Learning Chinese political formulaic phraseology from a self-built bilingual United Nations Security Council corpus
A pilot study
Published online: 16 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00233.wu
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00233.wu
Abstract
This pilot study investigates the formulaic phraseology most frequently used in highly formulaic political
documents by examining a self-built bilingual parallel corpus of 43 speeches delivered in United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
meetings by Chinese representatives. The study also probes corpus-based approaches to explore formulaic phraseology and
demonstrates a method to retrieve Chinese formulaic phraseology from the UNSC corpus. Formulaic phraseology is often seen in
political discourse. It can be defined as a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other meaning elements that are, or
appear to be, prefabricated, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use rather than being subject to generation or
analysis by the language grammar. This study begins with a literature review of formulaic phraseology, including its features and
significance in simultaneous interpreting. It then exhibits a four-step retrieval process with the Sketch Engine software program
to acquire Chinese formulaic phraseology from the corpus to fill previous studies’ gap. Key functional units of the Sketch Engine,
including Wordlist, N-grams, and Concordance, are used to extract formulaic phraseology from the UNSC corpus. Methodological
issues involved in identifying formulaic phraseology, such as length of phraseology and quantitative criteria (frequency and
dispersion thresholds), are also discussed in the study. Three types of formulaic phraseology are identified: (1) greeting
representatives and other members and expressing appreciation; (2) expressing concerns about the topic of the meeting; (3)
expressing China’s viewpoints about the topic of the meeting. The training of interpreters would be more effective if this
categorization of formulaic phraseology is incorporated into the curriculum.
Résumé
Cette étude pilote étudie la phraséologie formelle la plus fréquemment utilisée dans les documents
politiques hautement conventionnels en examinant un corpus parallèle bilingue auto-construit de 43 discours prononcés lors des
réunions du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies (CSNU) par des représentants chinois. L’étude examine également les études de
corpus pour explorer la phraséologie formelle et propose une méthode pour extraire la phraséologie formelle chinoise du corpus du
CSNU. La phraséologie formelle est souvent présente dans le discours politique. Elle peut être définie comme une séquence,
continue ou discontinue, de mots ou d’autres éléments de sens qui sont, ou semblent être, préfabriqués, c’est-à-dire stockés et
récupérés intégralement dans la mémoire au moment de l’utilisation plutôt que d’être soumis à la génération ou à l’analyse par la
grammaire de la langue. Cette étude commence par une revue de la littérature sur la phraséologie formelle, y compris ses
caractéristiques et son importance dans l’interprétation simultanée, puis présente un processus de récupération en quatre étapes
avec le logiciel Sketch Engine pour recueillir la phraséologie formelle chinoise du corpus afin de combler les lacunes des études
précédentes. Les principales unités fonctionnelles de Sketch Engine, notamment la liste de mots, les N-grammes et la concordance,
sont utilisées pour extraire la phraséologie formelle du corpus de l’UNSC. Les questions méthodologiques liées à l’identification
de la phraséologie formelle, telles que la longueur de la phraséologie et les critères quantitatifs (seuils de fréquence et de
dispersion), sont également abordées dans cette étude. Trois types de phraséologie formelle sont identifiés : (1) saluer les
représentants et les autres membres et exprimer son appréciation, (2) exprimer ses préoccupations sur le sujet de la réunion, et
(3) exprimer le point de vue de la Chine sur le sujet de la réunion. La formation des interprètes serait plus efficace si cette
catégorisation de la phraséologie formelle était intégrée au curriculum.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Chinese language and the UN
- 3.Previous related studies
- 3.1Formulaic phraseology in previous studies
- 3.2Corpus-based research on formulaic phraseology
- 4.Learning formulae from a UNSC corpus
- 4.1Features of the UNSC speeches
- 4.2Retrieval of formulaic phraseology from the UNSC corpus
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
References
References (38)
Altenberg, B. 1998. “On
the Phraseology of Spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent
Word-Combinations.” In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and
Applications, edited by A. P. Cowie, 101–122. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Aston, Guy. 2018. “Acquiring
the Language of Interpreters: A Corpus-Based Approach.” In Making Way
in Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies, edited by Mariachiara Russo, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Bart Defrancq, 83–96. Singapore: Springer.
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Corpus-Based
Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” In Terminology,
LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, edited
by Harold Somers, 175–186. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. Harlow: Longman.
Biber, Douglas, and Federica Barbieri. 2007. “Lexical
Bundles in University Spoken and Written Registers.” English for Specific
Purposes 26 (3): 263–286.
Biber, Douglas. 2009. “A
Corpus-Driven Approach to Formulaic Language in English: Multi-Word Patterns in Speech and
Writing.” International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics 14 (3): 275–311.
Biel, Łucja, Dariusz Koźbiał, and Katarzyna Wasilewska. 2019. “The
Formulaicity of Translations across EU Institutional Genres: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Translated and
Non-Translated Language.” Translation
Spaces 8 (1): 67–92.
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. “Lexical
Bundles across Four Legal Genres.” International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics 18 (2): 229–253.
Cheung, Andrew Kay Fan. 2019. “The Hidden Curriculum
Revealed in Study Trip Reflective Essays.” In The Evolving Curriculum
in Interpreter and Translator Education: Stakeholder Perspectives and
Voices, edited by David B. Sawyer, Frank Austermühl, and Vanessa Enríquez Raído, 393–408. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cortes, Viviana. 2004. “Lexical
Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and
Biology.” English for Specific
Purposes 23 (4): 397–423.
de Laet, Franc. 2012. “Teaching
and Training Sight Translation – A Multitasking
Activity.” In Interpreting in the Age of
Globalization, edited by Wen Ren, 181–198. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Eyckmans, J. (2007). “Taking
SLA Research to Interpreter-Training: Does Knowledge of Phrases Foster
Fluency?” In Multilingualism and Applied Comparative Linguistics,
Volume 1: Pedagogical Perspectives, edited by Frank Boers, Jeroen Darquennes, and Rita Temmerman, 89–105. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Gries, Stefan Th. (2008). “Dispersions and Adjusted
Frequencies in Corpora.” International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics 13 (4): 403–437.
Gu, Chonglong. 2019. “Interpreters’
Institutional Alignment and (Re)construction of China’s Political Discourse and Image: A Corpus-Based CDA of the
Premier-Meets-the-Press Conferences.” PhD diss., University of Manchester.
Hyland, Ken. 2008. “As
Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation.” English for Specific
Purposes 27 (1): 4–21.
Jablonkai, Réka. 2010. “English
in the Context of European Integration: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in English EU
Documents.” English for Specific
Purposes 29 (4): 253–267.
Kawashima, Tomoyuki. 2021. “English
Use by the Heads of State at the United Nations General Assembly: Biennial Survey of 1,540 Speeches between 2004 and
2018.” English
Today 37 (2): 1–23.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, David Tugwell. 2004. “The
Sketch Engine.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International
Congress, edited by Geoffrey Williams and Sandra Vessier, 105–116. Lorient: EURALEX.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. “The
Sketch Engine: Ten Years
on.” Lexicography 1 (1): 7–36.
Li, Changshuan. 2010. “Coping
Strategies for Fast Delivery in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Journal of Specialised
Translation 131: 19–25.
Liu, Liyuan. 1988. “Lianheguo de huiyi kouyi” 联合国的会议口译 [Conference interpretation at the United
Nations]. Waiyu jiaoyu yu
yanjiu 外语教育与研究 [Foreign language
teaching and
research] 74 (2): 42–46.
Moon, Rosemund. 1997. “Vocabulary
Connections: Multi-Word Items in English.” In Vocabulary:
Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy, edited by Norbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy, 40–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, James R., and Jeanette S. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical
Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. “Two
Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike
Fluency.” In Language and Communication, edited
by Jack C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, 191–226. New York: Longman.
Plevoets, Koen, and Bart Defrancq. 2018. “The
Cognitive Load of Interpreters in the European Parliament: A Corpus-Based Study of Predictors for the Disfluency uh
(m).” Interpreting 20 (1): 1–28.
Russo, Mariachiara, Claudio Bendazzoli, and Annalisa Sandrelli. 2006. “Looking
for Lexical Patterns in a Trilingual Corpus of Source and Interpreted Speeches: Extended Analysis of EPIC (European Parliament
Interpreting
Corpus).” Forum 4 (1): 221–255.
Schmitt, Norbert. 2005. “Formulaic
Language: Fixed and Varied.” Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa
Aplicada [Studies in applied English
linguistics] 61: 13–39.
Seeber, Kilian G. 2017. “Interpreting at the European
Institutions: Higher, Faster, Stronger = La interpretación en las instituciones europeas: más rápido, más alto, más
fuerte.” CLINA 3 (2): 73–90.
Tao, Diguang 陶迪光. 2001. “Lianheguo
de Zhongwen tongsheng chuanyi” 联合国的中文同声传译 [Simultaneous interpreting of Chinese at the United
Nations]. Zongheng 纵横 [Across time and
space] (8): 62–64.
Wang, Jianhua 王建华. 2012. “Yukuai
jiaoxue celue dui tigao xuesheng huiyi kouyi zhunquexing de shiyan yanjiu” 语块教学策略对提高学生会议口译准确性的实验研究 [Effects of chunk teaching strategy on accuracy of
students’ conference interpreting: An empirical study]. Zhongguo fanyi 中国翻译 [Chinese
translators
journal] 33 (2): 47–51.
Wood, David. 2015. Fundamentals
of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Wray, Alison, and Mick Perkins. 2000. “The
Functions of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model.” Language and
Communication 20 (1): 1–28.
Xiao, Richard, and Xianyao Hu. 2015. Corpus-Based
Studies of Translational Chinese in English-Chinese
Translation. Berlin: Springer.
Yao, Bin 姚斌, and Xiaoling Deng 邓小玲. 2019. “Bilulanlü,
yi qi shanlin: Lianheguo yixun ban (bu) sishi zhounian fangtan lu” 筚路蓝缕,以启山林:联合国译训班(部)四十周年访谈录 [Interviews with former faculty members and
students of the UN Training Program for Interpreters and Translators at Beijing Foreign Studies
University]. Fanyi jie 翻译界 [Translation
horizon] 2019 (1): 149–164.
Cited by (12)
Cited by 12 other publications
Alsarra, Sultan, Mubarak Alrashoud, Javier Osorio, Vito D’Orazio, Latifur Khan & Patrick T. Brandt
Liu, Yi, Han Xu & Dechao Li
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
Gu, Chonglong & Dechao Li
Xu, Cui & Dechao Li
2024. More spoken or more translated?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 36:3 ► pp. 445 ff.
Xu, Han & Kanglong Liu
Chang, Vincent Chieh-Ying & I-Fei Chen
Huang, Dan Feng, Fang Li & Hang Guo
Tian, Sha, Lingxiao Jia & Zhining Zhang
Liu, Kanglong & Andrew K. F. Cheung
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
