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. 126–154

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

Comparing collocations in translated and learner language

In search of a method

 | University of Bologna
 | University of Bologna
Published online: 11 April 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer
Abstract
This paper compares use of collocations by Italian learners writing in and translating into English, conceptualising the two tasks as different modes of constrained language production and adopting Halverson, S. L. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp. 9–46). Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar revised Gravitational Pull Hypothesis as a theoretical model. A particular focus is placed on identifying a method for comparing datasets containing translations and essays, assembled opportunistically and varying in size and structure. The study shows that lexical association scores for dependency-defined word pairs are significantly higher in translations than essays. A qualitative analysis of a subset of collocations shared and unique to either mode shows that the former set features more collocations with direct cross-linguistic links (connectivity), and that the source/first language seems to affect both modes similarly. We tentatively conclude that second/target language salience effects are more visible in translation than second language use, while connectivity and source language salience affect both modes of bilingual processing similarly, regardless of the mediation variable.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Phraseological insights on learner language, translation and constrained language
    • 2.1Phraseology in learner language
    • 2.2Phraseology in translated language
    • 2.3The constrained language hypothesis
    • 2.4Learner translation corpora as a subset of learner corpora
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Research questions and overall research method
    • 3.2Description of the dataset
    • 3.3Quantitative and qualitative analysis
      • 3.3.1Definition, extraction and scoring of TL/L2 collocations
      • 3.3.2By-subject analysis of collocationality in translations and essays
      • 3.3.3Qualitative exploration of connectivity: Data from bilingual dictionaries
      • 3.3.4Exploration of SL effects: Equivalents from dictionaries, machine translation and source texts, with association scores from an SL corpus
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Alfuraih, R. F. (2020). The undergraduate learner translator corpus: a new resource for translation studies and computational linguistics. Language Resources and Evaluation, 541, 801–830. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 173–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources & Evaluation, 431, 209–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernardini, S. (2011). Monolingual comparable corpora and parallel corpora in the search for features of translated language. SYNAPS, 261, 2–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowker, L., & Bennison, P. (2003). Student translation archive: Design, development and application. In F. Zanettin, S. Bernardini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora in translator education (pp. 103–117). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callies, M. (2015). Learner corpus methodology. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 35–55). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canty, A., & Ripley, B. D. (2021). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package (version 1.3–28).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castagnoli, S., Ciobanu, D., Kübler, N., Kunz, K., & Volanschi, A. (2006). Designing a learner translator corpus for training purposes. Proceedings of TALC2006, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 570–590.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(2), 157–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). Learner corpora and psycholinguistics. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 57–78). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebeling, S., & Hasselgård, H. (2015). Learner corpora and phraseology. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 207–230). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 375–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Espunya, A. (2014). The UPF learner translation corpus as a resource for translator training. Language Resources and Evaluation, 481, 33–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
European Master’s in Translation Board (2022). EMT Competence Framework 2022. [URL]
Feng, H. (2020). Form, meaning and function in collocation. A corpus study on commercial Chinese-to-English translation. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferraresi, A., & Miličević, M. (2017). Phraseological patterns in interpreting and translation. Similar or different? In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp. 157–182). Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67(S1), 155–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2008). Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking contrastive and Learner Corpus Research (pp. 3–33). Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). From design to collection of learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 9–34). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González-Davies, M. (2014). Towards a plurilingual development paradigm: From spontaneous to informed use of translation in additional language learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Bestgen, Y. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(3), 229–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 3–26). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2013). Speech perception and comprehension. In F. Grosjean, & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 29–49). Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (pp. 9–46). Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. (2019). Phraseological teddy bears. Frequent lexical bundles in academic writing by Norwegian learners and native speakers of English. In V. Wiegand & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Corpus linguistics, context and culture (pp. 339–62). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H., & Ebeling, S. (2018). At the interface between Contrastive Analysis and Learner Corpus Research: A parallel contrastive approach. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 182–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. 133–157). Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jantunen, J. H. (2004). Untypical patterns in translations. In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (Eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist? (pp. 101–128). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 21, 58–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenny, D. (2001). Lexis and creativity in translation. A corpus-based approach. St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (1984). Some thought on collocational distinctiveness. In J. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Recent developments in the use of computer corpora in English language research (pp 163–71). Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolehmainen, L., Meriläinen, L., & Riionheimo, H. (2014). Interlingual reduction: Evidence from language contacts, translation and second language acquisition. In H. Paulasto, L. Meriläinen, H. Riionheimo, & M. Kok (Eds.), Language contacts at the crossroads of disciplines (pp. 3–32). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotze, H. (2020). Converging what and how to find out why. In L. Vandevoorde, J. Dams, & B. Defrancq (Eds.), New empirical perspectives on translation and interpreting (pp. 333–371). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. 67–98). Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutuzov, A., & Kunilovskaya, M. (2014). Russian learner translator corpus. In P. Sojka, A. Horak, I. Kopecek, & K. Pala (Eds.), Text, speech and dialogue (pp. 315–323). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaFlair, G. T., Egbert, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). A practical guide to bootstrapping descriptive statistics, correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 46–77). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanstyak, I., & Heltai, P. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2010). Improving data analysis in Second Language Acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 368–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2): 647–672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2015). Transfer and learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Learner Corpus Research (pp. 333–356). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. In L. Roberts, I. Vedder, & J. Hulstijn (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (pp. 216–237). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., Egbert, J., & LaFlair, G. T. (2015). Bootstrapping in applied linguistics: Assessing its potential using shared data. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 591–610.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rabinovich, E., Nisioi, S., Ordan, N., & Wintner, S. (2016). On the similarities between native, non-native and translated texts. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1870–1881. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rendall, S. (1997). The translator’s task, Walter Benjamin (Translation). TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 10(2), 151–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association score. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing (RASLAN), 6–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1989). Simultaneous interpretation as a factor in effecting shifts in the position of texts on the oral-literate continuum. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 429–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sahraei, Rezamorad, Zahra Haghighi Naseri & Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani
2025. Assessing Collocational Errors of Russian Learners of Persian: A Learner Corpus-based Research. In New Frontiers in Corpus Based Studies of Persian, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue