Cover not available

Article published In: Target
Vol. 22:1 (2010) ► pp.40–70

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

Shifts in repetition vs. shifts in text meaning

A study of the textual role of lexical repetition in non-literary translation

 | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Published online: 6 July 2010
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.1.04kar
This study focuses on the discoursal role of repetition, exploring the way shifts in repetition patterns in text trigger coherence shifts, altering the meaning potential of translations. As repetition in translation has been hypothesized to be affected by certain universals of translation, the paper also offers initial data to support the universals of explicitation and avoiding repetition. Lexical repetitions are investigated using Hoey’s (1991) theory in a corpus of Hungarian—English news texts. Analyses reveal considerable shifts in repetition in translations; however, these differences are not statistically significant. The corpus also provides evidence for repetition shifts affecting the macropropositional structure of target texts, leading to macropropositional shifts, which alter the global meaning of translations compared to sources.
Résumé
La présente étude porte sur le rôle discursif de la répétition. Elle explore comment des glissements dans la structure des répétitions déclenchent des glissements au niveau des cohérences textuelles en modifiant ainsi le potentiel sémantique des traductions. Sur la base de l’hypothèse que la répétition est affectée par certains universaux en matière de traduction, l’étude fournit aussi des précisions initiales en faveur de l’idée d’universaux en matière d’explicitation et dans la tendance à éviter la répétition. Le phénomène des glissements lexicaux est approché sur la base des théories de Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar face à un corpus journalistique de textes hongrois-anglais. Les analyses font ressortir des glissements considérables dans la structure des répétitions dans les traductions en question, alors qu’ils ne se révèlent pas significatifs en termes statistiques. Le même corpus établit l’évidence que les glissements dans les répétitions affectent la structure macropropositionnelle des textes-cible, d’où aussi des glissements affectant la signification globale des traductions par rapport à leurs sources.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The study of lexical repetition in text and translation
    • 2.1The ambivalent nature of repetition
    • 2.2The study of lexical cohesion as various forms of lexical repetition
  • 3Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1The corpus
    • 4.2Procedures of analysis
    • 4.3Quantitative measures in the analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Quantitative analyses
    • 5.2Qualitative analysis of the combinations of repetition bonds
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words. London: Routledge.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies.Implications and Applications”. Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Rognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and Technology. Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. 233–243.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben-Ari, Nitsa. 1998. “The Ambivalent Case of Repetitions in Literary Translation. Avoiding Repetitions: A “Universal” of Translation?”. Meta 43:1. 68–78.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshama and Eddie A. Levenston. 1983. “Universals of Lexical Simplification”. Claus Faerch and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London and New York: Longman, 1983. 119–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshama. 1986. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation”. Juliane House and Shoshama Blum-Kulka, eds. Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 1986. 17–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, David. 1988. “Ideational Meaning and the ‘Existential Fabric’ of a Poem”. Robin P. Fawcett and David Young, eds. New Developments in Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 2., Theory and Application. London: Pinter Publishers, 1988. 174–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catford, J. C.. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englund Dimitrova, Birgitta. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the Translation Process. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, Georgia and Jerry Morgan. 1981. “Pragmatics, Grammar, and Discourse”. Peter Cole, ed. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 167–181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutwinski, Waldemar. 1976. Cohesion in Literary Texts: A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London and Boston: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael and Ruquaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruquaiya. 1984. “Coherence and Cohesive Harmony”. James Flood, ed. Understanding Reading Comprehension., Delaware: International Reading Association, 1984. 181–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatch, Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2004. “The Fate of The Families of Medellín: Tampering with a Potential Translation Universal in the Translation Class”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation Universals: Do they exist?, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 205–214.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Károly, Krisztina. 2002. Lexical Repetition in Text. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga. 2003. Languages in Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaudy, Kinga and Krisztina Károly. 2000. “The Text-organizing Function of Lexical Repetition in Translation”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. 143–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Lexical Repetition in Professional and Trainees’ Translation”. Eva Hung, ed. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4, Building Bridges, Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002. 99–114.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotfipour-Saedi, Kazem. 1997. “Lexical Cohesion and Translation Equivalence”. Meta 42:1. 185–192.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Gregory. 1991. “Lexical Cohesion and Specialized Knowledge in Science and Popular Science Texts”. Discourse Processes. 141. 1–26.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory M. Shreve. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent: The Kent State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reynolds, Dudley W. 1995. “Repetition in Nonnative Speaker Writing: More than Quantity”. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 17:2. 185–209.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren and Leo Noordman. 1992. “Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations”. Discourse Processes 15:1. 1–35.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting”. The Translator 1:2. 193–214.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Susan. 1994. “Aspects of Cohesion in Monologue”. Applied Linguistics 15:1. 58–75.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1977. Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930–1945. Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Tom Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies: The State of the Art: Proceedings from the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA.: Rodopi, 1991. 179–192.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea. 1995. “Patterns of Lexis: How much can repetition tell us about discourse coherence?”. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1995. 268–280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, E. O.. 1977. “A Clause-relational Approach to English Texts”, Instructional Science 6. 1–92.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Abritta, Alejandro
2023. La repetición en las traducciones homéricas: consideraciones teóricas y análisis de casos. Literatura: teoría, historia, crítica 25:2 DOI logo
Jiang, Yue & Jiang Niu
2022. A corpus-based search for machine translationese in terms of discourse coherence. Across Languages and Cultures 23:2 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Jiang, Zhanhao & Yuan Tao
2017. Translation Universals of Discourse Markers in Russian-to-Chinese Academic Texts: A Corpus-based Approach. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 62:4 ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Yuan & Zhanhao Jiang
2017. Translation universals of kak structures: a corpus-based approach. Russian Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2013. News Discourse in Translation: Topical Structure and News Content in the Analytical News Article. Meta 57:4 ► pp. 884 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2014. Referential cohesion and news content. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 26:3 ► pp. 406 ff. DOI logo
Károly, Krisztina
2017. Logical relations in translation: the case of Hungarian–English news translation. Perspectives 25:2 ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Summary and conclusions. In Aspects of cohesion and coherence in translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Aspects of cohesion and coherence in translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 134], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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