Thinking for translating and intra-typological variation in satellite-framed languages

Lewandowski, Wojciech; Mateu, Jоan

doi:10.1075/rcl.14.1.08lew

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further studies on the translation of motion events using The Hobbit have been carried out by Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) on Basque and Spanish, Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) on Polish and German, and Alonso (2018) on Galician. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) noticed intra-typological differences between Basque and Spanish both in terms of Manner and Path.…”

Section: The Thinking-for-translating Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these cases, Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) refers specifically to the term 'variation', rather than to 'differences'. Lewandowski and Mateu's (2016) study on translation of English into Polish and German also addressed intra-typological differences between these two satellite-languages. Their findings indicate that German exploits the satellite-framed pattern much more than Polish does, because German verb particles are more flexible than Polish prefixes when combining manner verbs and paths, and German has a richer inventory of resources for encoding Path.…”

Section: The Thinking-for-translating Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the literature on the linguistic encoding of motion events (see Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Filipović, 2013, for a detailed review) and on linguistic relativity research using motion events (see, for example, Feist, 2016, for a summary), most of the existing studies compare typologically different languages, but we do find some studies which focus on languages belonging to the same typological group (e.g., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2004;Kopecka, 2010;Hijazo-Gascón & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2013;Verkerk, 2014;Lewandowski, 2018). Research on the translation of motion events pertaining to typologically similar languages is also scarce (see Cifuentes-Férez (2018) for an updated review on translation of motion events), with a few exceptions, for example, Filipović (1999Filipović ( , 2008 on English into Serbo-Croatian translation and vice versa, Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) on English into Basque and Spanish translation, Sugiyama (2005) on English into Japanese and French translation, and Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) on English into Polish and German translation. It must be noted here that the On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students perspective adopted in these contributions varies: while Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) and Sugiyama (2005) compare the translation of two target languages of the same typology (verb-framed languages), Filipović (1999Filipović ( , 2008 and Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) compare source and target languages belonging to the same typological group (satellite-framed).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on the translation of motion events pertaining to typologically similar languages is also scarce (see Cifuentes-Férez (2018) for an updated review on translation of motion events), with a few exceptions, for example, Filipović (1999Filipović ( , 2008 on English into Serbo-Croatian translation and vice versa, Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) on English into Basque and Spanish translation, Sugiyama (2005) on English into Japanese and French translation, and Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) on English into Polish and German translation. It must be noted here that the On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students perspective adopted in these contributions varies: while Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) and Sugiyama (2005) compare the translation of two target languages of the same typology (verb-framed languages), Filipović (1999Filipović ( , 2008 and Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) compare source and target languages belonging to the same typological group (satellite-framed). Furthermore, although research on motion encoding has extensively dealt with the boundary-crossing constraint (Aske, 1989;Slobin & Hoiting, 1994), whereby Spanish and other verb-framed languages do not allow the use of manner verbs when a boundary is crossed, that is, when an end-of-path location or a telic path is predicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students

Férez

Molés-Cases

2020

VIAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the translation of motion events between typologically similar and different languages, a research field which has been generally approached from the Thinking-for-translating hypothesis. Here we present a student-based experiment focused on the translation of boundary-crossing events (specifically: ‘manner verb + into + a bounded space’) from English (a satellite-framed language) into German (a satellite-framed language) and Spanish (a verb-framed language). The aim is to investigate whether translation students interpret correctly and translate both the boundary-crossing and the Manner information. For this purpose, a group of German and Spanish translation students were asked to translate a series of excerpts from English narrative texts into their respective mother tongues. The results suggest that the way translation students deal with these phenomena is mainly influenced by the lexicalization patterns of their mother tongues, but the nature of the event itself and the context also seem to be key in some cases.

show abstract

Section: The Thinking-for-translating Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Thinking-for-translating Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students

Férez

Molés-Cases

2020

VIAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, languages from the same typological affiliation can differ in their ability to express Manner. For instance, previous findings suggest that, when talking about self-motion, German speakers tend to encode more specific Manner dimensions in the main verb than Polish speakers, who generally make use of a smaller variety and amount of manner verbs (Lewandowski & Mateu, 2016;Lewandowski & Özçalışkan, 2019). A similar pattern of differences has held true for other combinations of Slavic and Germanic languages such as, e.g., Polish vs. English (Kopecka, 2010;Slobin, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Kopecka, & Majid, 2014), Serbo-Croatian vs. English (Filipović, 2007), and Russian and Polish vs. English, Dutch, and Swedish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Divjak, & Rakhilina, 2010), with Germanic languages consistently showing a higher degree of Manner salience compared to Slavic languages; see also Ragnarsdóttir and Strömqvist (2004) for an intra-genetic comparison of Manner encoding between Icelandic and Swedish, i.e., within the Germanic group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: a usage-based perspective

Lewandowski

2020

Lang. cogn.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers of the world’s languages differ in the ways they talk about directed motion. Speakers of satellite-framed languages (S-languages; e.g., English) typically conflate Path and Manner in a single clause (e.g., run out), whereas speakers of verb-framed languages (V-languages; e.g., Spanish) tend to convey Path and Manner in two different clauses (e.g., salir corriendo ‘exit running’). Herein, we ask whether speakers also show systematic variability within particular languages and language types in their directed motion descriptions. We examine this question by comparing oral narratives of adult native speakers of one V-language (Spanish) and two S-languages (German, Polish) (N = 15), where each subject provided a simultaneous description of an ongoing animated video depicting self- (e.g., jump into the river) and caused-motion (e.g., throw a stone into the river) events. Our results showed strong evidence for both intra-typological and language-internal variability, especially in the extent to which the Manner component is encoded. Overall, the locus of Path encoding (e.g., verb, prefix, particle) and the conceptual structure of motion events (i.e., self-motion, caused-motion) were two key factors that influenced the speakers’ choice of lexicalization pattern. We discuss the implications of our findings, which (i) suggest a more nuanced typology of motion events that expands the binary distinction between V- vs. S-languages – in line with earlier work on intra-typological variability, and (ii) highlight the relevance of such a nuanced typology for motion cognition.

show abstract

Motion events again: Delimiting constructional patterns

Lewandowski

Mateu

2020

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thinking for translating and intra-typological variation in satellite-framed languages

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students

On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students

Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: a usage-based perspective

Motion events again: Delimiting constructional patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About