On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: a multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach

References

• Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 7(2), 223–243.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (1999). The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behaviour of professional translators. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(2), 281–298. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.4.2.05bak
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2004). A corpus-based view of similarity and difference in translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 167–193. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.2.02bak
   Google Scholar
• Becher, V. (2010). Abandoning the notion of ‘translation-inherent’ explicitation: Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 11(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Miličević, M. (2016). From EPIC to EPTIC: Exploring simplification in interpreting and translation from an intermodal perspective. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 28(1), 58–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisiada, M. (2014). Lösen Sie Schachtelsätze möglichst auf’: The impact of editorial guidelines on sentence splitting in German business article translations. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 354–376. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherstone, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 75–96). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Delaere, I., & De Sutter, G. (2017). Variability of English loanword use in Belgian Dutch translations: Measuring the effect of source language and register. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 81–112). Berlin/Boston, MA: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 23–60. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 61–78. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2009.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evert, S., & Neumann, S. (2017). The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts: A multivariate analysis for English and German. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 47–80). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Gaspari, F., & Bernardini, S. (2010). Comparing non-native and translated language: Monolingual comparable corpora with a twist. In R. Xiao (Ed.), Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies (pp. 215–234). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
   Google Scholar
• Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund: Lund University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English v2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
   Google Scholar
• Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2018). On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies, 1(2), 276–308. doi: 10.1075/jsls.00005.gri
   Google Scholar
• Halverson, S. (2017). Gravitational pull in translation: Testing a revised model. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 9–46). Berlin/Boston, MA: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Heilmann, A., Serbina, T., & Neumann, S. (2018). Processing of grammatical metaphor: Insights from controlled translation and reading experiments. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1(2), 195–220. doi: 10.1075/tcb.00009.hei
   Google Scholar
• Ji, M. (2016). Empirical translation studies. Interdisciplinary methodologies explored. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Kajzer-Wietrzny, M., Whyatt, B., & Stachowiak, K. (2016). Simplification in inter- and intralingual translation: Combining corpus linguistics, key logging and eye-tracking. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 235–268. doi: 10.1515/psicl-2016-0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, A. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of World Englishes. London, UK & New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, H. (2017). The effects of editorial intervention: Implications for studies of the features of translated language. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 113–156). Berlin/Boston, MA: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, H. (2018). Expanding the third code: Corpus-based studies of constrained communication and language mediation. In S. Granger, M.-A. Lefer, & L. Penha-Marion (Eds.), Book of abstracts. Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies conference (5th edition). CECL papers 1 (pp. 9–12). Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics/Université catholique de Louvain.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, H., & De Sutter, G. (2018). Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties. Reconceptualising that-omission in translated and non-translated English using the MuPDAR approach. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 1(2), 251–290. doi: 10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, H. (in press). That again: A multivariate analysis of the factors conditioning syntactic explicitness in translated English. Across Languages and Cultures.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruger, H., & Van Rooy, B. (2012). Register and the features of translated language. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 33–65. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruger, H., & Van Rooy, B. (2016). Constrained language: A multidimensional analysis of translated English and non-native indigenised varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37(1), 26–57. doi: 10.1075/eww.37.1.02kru
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruger, H., & Van Rooy, B. (2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English. English World-Wide, 39(2), 214–242. doi: 10.1075/eww.00011.kru
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanstyák, I., & Heltai, P. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99–121. doi: 10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2017). Exploratory analysis of dimensions influencing variation in translation. The case of text register and translation method. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New methodological and theoretical traditions (pp. 207–234). Berlin/Boston, MA: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Laviosa, S. (1998). Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 43(4), 557–570. doi: 10.7202/003425ar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laviosa, S. (2000). TEC: A resource for studying what is ‘in’ and ‘of’ translational English. Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 159–177. doi: 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.2
   Google Scholar
• Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based translation studies. Theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Macken, L., De Clercq, O., & Paulussen, H. (2011). Dutch parallel corpus: A balanced copyright-cleared parallel corpus. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 56(2), 374–390. doi: 10.7202/1006182ar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malamatidou, S. (2018). Corpus triangulation: Combining data and methods in corpus-based translation studies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mauranen, A. (2000). Strange strings in translated language: A study on corpora. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines. Research models in translation studies 1: Textual and cognitive aspects (pp. 119–141). Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Oakes, M. P., & Ji, M. (Eds.). (2012). Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies: A practical guide to descriptive translation research. Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing corpora in translation studies. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Olohan, M., & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in translated English: Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 141–158. doi: 10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
   Google Scholar
• Pijpops, D., & Speelman, D. (2017). Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica, 51(1), 207–251. doi: 10.1515/flin-2017-0006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Redelinghuys, K., & Kruger, H. (2015). Using the features of translated language to investigate translation expertise: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(3), 293–325. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.3.02red
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased Grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 149–182. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
   Google Scholar
• Schönefeld, D. (2011). Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research. Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Seidelhofer, B. (2013). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M. (2016). Around the world in three alternations. English World-Wide, 37(2), 109–137. doi: 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulff, S., Gries, S. T., & Lester, N. (2018). Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In A. Tyler, L. Huan, & H. Jan (Eds.), What does applied cognitive linguistics look like? Answers from the L2 classroom and SLA studies (pp. 99–120). Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Zanettin, F., Saldanha, G., & Harding, S. A. (2015). Sketching landscapes in translation studies: A bibliographic study. Perspectives, 23(2), 161–182. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar