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. 97–125
Exploring variation in student translation
Published online: 11 April 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22010.cas
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22010.cas
Abstract
This paper explores the issue of variation in translation, as well as its connection with the concept of “literal
translation” and translator experience, on the basis of a multiple student translation corpus containing concurrent Italian
versions of the same English source text produced by 35 undergraduate and postgraduate trainee translators. Translation paradigms
for preselected lexical items expected to trigger different degrees of variation are extracted and analysed to identify both
recurrent and sporadic solutions, whose acceptability in the target language is assessed using the source text’s official
translation, alternative professional translations and the Europarl Corpus as reference. The analysis shows that
variation is most remarkable with respect to idiomatic/metaphorical and evaluative items than for non-idiomatic items, but also
when a literal translation would not be possible in the target language. Translators are found to generally prefer literal
translations whenever acceptable in the target language, irrespective of their degree of experience.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Related work
- 3.Corpus material, research hypotheses and methodology
- 4.Analyses
- 4.1Idiomatic multi-word units
- 4.2Non-idiomatic multi-word units
- 4.3Prepositional phrases with evaluative meaning
- 4.4Adjectives
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (40)
Bangalore, S., Behrens, B., Carl, M., Ghankot, M., Heilmann, A., Nitzke, J., Schaeffer, M., & Sturm, A. (2016). Syntactic
Variance and Priming Effects in Translation. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New
directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT
TPR-DB (pp. 211–238). Springer.
Behrens, B. (2014). Nominalization:
A case study of linguistic text conventions in comparable and parallel texts: English and
Norwegian. Oslo Studies in
Language, 6(1), 143–160.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Bizzoni, Y., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2021, September 9–11). How
surprising are translators depending on the competence and context? [Paper
presentation]. Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS 2021), University of
Bologna, Italy.
Bosseaux, C. (2006). Who’s
afraid of Virginia’s you: A corpus-based study of the French translations of The
Waves. Meta, 51(3), 599–610.
Campbell, S. (2000). Choice
network analysis in translation research. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural
faultlines: research models in translation studies 1 – Textual and cognitive
aspects (pp. 29–42). Routledge.
Carl, M., & Schaeffer, M. (2017). Measuring
translation literality. In A. L. Jakobsen & B. Mesa-Lao (Eds.), Translation
in transition: Between cognition, computing and
technology (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins.
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.
(2020). Translation
choices compared: Investigating variation in a learner translation
corpus. In S. Granger & M. A. Lefer (Eds.), Translating
and comparing languages: Corpus-based
insights (pp. 25–44). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Castagnoli, S., Ciobanu, D., Kübler, N., Kunz, K., & Volanschi, A. (2011). Designing
a learner translator corpus for training purposes. In N. Kübler (Ed.), Corpora,
language, teaching, and resources: From theory to
practice (pp. 221–248). Peter Lang.
Chesterman, A. (2011). Reflections
on the literal translation hypothesis. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods
and strategies of process
research (pp. 23–35). John Benjamins.
Deléchat, C. & Medina, L. (2020). What
is the informal economy? Having fewer workers outside the formal economy can support sustainable
development. International Monetary Fund (imf.org). [URL]
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
translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation
Studies, 161, 25–39.
Dirdal, H. (2014). Individual
variation between translators in the use of clause building and clause reduction. Oslo Studies
in
Language, 6(1), 119–142.
Dragsted, B. (2012). Indicators
of difficulty in translation – Correlating product and process data. Across Languages and
Cultures, 13(1), 81–98.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated
patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and formulae. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology:
theory, analysis and
applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford University Press.
Granger, S., & Lefer, M. A. (2020). The
Multilingual Student Translation corpus: a resource for translation teaching and
research. Language Resources and
Evaluation, 541, 1183–1199.
Hale, S., & Campbell, S. (2002). The
interaction between text difficulty and translation
accuracy. Babel, 48(1), 14–33.
Halverson, S. L. (2013). Implications
of cognitive linguistics for translation studies. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics and translation: advances in some theoretical
models (pp. 33–73). Mouton De Gruyter.
(2015). Cognitive
Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms. The Case of ‘Literal
Translation’. Translation
Spaces, 4(2), 310–340.
International Labour
Organization (2015). Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy
Recommendation, 2015 (No. 204). International Labour Organization (ilo.org). [URL]
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & V. Suchomel. (2013). The
TenTen corpus family. Proceedings of the 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference
2013, 125–127.
Ji, M., & Oakes, M. P. (2012). A
corpus study of early English translations of Cao Xueqin’s
Hongloumeng. In M. P. Oakes and M. Ji (Eds.), Quantitative
methods in corpus-based translation
studies (pp. 177–208). John Benjamins.
Jiménez-Crespo, M. (2012). Translation
under pressure and the Web: a parallel corpus-study of Obama’s Inaugural speech in the online
media. Translation and
Interpreting, 4(1), 56–76.
Johansson, S. (2004). Why
change the subject? On changes in subject selection in translation from English into
Norwegian. Target, 16(1), 29–52.
(2011). Between
Scylla and Charybdis. On individual variation in translation. Languages in
Contrast, 11(1), 3–19.
Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2020). Tracing
normalisation and shining-through in novice and professional translations with data mining
techniques. In S. Granger & M. A. Lefer (Eds.), Translating
and comparing languages: Corpus-based
insights (pp. 45–59). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Li, D., Zhang, C. & Liu, K. (2011). Translation
style and ideology: A corpus-assisted analysis of two English translations of
Hongloumeng. Literary and Linguistic
Computing, 26(2), 153–166.
Maier, R., Pickering, M., & Hartsuiker, R. (2016). Does
translation involve structural priming? Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 70(8), 1–15.
Mastropierro, L. (2018). Key
clusters as indicators of translator
style. Target, 30(2), 240–259.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2001). The
environments of translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring
translation and multilingual text
production (pp. 41–124). Mouton de Gruyter.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation
in translation: Critical points of translator
decision-making. Routledge.
Neumann, S. (2021, September 9–11). Translation
as specialised language use. A probabilistic view of linguistic characteristics of
translations. [Plenary talk]. Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS 2021), University of Bologna, Italy.
Reynaert, R., Macken, L., Tezcan, A., & De Sutter, G. (2021). Building
a new-generation corpus for empirical translation studies: the Dutch Parallel Corpus
2.0. In V. Wang, L. Lim, & D. Li (Eds.), New
perspectives on corpus translation
studies (pp. 75–100). Springer.
Ruano, P. (2017). Corpus
methodologies in literary translation studies: An analysis of speech verbs in four Spanish translations of Hard
Times. Meta, 62(1), 94–113.
Tiedemann, J. (2012). Parallel
Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC’12) (pp. 2214–2218). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2005). The
Monitor Model revisited: Evidence from process
research. Meta, 50(2), 405–414.
Toury, G. (2004). Probabilistic
explanations in translation studies. Welcome as they are, would they qualify as
universals? In A. Mauranen & P. Jujamäki (Eds.), Translation
universals: do they
exist? (pp.15–32). John Benjamins.
(2012). Descriptive
translation studies – and beyond (Revised edition). John Benjamins.
Winters, M. (2009). Modal
particles explained: How modal particles creep into translations and reveal translators’
styles. Target, 21(1), 74–97.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.