比较翻译语言和学习者语言中的搭配

Adriano Ferraresi, Silvia Bernardini
{"title":"比较翻译语言和学习者语言中的搭配","authors":"Adriano Ferraresi, Silvia Bernardini","doi":"10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper compares use of collocations by Italian learners writing in and translating into English,\n conceptualising the two tasks as different modes of constrained language production and adopting Halverson’s (2017) revised Gravitational Pull Hypothesis as a theoretical model. A particular focus is\n placed on identifying a method for comparing datasets containing translations and essays, assembled opportunistically and varying\n in size and structure. The study shows that lexical association scores for dependency-defined word pairs are significantly higher\n in translations than essays. A qualitative analysis of a subset of collocations shared and unique to either mode shows that the\n former set features more collocations with direct cross-linguistic links (connectivity), and that the source/first language seems\n to affect both modes similarly. We tentatively conclude that second/target language salience effects are more visible in\n translation than second language use, while connectivity and source language salience affect both modes of bilingual processing\n similarly, regardless of the mediation variable.","PeriodicalId":309814,"journal":{"name":"Learner translation corpus research","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing collocations in translated and learner language\",\"authors\":\"Adriano Ferraresi, Silvia Bernardini\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper compares use of collocations by Italian learners writing in and translating into English,\\n conceptualising the two tasks as different modes of constrained language production and adopting Halverson’s (2017) revised Gravitational Pull Hypothesis as a theoretical model. A particular focus is\\n placed on identifying a method for comparing datasets containing translations and essays, assembled opportunistically and varying\\n in size and structure. The study shows that lexical association scores for dependency-defined word pairs are significantly higher\\n in translations than essays. A qualitative analysis of a subset of collocations shared and unique to either mode shows that the\\n former set features more collocations with direct cross-linguistic links (connectivity), and that the source/first language seems\\n to affect both modes similarly. We tentatively conclude that second/target language salience effects are more visible in\\n translation than second language use, while connectivity and source language salience affect both modes of bilingual processing\\n similarly, regardless of the mediation variable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learner translation corpus research\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learner translation corpus research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learner translation corpus research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.22012.fer","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了意大利学习者用英语写作和翻译时搭配的使用情况,将这两项任务定义为约束语言产生的不同模式,并采用Halverson(2017)修订的引力假设作为理论模型。特别关注的是确定一种方法来比较包含翻译和论文的数据集,这些数据集是机会性地组装的,大小和结构各不相同。研究表明,翻译中依赖定义词对的词汇联想得分明显高于散文。一项对两种模式共享且独特的搭配子集的定性分析表明,前一组具有更多直接跨语言联系(连通性)的搭配,并且源语言/第一语言似乎对两种模式都有相似的影响。我们初步得出结论,第二语言/目标语言显著性效应在翻译中比在第二语言使用中更为明显,而无论中介变量如何,连通性和源语言显著性对两种双语加工模式的影响相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing collocations in translated and learner language
This paper compares use of collocations by Italian learners writing in and translating into English, conceptualising the two tasks as different modes of constrained language production and adopting Halverson’s (2017) revised Gravitational Pull Hypothesis as a theoretical model. A particular focus is placed on identifying a method for comparing datasets containing translations and essays, assembled opportunistically and varying in size and structure. The study shows that lexical association scores for dependency-defined word pairs are significantly higher in translations than essays. A qualitative analysis of a subset of collocations shared and unique to either mode shows that the former set features more collocations with direct cross-linguistic links (connectivity), and that the source/first language seems to affect both modes similarly. We tentatively conclude that second/target language salience effects are more visible in translation than second language use, while connectivity and source language salience affect both modes of bilingual processing similarly, regardless of the mediation variable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing collocations in translated and learner language Exploring variation in student translation Is linguistic decision-making constrained by the same cognitive factors in student and in professional translation? Terminological collocations in trainee and professional legal translations Learner translation corpora
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1