Cognitive and linguistic factors influencing the French translation of English noun sequences: evidence from a multiple translation corpus

Prinzie, Thomas
(2023) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference UCCTS) — Location: Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznan, Poland) (10.July.2023)

Files

No attached file found for this publication.

Details

Authors
Abstract
It has been suggested that the field of Empirical Translation Studies lags behind in theory development and would benefit from improved interaction with cognitive linguistics (De Sutter & Lefer, 2020; Halverson & Kotze, 2021). While most translation research to date on cognitive processes has been conducted using process methods, there has been growing interest in applying corpus-based methods as well. In this context, Halverson’s (2017) revised “gravitational pull” model has set out to explain translators’ behavior in terms of usage-based factors such as the salience of source and target items and the entrenchment of translation pairs. Halverson’s model has been further tested and extended in several recent studies (e.g., Lefer & De Sutter, 2022; Heilmann et al., 2022). Still, there remain unresolved issues regarding how these factors are best operationalized, due in part to the rather confounded treatment of the construct of salience in the literature (Boswijk & Coler, 2020) and the realization that frequency data alone may not fully capture its effects (Divjak, 2019). It may also be helpful to distinguish the two modes of processing involved: (1) a fast, largely automatized behavior involving direct one-to-one links from a source language (SL) form to a target language (TL) form; and (2) a slower behavior involving conscious decisions regarding potentially multiple interpretations (from SL form to meaning) and realizations (from meaning to a TL form). De Groot (1997) termed these two modes horizontal and vertical translation. One view holds that the former is used by default whenever possible and that switching to the latter (also called ‘monitoring’) is triggered by a perceived difficulty; Halverson (2019) thus favors the terms default translation and conscious deliberation. Surprisingly, there have been few empirical investigations until recently. I argue that considering them separately may help to disentangle distinct factors contributing to translator choices: (1) in horizontal mode, the presence of entrenched solutions versus potential SL interference; and (2) in vertical mode, the influence of semasiological salience on interpretations (comprehension), and of onomasiological salience on realizations (production). Clarification will require a range of operationalizations, combining the strengths of corpus data (including frequencies but also recency and cognate effects) with experimental data (keystroke logging, eye-tracking, elicitation and retrospective protocols; e.g. Alves et al, 2010; Serbina & Neumann, 2022). In this presentation, I highlight a somewhat neglected corpus-based approach to examine the cognitive and linguistic factors underlying translator choices. Malmkjaer (1998) first proposed that, unlike traditional parallel corpora (which contain only one translation for each source text), a multiple translation corpus would offer multiple interpretations and renditions and thus provide a probabilistic overview of translator choices. She pointed out that “where [translators’ opinions] differ most is where investigation might prove particularly fruitful.” (Malmkjaer,, 1998, p. 6). This multiple translation approach has long remained underexplored for lack of data (but see Castagnoli 2020). However, recent compilation of the Multilingual Student Translation corpus (MUST; Granger & Lefer, 2020), which contains multiple student translations, opens up new avenues to study its potential applications. My main goal is to demonstrate the feasibility and promise of this approach. As a test case, I present a preliminary study of multiple French translations of English noun sequences (e.g., disaster relief program coordinator). Noun sequences represent an extension of the case of noun compounds, whose processing and linguistic representation have been a focus of study in psycholinguistics (Gagné, 2011) and in NLP (Nakov, 2013). In addition, the simple juxtaposition of nouns in these [N+N(+N)…] constructions is efficient and common in English but poses specific difficulties for translation into French. At the formal level, French tends to use prepositional post-modification [N+Prep+N(+Prep+N)…], which can become problematic for longer sequences (e.g., disaster relief program coordinator → coordinateur du programme d'aide en cas de catastrophe). At the semantic level, potentially ambiguous relationships between constituents, left implicit in English, often need to be stated explicitly in French. Both the formal shifts and source item ambiguity are expected to contribute to perceived difficulty, thus often leading to deliberate choices. The present study is based on three English source texts in MUST (in the specialized domain of sustainable finance), from which I extracted 87 noun sequences and 2974 French translations. I first present a qualitative description of observed differences between the translation solutions. Resulting in part from the multi-word nature of noun sequences, there is an accumulation of variation at three structural levels: the main constituents, their linking prepositions, and surface grammar. I will illustrate how variation at each level can indicate different aspects of translators’ interpretations of source ambiguity, in some cases clearly distinguishing multiple interpretations versus multiple realizations. As suggested by Malmkjaer’s quote (above), it is also interesting to analyze the variability of these translations, i.e., the number and distribution of different solutions, and to investigate why some source items give rise to a greater number of solutions. My preliminary quantitative analysis identifies several predictors for high variability: greater noun sequence length, syntactic ambiguity (different plausible dependency relations), and low frequency in English usage (an operationalization of SL salience, obtained from reference corpora for both general and specialized non-translated English). Due to high collinearity, I confirmed the initial multifactorial linear regression model using random forest analysis. Studying multiple translations and their variability thus appears to be a promising usage-based approach. Both the qualitative and quantitative findings can be related to specific sources of translation difficulty and to the likelihood of deliberate translator choices. In addition, while the multi-word nature of the source items presents a methodological challenge, necessitating analyses of factors and outcomes at different hierarchical levels, these same levels also provide an opportunity for fresh insights. References Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2010). Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product-and process-based translation research. In Shreve, G. M., & Angelone, E. (eds). Translation and cognition (pp. 109-142). John Benjamins. Boswijk, V., & Coler, M. (2020). What is salience? Open Linguistics, 6(1), 713-722. Campbell, S. (2000). Choice Network Analysis in Translation Studies. In: Olahan, M. (ed.) Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies 1 (pp. 29-42). St. Jerome. Castagnoli, S. (2020). Translation choices compared: Investigating variation in a learner translation corpus. In Granger, S. & Lefer, M.-A. (Eds.). Translating and Comparing Languages: Corpus-based Insights. Selected Proceedings of the Fifth Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference (pp. 25-44). Presses Universitaires de Louvain. De Groot, A. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In Danks, J. H. et al. (eds.). Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 25-56). Sage Publications. De Sutter, G., & Lefer, M.-A. (2020). On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: A multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives, 28(1), 1-23. Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. Gagné, C. L. (2011). Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 255-271). 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, 54(4), 1183-1199. Halverson, S. L. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In De Sutter, G., Lefer, M. A., & Delaere, I. (eds.). Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 9-46). Walter de Gruyter. Halverson, S. L. (2019). ‘Default’ translation: A construct for cognitive translation and interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2(2), 187-210. Halverson, S. L. & Kotze, H. (2021). Sociocognitive constructs in Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS): Do we really need concepts like norms and risk when we have a comprehensive usage-based theory of language? In S. L. Halverson & Á. Marín García (eds). Contesting Epistemologies in Translation and Interpreting Studies (pp. 51-79). Routledge. Heilmann, A., Freiwald, J., Neumann, S., & Miljanović, Z. (2022). Analyzing the effects of entrenched grammatical constructions on translation. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 5(1), 110-143. Lefer, M. A., & De Sutter, G. (2022). Using the Gravitational Pull Hypothesis to explain patterns in interpreting and translation: The case of concatenated nouns in mediated European Parliament discourse. In M. Kajzer-Wietrzny, A. Ferraresi, I. Ivaska & S. Ber¬nardini (Eds.). Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: empirical investigations (pp. 133-159). Language Science Press. Malmkjær, K. (1998). Love thy neighbour: Will parallel corpora endear linguists to translators? Meta: Translators' Journal, 43(4), 534-541. Nakov, P. (2013). On the interpretation of noun compounds: Syntax, semantics, and entailment. Natural Language Engineering, 19(3), 291-330. Serbina, T., & Neumann, S. (2022). Translation Product and Process Data: A Happy Marriage or Worlds Apart? In S. L. Halverson & Á. Marín García (eds.). Contesting Epistemologies in Translation and Interpreting Studies (pp. 131-152). Routledge.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Prinzie, T. (2023). Cognitive and linguistic factors influencing the French translation of English noun sequences: evidence from a multiple translation corpus. Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference UCCTS), Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznan, Poland). https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/269408