[Corpora-List] CfP: Methodological Advances in Corpus-Based Translation Studies (Ghent - Belgium, 8-9 January 2010)
Gert De Sutter
gert.desutter at hogent.be
Fri Apr 3 10:36:01 UTC 2009
CALL FOR PAPERS
*Methodological Advances in Corpus-Based Translation Studies*
Hosted by University College Ghent (Belgium)
January 8 and 9, 2010
http://veto.hogent.be/actua/mats2010/
We invite papers for a two-day symposium which will focus on
corpus-based work in the field of Translation Studies. Areas of interest
include:
- The relationship between non-translated texts and translated texts in
one language
- The relationship between source texts and target texts
- Innovative methods and techniques for collecting and analysing data in
Translation Studies
Background
The introduction of a corpus-based methodology in the field of
Translation Studies (Baker 1993) gave rise to a large number of
empirical studies that investigate the fundamental characteristics of
translated texts and their relationship to their source texts and
non-translated texts. These studies have yielded interesting insights
into the nature of translated language and the translation process, such
as the so-called translation universals, the ideology of translation and
stylistic differences between translators.
Nevertheless, important methodological and conceptual challenges lie
ahead. Some languages, for instance, are less well-studied within
corpus-based Translation Studies. Obviously, in order to empirically
verify general hypotheses about translation products and processes, as
many languages as possible have to be studied.
In addition, some general hypotheses, like the explicitation
hypothesis, need conceptual refinement: to what extent, for instance, is
explicitation at syntactic level identical to explicitation at
discursive level? Most importantly, how can general hypotheses be put to
the test or, in other words, how do we 'translate’ (operationalise)
hypotheses so that they are empirically testable in a corpus?
The two-day symposium therefore wants to encourage corpus-based work on
translations in less well-studied languages as well as corpus-based work
that pushes methodological and conceptual frontiers in Translation
Studies. Possible questions / hypotheses include (but are not limited to):
- Untranslatability or implicitation – Contrary to explicitation, which
has been confirmed as one of the translation universals in many
corpus-based studies, implicitation has received much less attention
except for a few studies. Fabricius-Hansen and Behrens (2001), for
instance, have come across 'S-universal implicitations’ by applying
Dyvik’s mirror technique (1998) and looking for the presence of specific
linguistic items in either source or target text. Similarly, Puurtinen
(2003) has found cases of 'S-universal implicitation' by investigating
syntactic differences between source and target texts in aligned
parallel corpora, such as the differences between clauses and nominal
phrases, or those between clauses and complex premodifiers. Can these
methods be applied to find all types of 'S-universal implicitation', and
can they be employed to retrieve 'T-universal implicitations' in
comparable corpora?
- Deictic shifts in translation – Deictic elements, such as
demonstratives, personal pronouns, verbal tenses or spatiotemporal
adverbs, may be affected by translation: demonstratives may alternate
with definite articles or other determiners, proximals may alternate
with distals, present tenses may alternate with past tenses, etc. Hence,
the question arises: do deictic shifts occur systematically? What are
the main motivations for shifting or non-shifting? What are the semantic
effects of deictic shifts? What is the effect of the translators'
conceptualization of the deictic centre? Previous studies in this domain
are Mason & Şerban (2003) and Bosseaux (2007).
- Information structure asymmetries between source and target texts –
Parallel texts have been used in the analysis of information structure
at sentence level (Gundel 2002; Musacchio 2007). However, unlike some
studies on cohesion which focus on information structure at discourse
level (Blum-Kulka 1986), none of this research has addressed the
possible influence of typical aspects of the translation process in the
distribution and marking of information structure in parallel texts.
Gundel (2002) entirely attributes the observed differences between
Norwegian and English to language specific properties of the source
language, whereas Musacchio (2007) focuses on traces of source language
interference. Even though both studies undeniably reveal aspects of the
fate of information structure in translation, it would be rather
surprising if information structure and its marking remained unaffected
by such phenomena as explicitation, simplification, normalisation, etc.
Hence the question, are there sentential information structure shifts
between source and target texts that can be ascribed to one of these
phenomena?
- Register differences within translated language – Although it has been
repeatedly shown that actual choices between competing variants in
non-translated language are heavily influenced by the type of register
(e.g. Biber 1988), corpus-based Translation Studies are mostly
restricted to one single type of register. Given the high degree of
register variation in non-translated language, it would be interesting
to find out to what extent linguistic choices in translated language are
(consciously or unconsciously) influenced by the type of register. If
that is the case, it would probably mean that translation universals
need to be reformulated in more register-sensitive terms.
These examples illustrate the type of questions and hypotheses that we
would like to see addressed. We call on researchers within the
corpus-based strand of Translation Studies to submit a paper on these
and related topics.
References
Baker, M. (1993). “Corpus linguistics and translation studies”. In: M.
Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In
honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins, 223-250.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in
Translation”. In: J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and
Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and
Second Language Acquisition Studies. Tübingen: Narr, 17-35.
Bosseaux, C. (2007). How Does it Feel? Point of View in Translation. The
Case of Virginia Woolf into French. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Dyvik, H. (1998). “A translational basis for semantics”. In: S.
Johansson & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research.
Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi, 51-86
Fabricius-Hansen, C. & B. Behrens (2001). Elaboration and related
discourse relations viewed from an interlingual perspective.
SPRIKReports, 13, June 2001.
Gundel, J. (2002). “Information structure and the use of cleft sentences
in English and Norwegian”. In: H. Hasselgård, S. Johansson, B. Behrens &
C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic
perspective. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 113-128.
Mason, I. & A. Şerban 2003. Deixis as an interactive feature in literary
translations from Romanian into English. Target 15(2): 269-294.
Musacchio, M. T. (2007). “The distribution of information in LSP
translation: a corpus study of Italian”. In: K. Ahmad & M. Rogers
(Eds.), Evidence-based LSP: translation, text and terminology. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang, 97-117.
Puurtinen, T. (2003). "Explicitating and implicitating source text
ideology". Across Languages and Cultures 4(1): 53-63.
Submission requirements
Abstracts should be written in English and should clearly articulate:
- the corpus materials used;
- the research hypothesis as well as the operationalisation of this
hypothesis in corpus-linguistic terms;
- the results of the analysis and its theoretical implications
(statistical analysis of the corpus data is a plus).
Although one of the objectives of the symposium is to stimulate
corpus-based research on less well-studied languages, contributions on
well-studied languages will also be welcomed.
Submission procedure
For purposes of easy editing, please download the abstract template
available at our website (http://veto.hogent.be/actua/mats2010/). Send
your abstract (500 words, excluding references) to
gert.desutter at hogent.be. Specify your name(s), affiliation and contact
details in the message body only.
Abstracts are due on September 30, 2009 and will be reviewed anonymously
by two members of the local organising committee and the scientific
committee. Notification of acceptance is scheduled on October 30, 2009.
Plenary speakers
- Silvia Bernardini (University of Bologna at Forlì)
- Andrew Chesterman (University of Helsinki)
Local organizing committee
Bart Defrancq (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Gert De Sutter (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Patrick Goethals (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Torsten Leuschner (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Reine Meylaerts (University of Leuven)
Sonia Vandepitte (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Marc Van de Velde (University College Ghent / Ghent University)
Dominique Willems (Ghent University)
Important dates
- September 30, 2009: Abstracts due
- October 30, 2009: Notification of acceptance
- January 8 and 9, 2010: Symposium
Conference website
http://veto.hogent.be/actua/mats2010/
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
More information about the Corpora
mailing list