Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch

Vandevoorde, Lore·2019·Meta
DOI 10.7202/1060166ar
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In line with recent studies about register and source language effects on translated language (Delaere, De Sutter, et al. 2012; De Sutter, Delaere, et al. 2012; Kruger and Van Rooy 2012; Delaere and De Sutter 2017), the aim of this paper is twofold: to further investigate the influence of register and source language, and to study any potential influence of the variable “cognateness” on translated language. We focus on specific onomasiological choices (lexical choices) in the semantic field of inchoativity, made by translators into Dutch and attested in corpus observations (Dutch translated texts in the Dutch Parallel Corpus). First, we performed a multinomial regression analysis on our dataset and carried out an Analysis of Deviance to determine whether the predictor variables “source language lexeme” and “register” (“text type”) have a significant influence on the response variable (the set of lexemes representing the onomasiological choice range in translated Dutch inchoativity). Doing a second multinomial regression analysis, followed by an Analysis of Deviance, we investigate the influence of the new variable “cognateness” on the translator’s onomasiological choice (in the target language). Classification trees were generated as statistics-based visualizations of onomasiological choice in translated Dutch (translated from French and translated from English) within the semantic field of inchoativity. The results of the statistical analyses show that register, source language, and cognateness significantly influence the specific lexical choices made by translators. In addition, the visualizations show how the onomasiological choice for some target lexemes can be predicted on the basis of a single source language lexeme, while other choices are more complex, and will also be determined by the register of the text.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7202/1060166ar

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan (2003): Register Variation: A Corpus Approach. In: Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 175-96. · DOI
  2. Chesterman, Andrew (2004): Hypotheses About Translation Universals. In: Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjaer and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-13. · doi:10.1075/btl.50.02che
  3. Delaere, Isabelle, De Sutter, Gert, and Plevoets, Koen (2012): Is Translated Language More Standardized than Non-Translated Language? Using Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis for Measuring Linguistic Distances between Language Varieties. Target. 24(2):203-24. · DOI
  4. Delaere, Isabelle and De Sutter, Gert (2017): Variability of English Loanword Use in Belgian Dutch Translations. Measuring the Effect of Source Language and Register. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 81-112. · doi:10.1515/9783110459586-004
  5. De Sutter, Gert, Delaere, Isabelle, and Plevoets, Koen (2012): Lexical Lectometry in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. Combining Profile-Based Correspondence Analysis and Logistic Regression Modeling. In: Michael Oakes and Ji Meng, eds. Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 325-45. · doi:10.1075/scl.51.13sut
  6. Divjak, Dagmar and Fieller, Nick (2014): Cluster Analysis. Finding Structure in Linguistic Data. In: Dylan Glynn and Justyna Robinson, eds. Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 405-41. · DOI
  7. Diwersy, Sascha, Evert, Stefan, and Neumann, Stella (2014): A Weakly Supervised Multivariate Approach to the Study of Language Variation. In: Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Bernhard Wälchli, eds. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis. Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 174-204. · doi:10.1515/9783110317558.174
  8. Dyvik, Helge (2005): Translations as a Semantic Knowledge Source. In: Margit Langemets and Priit Penjam, eds. Proceedings of the Second Baltic Conference on Human Language Technologies. (HLT’2005: Second Baltic Conference on Human Language Technologies, Tallinn, 4-5 April 2005). Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian Language/Institute of Cybernetics (Tallinn University), 27-38.
  9. Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy, and Field, Zoë (2012): Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage Publications.
  10. Geeraerts, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stef, and Bakema, Peter (1994): The Structure of Lexical Variation. Meaning, Naming, and Context. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. · doi:10.1515/9783110873061
  11. Halverson, Sandra L. (2015): Cognitive Translation Studies and the Merging of Empirical Paradigms. The Case of ‘literal Translation.’ Translation Spaces. 4(2):310-40. · DOI
  12. Halverson, Sandra L. (2017): Gravitational Pull in Translation. Testing a Revised Model. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. · doi:10.1515/9783110459586-002
  13. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia (2011): Between Normalization and Shining-Through. Specific Properties of English-German Translations and Their Influence on the Target Language. In: Svenja Kranich, Viktor Becher, Steffen Höder, et al., eds. Multilingual Discourse Production. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-62. · doi:10.1075/hsm.12.07han
  14. Ivir, Vladimir (1987): Functionalism in Contrastive Analysis and Translation Studies. In: René Dirven and Vilém Fried, eds. Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 471-81. · doi:10.1075/llsee.20.25ivi
  15. Kruger, Haidee, and Van Rooy, Bertus (2012): Register and the Features of Translated Language. Across Languages and Cultures. 13(1):33-65. · DOI
  16. Kruger, Haidee (2017): The Effects of Editorial Intervention. Implications for Studies of the Features of Translated Language. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. · doi:10.1515/9783110459586-005
  17. Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina (2017): Exploratory Analysis of Dimensions Influencing Variation in Translation. The Case of Text Register and Translation Method. In: Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. Empirical Translation Studies. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. · doi:10.1515/9783110459586-008
  18. Levenshtein, Vladimir (1966): Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady. 10(8):707-10.
  19. Macken, Lieve, De Clercq, Orphée, and Paulussen Hans (2011): Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus. Meta. 56(2):374-90. · DOI
  20. Mauranen, Anna (2008): Universal Tendencies in Translation. In: Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers, eds. Incorporating Corpora: The Linguist and the Translator. Clevedon/Tonawanda: Multilingual Matters, 32-48. · doi:10.21832/9781853599873-006
  21. Malkiel, Brenda (2009): Translation as a Decision Process. Evidence from Cognates. Babel. 55(3):228-43. · doi:10.1075/babel.55.3.02mal
  22. Neumann, Stella (2014): Contrastive Register Variation, A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. · doi:10.1515/9783110238594
  23. Paulussen, Hans, Macken, Lieve, Vandeweghe, Willy, et al. (2013): Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Parallel Corpus for Dutch-English and Dutch-French. In: Peter Spyns and Jan Odijk, eds. Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Results by the STEVIN Programme. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer, 185-99. · DOI
  24. Schepens, Job, Dijkstra, Ton, and Grootjen, Franc (2012). Distributions of Cognates in Europe as Based on Levenshtein Distance. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15(1):157-66. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Schepens, Job, Dijkstra, Ton, Grootjen, Franc, et al. (2013). Cross-Language Distributions of High Frequency and Phonetically Similar Cognates. PLoS ONE. 8(5):e63006. · DOI
  26. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1813/2004): On the Different Methods of Translating. (Translated by Susan Bernofsky) In: Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 43-63.
  27. Shlesinger, Miriam and Malkiel, Brenda (2005): Comparing Modalities: Cognates as a Case in Point. Across Languages and Cultures. 6(2):173-93. · doi:10.1556/acr.6.2005.2.2
  28. Teich, Elke (2003). Cross-Linguistic Variation in System and Text. A Methodology for the Investigation of Translations and Comparable Texts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Vandevoorde, Lore (2016): On Semantic Differences: A Multivariate Corpus-Based Study of the Semantic Field of Inchoativity in Translated and Non-Translated Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Ghent: Ghent University.
  30. Vandevoorde, Lore, Lefever, Els, Plevoets, Koen, et al. (2017): A Corpus-Based Study of Semantic Differences in Translation. The Case of Dutch Inchoativity. Target. 29(3): 388-415. · doi:10.1075/target.15009.van
  31. Vandevoorde, Lore (forthcoming): Semantic Differences in Translation: Exploring the Field of Inchoativity. Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  32. Xiao, Richard (2010): How Different Is Translated Chinese from Native Chinese? A Corpus-Based Study of Translation Universals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 15(1):5-35. · doi:10.1075/ijcl.15.1.01xia

Metadata

Authors
Vandevoorde, L.
Venue
Meta
Publisher
Consortium Erudit
Published
2019-06-06
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
627-648
ISSN
  • 1492-1421
  • 0026-0452
DOI
10.7202/1060166ar
Cited by
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7202/1060166ar
The paper
Vandevoorde, L. (2019). Register, Source Language, and Cognateness Effects on Lexical Choice in Translated Dutch. Meta. https://doi.org/10.7202/1060166ar

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.