., Jiang, J., & Liu, H. (2022). Dependency distance measures in assessing L2 writing proficiency. Assessing Writing, 51, 100603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rabinovich, E., Sergu, N., Noam, O., & Shuly, W. (2016). On the similarities between native, non-native and translated texts. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 18701881). Berlin: ACL.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de la syntaxe structurale [Elements of Structural Syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.

  • Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2017). The effects of genre on dependency distance and dependency direction. Language Sciences, 59, 135147.

  • Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.

  • Yan, H., & Li, Y. (2019). Beyond length: Investigating dependency distance across L2 modalities and proficiency levels. Open Linguistics, 5(1), 601614.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yan, J., & Liu, H. (2021). Semantic roles or syntactic functions: The effects of annotation scheme on the results of dependency measures. Studia Linguistica, 123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yue, M., & Sun, B. (2021). Translationese and interlanguage in inverse translation: A case study. Across Languages and Cultures, 22(1), 4563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhu, H., Liu, X., & Pang, N. (2022). Investigating diachronic change in dependency distance of modern English: A genre-specific perspective. Lingua, 272, 103307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

 

Author Guidelines are available in PDF format.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Editor-in-Chief: Kinga KLAUDY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

Consulting Editor: Pál HELTAI (Kodolányi János University, Hungary)

Managing Editor: Krisztina KÁROLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)

EDITORIAL BOARD

  • Andrew CHESTERMAN (University of Helsinki, Finland)
  • Kirsten MALMKJÆR (University of Leicester, UK)
  • Christiane NORD (University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa)
  • Anthony PYM (Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain, University of Melbourne, Australia)
  • Mary SNELL-HORNBY (University of Vienna, Austria)
  • Sonja TIRKKONEN-CONDIT (University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland)

ADVISORY BOARD

  • Mona BAKER (Shanghai International Studies University, China, University of Oslo, Norway)
  • Łucja BIEL (University of Warsaw, Poland)
  • Gloria CORPAS PASTOR (University of Malaga, Spain; University of Wolverhampton, UK)
  • Rodica DIMITRIU (Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Iasi, Romania)
  • Birgitta Englund DIMITROVA (Stockholm University, Sweden)
  • Sylvia KALINA (Cologne Technical University, Germany)
  • Haidee KOTZE (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)
  • Sara LAVIOSA (Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italy)
  • Brian MOSSOP (York University, Toronto, Canada)
  • Orero PILAR (Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain)
  • Gábor PRÓSZÉKY (Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungary)
  • Alessandra RICCARDI (University of Trieste, Italy)
  • Edina ROBIN (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Myriam SALAMA-CARR (University of Manchester, UK)
  • Mohammad Saleh SANATIFAR (independent researcher, Iran)
  • Sanjun SUN (Beijing Foreign Studies University, China)
  • Anikó SOHÁR (Pázmány Péter Catholic University,  Hungary)
  • Sonia VANDEPITTE (University of Gent, Belgium)
  • Albert VERMES (Eszterházy Károly University, Hungary)
  • Yifan ZHU (Shanghai Jiao Tong Univeristy, China)

Prof. Kinga Klaudy
Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Translation and Interpreting
Múzeum krt. 4. Bldg. F, I/9-11, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 411 6500/5894
Fax: (+36 1) 485 5217
E-mail: 

  • WoS Arts & Humanities Citation Index
  • Wos Social Sciences Citation Index
  • WoS Essential Science Indicators
  • Scopus
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • Translation Studies Abstractst
  • CABELLS Journalytics

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
283
Journal Impact Factor 0.7
Rank by Impact Factor

Linguistics (Q3)

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0.6
5 Year
Impact Factor
1.4
Journal Citation Indicator 0.66
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Linguistics (Q3)
Language & Linguistics (Q2)

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
20
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.796
Scimago Quartile Score

Linguistics and Language 67/1103 (Q1)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.6
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Language and Linguistics 208/1001 (79th PCTL)
Linguistics and Language 243/1078 (77th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.868

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
214
Journal Impact Factor 1,292
Rank by Impact Factor Linguistics 98/194
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,208
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,210
Journal Citation Indicator 0,85
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator Language & Linguistics 108/370
Linguistics 122/274
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
19
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,994
Scimago Quartile Score Linguistics and Language 67/1103 (Q1)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Language and Linguistics 121/968 (Q1, D2)
Linguistics and Language 128/1032 (Q1, D2)
Scopus
SNIP
1,576

2020  
Total Cites
WoS
169
Journal Impact Factor 1,160
Rank by Impact Factor

Linguistics 99/193 (Q3)
Languages & Linguistics 57/205 (Q2)

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,040
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,095
Journal Citation Indicator 1,01
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Linguistics 107/259 (Q2)
Language & Linguistics 94/356 (Q2)

Citable
Items
12
Total
Articles
12
Total
Reviews
0
Scimago
H-index
14
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,257
Scimago Quartile Score

Language and Linguistics Q1
Linguistics and Language Q1

Scopus
Cite Score
93/50=1,9

Scopus
Cite Score Rank

Language and Linguistics 130/879 (Q1)
Linguistics and Language 147/935 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1,670

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
91
Impact Factor 0,360
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,320
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,500
Immediacy
Index
0,083
Citable
Items
12
Total
Articles
12
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
n/a
Citing
Half-Life
12,7
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00018
Article Influence
Score
0,234
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,02306
Average
IF
Percentile
20,053 (Q1)
Scimago
H-index
13
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,648
Scopus
Scite Score
94/51=1,8
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Language and Linguistics 120/830 (Q1)
Linguistics and Language 135/884 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1.357

Across Languages and Cultures
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee

none

Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 318 EUR / 384 USD
Print + online subscription: 372 EUR / 452 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Across Languages and Cultures
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1999
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
2
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1585-1923 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2519 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Sep 2023 0 0 0
Oct 2023 0 0 0
Nov 2023 0 0 0
Dec 2023 0 0 0
Jan 2024 0 0 0
Feb 2024 370 32 24
Mar 2024 0 0 0