Parallel corpora are a valuable resource for researchers across a wide range of disciplines, i.e. machine translation, computer-assisted translation, terminology extraction, computer-assisted language learning, contrastive linguistics and translation studies. Since the development of a high-quality parallel corpus is a time-consuming and costly process, the DPC project aimed at the creation of a multifunctional resource that satisfies the needs of this diverse group of disciplines.The resulting corpus-the Dutch Parallel Corpus (DPC)-is a ten-millionword, sentence-aligned, linguistically enriched parallel corpus for the language pairs Dutch-English and Dutch-French. As the DPC is bidirectional, the corpus can also be used as comparable corpus to study the differences between translated versus non-translated language. A small part of the corpus is trilingual. The DPC distinguishes itself from other parallel corpora by having a balanced composition (both in terms of text types and translation directions), by its availability to the wide research community thanks to its copyright clearance and by focusing on quality rather than quantity.

No abstract

In its early, pre-theoretic stage, Western Translation Studies took most of its inspiration from Bible translation study and the study of literature and philosophy. Heated debates concerned the balance between source and target text orientation, matters of loyalty and treason, freedom and literalness. The writings on translation were speculative, or prescriptive, or both. Only the second half of the twentieth century witnessed the advent of Translation Studies (TS) as a descriptive discipline.However, the complexity and multi-facetedness of translation as a research object does not allow descriptive Translation Studies to rely on just one research design or paradigm of general application. The hybrid and in some sense still emerging (inter)discipline of Translation Studies is characterized by trends and changes, giving rise to the "turn" metaphor which is so popular in precisely this research area (cf. SnellHornby 2006), as it fits in so well with the concept of a discovery journey with travellers following different and unpredictable paths.When Translation Studies finally set out its project as a descriptive science -the term "Translation Studies" was coined by Holmes in the seventies -many authors defined it as a branch of linguistics. As in the earlier days, it was still the relation between the source text and the target text which was at the forefront, and notions like "procedure" (Vinay-Darbelenet 1958) and "shift" (Catford 1965) became pack and parcel of the discourse on translation, both of them intimately tied up with the muchdebated notion of "equivalence". The early linguistic approaches had a tendency to view the translation operation as primarily a transcoding operation, a narrowing down of the scope which explains much of the criticism levelled against this approach in subsequent years. These years, then, saw a widening of the research scope to functional, cultural, sociological, political and ideological matters, a process reflecting an inside-out movement from the centre to the periphery, much like the recording of an onion peeling being projected backwards. The functional and the cultural moves constituted acts of contextualizing, not only of the translation phenomena in themselves, but also of the whole translation enterprise. The perspective was rightly broadened up by those writers who were pointing at ideology and oppression, and bringing to the fore the translators themselves with the social, professional, ethical, ideological conditions within which they perform their mediating role. Every new layer to be explored in the translation

It is a widely accepted view that Dutch (verbal) predicates can take a maximum of one prepositional object complement, the so-called ‘voorzetselvoorwerp’. If there is a second prepositional phrase in the sentence, it is relegated to the realm of adjuncts. This article argues for an analysis accommodating the possibility of two prepositional object complements with one predicate, just as in the case of nominal objects. These prepositional objects have, just like the nominal ones, to be distinguished internally on relational and hierarchical grounds.