Cover not available

Article published In: Learner translation corpus research
Guest-edited by Sylviane Granger and Marie-Aude Lefer
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1] 2023
► pp. 61–96

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Is linguistic decision-making constrained by the same cognitive factors in student and in professional translation?

Evidence from subject placement in French‑to‑Dutch news translation

 | Ghent University
 | Université catholique de Louvain
 | Ghent University
Published online: 11 April 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22005.des
Abstract
This article analyses the extent to which four well-known general cognitive constraints – syntactic priming, cognitive routinisation, markedness of coding and structural integration – impact the linguistic output of translation students and professional translators similarly. It takes subject placement variation in Dutch as a test case to gauge the effect of the four constraints and relies on a controlled corpus of student and professional French-to-Dutch L1 news translations, from which all declarative main clauses with either a preverbal or a postverbal subject were extracted. All corpus instances were annotated for four random variables, the fixed variable expertise and ten other fixed variables, which were considered good proxies for the cognitive constraints. A mixed-effects regression analysis reveals that by and large the cognitive constraints have an identical effect on student and professional translators’ output, with priming and structural integration having the strongest impact on subject placement. However, students diverge from professionals when translating French clauses with a left-dislocated adjunct into Dutch, which is interpreted as an indication of a difference in automatisation when dealing with specific French-Dutch cross-linguistic differences.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subject placement variation in Dutch: General characteristics, determinants, constraints and expertise
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Corpus design and processing
    • 3.2Data extraction and annotation
    • 3.3Operationalisations of the constraints (fixed variables)
      • 3.3.1Markedness of coding
      • 3.3.2Cognitive routinisation
      • 3.3.3Structural priming
      • 3.3.4Syntactic integration
    • 3.4Hypotheses
      • 3.4.1Expertise
      • 3.4.2Markedness of coding
      • 3.4.3Cognitive routinisation
      • 3.4.4Structural priming
      • 3.4.5Structural integration
    • 3.5Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Random effects
    • 4.2Fixed effects
      • 4.2.1The interaction effect of intertextual priming and subject length
      • 4.2.2The interaction effect of intertextual priming and complexity of the VP
      • 4.2.3The interaction effect of indirect intertextual priming and expertise
      • 4.2.4The interaction effect of subject discourse status and complexity of the VP
      • 4.2.5The interaction effect of subject discourse status and subject length
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (64)
References
Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M., & Kim, L. K. (2013). Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. [URL] (rXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823). [URL]
Blom, E., & de Korte, S. (2008). De verwerving van het Nederlands: dummies en Verb Second. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 131, 133–159.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouma, G. (2008). Starting a sentence in Dutch. A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 66). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Broekhuis, H. (2020). 8.1.2. Noun phrases in clause-initial position. Taalportaal. [URL]
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014). Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 1501, 80–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Vol. 451). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calvillo, D. P., & Jackson, R. E. (2014). Animacy, perceptual load, and inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 670–675. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carl, M., Dragsted, B., & Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). A taxonomy of human translation styles. Translation Journal, 16(2), 155–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castagnoli, S. (2016). Investigating trainee translators’ contrastive pragmalinguistic competence: a corpus-based analysis of interclausal linkage in learner translations. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(3), 343–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M., & Waldorp, L. J. (2003). Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 201–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claes, J. (2017). Probabilistic grammar: The view from Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), Art. 62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 the 8th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas: Research Papers, 75–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, E. (2009). Focus, complexiteit en extrapositie. Over de veranderende woordvolgorde in het Nederlands. Neerlandistiek.nl, 09.04.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Sutter, G., Cappelle, B., De Clercq, O., Loock, R., & Plevoets, K. (2017). Towards a corpus-based, statistical approach to translation quality: Measuring and visualizing linguistic deviance in student translations. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 161, 25–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Sutter, G., Colleman, T., & Ghyselen, A.-S. (2021). Intra- and inter-textual syntactic priming in original and translated English. In G. Kristiansen, K. Franco, S. De Pascale, L. Rosseel, & W. Zhang (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 48) (pp. 264–276). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2017). Usage-based linguistics. In M. Aronoff, Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press. [URL].
(2019). The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 271, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falk, S. (2014). On the notion of salience in spoken discourse-prominence cues shaping discourse structure and comprehension. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 301. [URL];
Fox, J., & Hong, J. (2009). Effect Displays in R for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the effects Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. (1981). On the status of Theme in English: arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum, 61, 1–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp. 94–126). The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Kootstra, G. J. (2017). Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (2007). A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 161–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (2019). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. [URL]
Harrell, F. E. (2015). Regression modeling strategies. With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Beerts, S., Loncke, M., Desmet, T., & Bernolet, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic structural priming in multilinguals: Further evidence for shared syntax. Journal of Memory and Language, 901, 14–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency (No. 73). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jansen, F. & Wijnands, R. (2004). Doorkruisingen van het links-rechtsprincipe. Neerlandistiek.nl, 04.01. [URL]
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M. (2019). Linking words in inter- and intralingual translation. Combining corpus linguistics and key-logging data. In L. Vandevoorde, J. Daems, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp. 114–138). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M., & Rechtzigel, K. (2012). Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 191, 935–941. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khoe, Y. H., Tsoukala, C., Kootstra, G. J., & Frank, S. L. (2021). Is structural priming between different languages a learning effect? Modelling priming as error-driven implicit learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunilovskaya, M., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2020). Lexicogrammatic translationese across two targets and competence levels. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 4102–4112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunilovskaya, M., Morgoun, N., & Pariy, A. (2018). Learner vs professional translations into Russian: Lexical profiles. Translation and Interpreting, 10(1), 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1965). On the mechanism of linguistic change. Georgetown monographs on language and linguistics, 181, 91–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2010). Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English: A contrastive analysis. In C. Breul & E. Göbbel (Eds.), Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure (pp. 77–100). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2022). Detecting normalisation and shining-through in novice and professional translations. In S. Granger & M.-A. Lefer (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based translation studies (pp. 182–206). Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Popović, M. & Koponen, M. (2022). DiHuTra: a parallel corpus to analyse differences between human translations. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, 335–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, R. M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2017). Does translation involve structural priming? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1575–1589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., & Leisch, F. (2015). e1071: Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group [R package version 1.6-7]. [URL]
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing (pp. 219–247). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation?: Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 283–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qi, P., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Bolton, J., & Manning, C. D. (2020). Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages. [URL] (arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07082). [URL]
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Redelinghuys, K., & Kruger, H. (2015). Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(3), 293–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., & Rioul, R. (2009). Grammaire méthodique du français. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schaeffer, M., & Carl, M. (2013). Shared representations and the translation process: A recursive model. Translation and Interpreting Studies: The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 8(2), 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiselius, E., & Hild, A. (2017). Expertise and competence in translation and interpreting. In J. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 423–444). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vogels, J., & Van Bergen, G. (2017). Where to place inaccessible subjects in Dutch: The role of definiteness and animacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 369–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue