UCCTS 2010, 27.-29.7.2010. The dilemma between corpus statistics and reception of a text: An analysis of foreignising and domesticating elements of translations.

UCCTS 2010, 27.-29.7.2010

The dilemma between corpus statistics and reception of a text: An analysis of foreignising and domesticating elements of translations

Hannu Kemppanen, Jukka Mäkisalo & Grigory GurinUniversity of Eastern Finland

Venuti (1995) criticism (Tymoczko 2000, Boyden 2006)- obscurity of the notions- dichotomy Attempts to concretise the concepts- e.g. Pedersen 2005

keyword studies- comparing translated and non-translated texts- keywords as untypical, foreign elements (Kemppanen 2004,

2008) study where statistical features of translated texts were

compared with the results of an evaluation test (Kemppanen and Mäkisalo 2010)

- no correlation between the statistical features and the results of the test

- subjectivity in ranking translations- individual words/phrases and foreign elements draw

subjects’ attention

possible correlation between statistical features of the texts and the results of the evaluation test a corpus-based analysis of non-fiction translations (Russian-Finnish) and non-translations- foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts an evaluation test- foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts (cf. the former study: different subjects, different reference

corpus)

• foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts

foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts

*

Keywords:- number of keywords- keyness maximum value- keyness mean value Other features:- type/token ratio- mean length of sentences

k

RESULTS: STATISTICAL FEATURES There are only weak statistical

correlations between some of the features.

On one hand, type/token ratio correlates to some extent reversely with mean keyness value (Pearson p = 0,62).

On the other hand, weak correlation between a high number of keywords and high keyness maximum value (p = 0,51).

However, overall, when history texts are compared to newspaper texts, various statistical features do not correlate with each other.

BartenjevKomissarov

HolodkovskijBaryshnikov

ApunenTarkka

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

NumberKeyws

KeynMax

KeynMean

TTR

SentLength

A questionnaire for ranking the texts according to (subjective) impression of domestication/ foreignisation.

Evaluating extracts (1000 words) of four Russian–Finnish translations and two non-translations on Finnish political history on a scale 1–5 (domestic–foreign).

In addition, naming at least one foreignising or domesticating feature in each text

Pilot: five subjects, translation students (earlier six translation trainers)

Four Russian-Finnish translations and two non-translated Finnish history texts were ranked according to the median of evaluations

The ranges of evaluations between the texts varied a lot, highlighting the difference between translations and non-translations.

EvalMed Range Tr/Non-tr

Tarkka 2 1 – 3 2/3 Apunen 3 1 – 3 1/4 Bartenjev 3 2 – 5 3/2 Holodkovskij 4 3 – 4 4/1 Komissarov 4 4 – 5 5/0 Baryshnikov 4 4 – 5 5/0

Results: statistical features and the evaluation test

The ranking of evaluation correlates only weakly with sentence length (p = 0,59).

With various keyness values or TTR, the evaluation test has no correlation.

BartenjevKomissarov

HolodkovskijBaryshnikov

ApunenTarkka

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

NumberKeyws

KeynMax

KeynMean

TTR

SentLength

EvalMed

Sentence structure foreign (10) Word order foreign (2) Phrases/Collocations foreign (4) Phrases/Collocations domestic (colourful

expressions) (3) Individual words foreign (4) (adjectives)

Attitudinal features foreign (10) (NB: foreign point of view in a fluent text, one comment)

Attitudinal features domestic (2) (point of view, neutrality)

Fluency/style domestic (7) (fluent/good Finnish) Non-fluency/style foreign (1) Orthography foreign (1) Explanations foreign (translation) (1)

results of the study support the earlier empirical findings

- for the most part, statistical features of the texts do not correlate with the results of the evaluation test

- various statistical features retrieved from the corpus analysis are not in line with each other

new findings- the evaluation test differentiates non-translated texts

from translated texts, and furthermore, more detailed sub-groups of translations

Can a translation be recognised on the grounds of the analysed features?

- on the grounds of statistical features – NO- on the grounds of the evaluation test – YES Categorisation of texts into translated and non-

translated texts, and naming of text features in a qualitative study suggest that foreigness of a text is a marked feature

Thank you!Questions?Comments?