Cover not available

Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 18:2 (2018) ► pp.230–251

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

Contrasting pronominal subjects

A cross-linguistic corpus study of English, Italian and Slovene

 | University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
 | University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
Published online: 28 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16007.pis
Abstract
Pronominal subject use constitutes a potential challenge in translation because of cross-linguistic differences: while the subject must be expressed in non-null subject languages, this is not necessary in null subject languages. The aim of the paper is twofold: first, to show that the type of source language influences the frequency of personal pronouns in translation, and second, to establish whether translations into a null subject language differ from comparable target language originals in terms of pronominal subject use. The study is based on the analysis of a 625,000-word corpus comprising original and translated popular science texts in Slovene and the corresponding source texts in English and Italian. The results confirm that pronominal subjects are more frequent in translations from English, a non-null subject language; furthermore, they are more frequent in translations than in comparable originals. Untypical cohesive patterns are identified in translations and possible reasons for their presence are explored.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pronominal subjects as cohesive devices
  • 3.Corpus and procedure
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequency of pronominal subjects
    • 4.2Classification of pronominal subjects
      • 4.2.1Disambiguation
        • Contrast
        • Comparison
        • Coordinate structure
      • 4.2.2Emphasis
    • 4.3Source text – target text correspondence
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Barbosa, P. Duarte, M. E. and Kato, M. A. 2005. Null Subjects in European and Brasilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4(2):11–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3):259–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becher, V. 2011. When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 23(1):26–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed), 33–63. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981/1988. Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa Lecture. 5th Edition. Dordrecht/Providence: Floris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cordin, P. 2001. I pronomi personali. Caratteristiche generali. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, L. Renzi, G. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 549–563. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dardano, M. and Trifone, P. 1995. Grammatica italiana con nozioni di linguistica. Third edition. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Prada Pérez, A. 2009. Subject Expression in Minorcan Spanish: Consequences of Contact with Catalan. PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. 2004. Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change 16(1):49–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. R. 2003. On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. Language and Computers 46(1): 225–240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2008. Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Papp and M. B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 1–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Steiner, E. 2007. Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English-German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 241–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyams, N. 1983. The Pro Drop Parameter in child grammars. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 21. Stanford, Ca: Stanford Linguistics Association, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. 126–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. J. (eds) 1989. The Null Subject Parameter. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordercht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K. 2005. Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liceras, J. and Díaz, L. 1999. Topic-drop versus pro-drop: null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research 15(1):1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marco, J. 2012. An analysis of explicitation in the COVALT corpus: The case of the substituting pronoun one (s) and its translation into Catalan. Across Languages and Cultures 13(2):229–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olohan, M. and Baker, M. 2000. Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2):141–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Øverås, L. 1998. In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/ Meta: Translators’ Journal 43(4): 557–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palumbo, G. and Musacchio, M. T. 2010. When a Clue is not a Clue. A corpus-driven study of explicit vs. implicit signalling of sentence links in popular economics translation. Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 121:63–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, J. and Navarro, S. 2003. Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input? Journal of Child Language 30(2):371–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1968. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. PhD Thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the Null Subject Parameter. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 5(3):377–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reindl, D. F. 1997. Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages. Slovene Linguistic Studies 11:24–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 2009. Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, T. Biberauer, I. Roberts and M. Sheehan (eds), 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, D. 2001. Literal translation. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and K. Malmkjaer (eds), 125–127. Routledge: London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J. 2009. Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax – pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5):951–973. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silveira, R. 2008. Cohesive devices and translation: An analyis. Cadernos de Tradução 1(2):421–433.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, A. and Filiaci, F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3):339–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. 2007. Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics 39(6):1058–1087. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toporišič, J. 2004. Slovenska slovnica “Slovene Grammar”. Maribor: Obzorja.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trebits, A. 2009. Conjunctive cohesion in English language EU documents – A corpus-based analysis and its implications. English for Specific Purposes 28(3):199–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3):257–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, L. 1985. The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35(1):47–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue