DI-UMONS : Dépôt institutionnel de l’université de Mons

Recherche transversale
Rechercher
(titres de publication, de périodique et noms de colloque inclus)
2018-09-12 - Colloque/Présentation - communication orale - Anglais - 20 page(s)

Jandrain Tiffany , "Cross-Linguistic Register Analysis in Specialised Discourse. A corpus-based investigation of denominal adjectives in LSP: the examples of medicine and earth sciences" in Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (5th edition), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique, 2018

  • Codes CREF : Linguistique appliquée (DI5320), Linguistique comparée (DI5327), Traduction (DI5326)
  • Unités de recherche UMONS : Traduction spécialisée et Terminologie (T204)
  • Instituts UMONS : Institut de Recherche en Développement Humain et des Organisations (HumanOrg)
Texte intégral :

Abstract(s) :

(Anglais) Abstract Noun phrases appear to be linguistic features that are problematic for translation students when they translate specialised texts from English into French. Many specialised noun phrases in French may indeed be constructed in two ways, i.e. the noun of the phrase is modified by a relational adjective or a prepositional phrase complement. Therefore, the translator has to choose between these options depending on the languages and the context of communication involved, i.e. the communicative event, including the convention which states that a linguistic utterance is appropriate or not to a specific language use, according to the Systemic Functional Linguistics theory (Hatim & Mason 1990). For instance, in medical discourse, a non-expert uses cancer du sein while an expert tends to use this term or the relational adjective form cancer mammaire, which sounds more technical, depending on the message receivers and the communicational situation (Maniez 2009). These sociolinguistic factors seem therefore to play a major role in this choice (ibid.), especially for LSP (“Language for Specific Purposes”) texts given that domain-specific languages can be considered “contextual-functional varieties of the ordinary language” and thus vary according communication function and context (Garzone 2006 in Pignataro 2012: 128). Based on Maniez’s study, this paper aims to analyse the influence of register on this choice. The functional approach defines register as a variety of language considered appropriate to the communicational context in which the text occurs and thus patterning the language use (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014). Indeed, as registers are determined by the communicational context and function of the text (Biber & Conrad 2009), they are unsurprisingly one of the text features that a translator may pay attention to in order to make their translation appropriate to the target audience, as stated by the functionalist theory (Nord 2006). In other words, given that a specialist of a discipline is thought to use relational adjectives in specialised contexts (and thus within specialised registers and genres, i.e. “[c]onventional forms of texts associated with particular types of social occasion” (Hatim & Mason 1990: 241)), it may be interesting to analyse how denominal adjectives, which make up most relational adjectives, are used in two different specialised genres in two different discourses that presumably have common characteristics (same registers, etc.) but also display differences. This analysis is carried out in English and French since it may be interesting to have a closer look at expected similarities and differences between them given that their registers operate specifically to their systems and may thus lead to variation (Chuquet & Paillard 1987). Respective cultures may also be thought to play a role in contrastive differences in academic prose (Galtung 1981). More concretely, this contrastive study compares choices made by English and French speakers in research articles from specialised journals and research information published on websites of specialised departments and institutes in the fields of medicine and earth sciences. It also gives an overview of the use of noun pre-modifiers in English. The aim of analysing original discourse is to provide a deeper insight of specialised discourse mechanisms and thus to offer useful guidelines to translation students to translate noun phrases in French since registers influence the distribution and use of most linguistic features and variations (Biber 2010) and thus play a major role in language description. As several previous studies on register variation have shown, corpora appear to be a useful and relevant tool to explore linguistic features influenced by registers. In fact, registers are a phenomenon of frequency: they are characterised by recurring linguistic features which are themselves shaped by the communicational context and use and become the norm of use through their repetition in that context (Neumann 2016). In other words, register studies necessarily require a quantitative analysis, which can be accomplished with the use of corpora (Giménez-Moreno & Skorczynska 2013). This first analysis will allow to see whether there is a statistically significant difference between noun phrase modification use in registers and discourses in English and French. It will be followed by a qualitative examination of the results to draw preliminary conclusions about this use. Our hypothesis is that experts of both disciplines will use more denominal adjectives than prepositional phrase complements despite register variation. This corpus-based investigation is in the lineage of the study of non-literary register variation, which has been overlooked by contrastive linguistics and translation studies, which may appear quite astonishing since registers crucially influence cross-linguistic contrasts (Lefer & Vogeleer 2016). It is therefore also in the lineage of answering the urgent call recently made by scholars to carry out more register analyses, especially in order to provide guidelines based on truthful examples to translation students (see for example Vandaele 2015). It also presents the methodological criteria used in this analysis to compile specialised corpora according to genres and registers, which are non-consensual notions as studies have shown (see for example Lee 2001). It eventually suggests new paths of research in cross-linguistic register analysis for linguistic and translation purposes. References Biber, Douglas. 2010. “Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use”, in Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press, 159-192, http://eclass.uoa.gr/ (retrieved on 02/08/2017). Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (coll. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Chuquet, Hélène & Michel Paillard. 1987. Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction. Paris: Ophrys. Galtung, Johan. 1981. “Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches”, Social Science Information 20: 6, 817-856, https://www.transcend.org/ (retrieved on 11/04/2018). Giménez-Moreno, Rosa & Hanna Skorczynska. 2013. “Corpus analysis and register variation: a field in need of an update”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95, 402-408, http://www.sciencedirect.com/ (retrieved on 19/09/2017). Halliday, Michael A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (Fourth Edition). Oxon/New York: Routledge. Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London/New York: Longman (coll. Language in Social Life Series). Lee, David Y.M. 2001. “Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle”, Language Learning and Technology 5: 3, 37-72, http://www.llt.msu.edu/ (retrieved on 10/10/2017). Lefer, Marie-Aude & Svetlana Vogeleer (ed.), Register- and Genre-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Maniez, François. 2009. “L’adjectif dénominal en langue de spécialité : étude du domaine de la médecine”, Revue française de linguistique appliquée 14: 2, 117-130. Neumann, Stella. 2016. “Cross-linguistic register studies”, in Marie-Aude Lefer & Svetlana Vogeleer (ed.), Register- and Genre-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nord, Christiane. 2006. “Loyalty and fidelity in specialised translation”, Confluéncias – Revista de Tradução Cientifica e Tecnica 4, 29-41, http://www.web.letras.up.pt/ (retrieved on 08/02/2016). Pignataro, Clara. 2012. “Terminology and Interpreting in LSP Conferences: A Computer-aided vs. Empirical-based Approach”, in Cynthia J. Kellet Bidoli (ed.), Interpreting across Genres: Multiple Research Perspectives. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Triste, 125-140, http://www.academia.edu/ (retrieved on 14/12/2017). Vandaele, Sylvie. 2015. “La recherche traductologique dans les domaines de spécialité : un nouveau tournant”, Meta 60: 2, 209-235.