Дипломдук иш темасы: Жаңы кыргыз корпусундагы "Атоочтуктарды" энтектөө

24 
1.1.4 Corpus-based Translation Studies 
From the perspective of a translation scholar interested in corpus-based translation studies, 
it is immediately striking that the range of areas of language studies dealt with in general 
introductions to corpus linguistics (e.g. Biber et al.,1998; McEnery & Wilson, 2001; Kennedy, 
1998) does not include translation. Tony McEnery and Andrew Wilson (2001), for example, 
cover numerous topics within linguistics: lexical studies, grammar, semantics, pragmatics and 
discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, stylistics and text linguistics, historical linguistics, 
dialectology and variation studies and psycholinguistics. In addition, they deal with related 
fields: the teaching of languages and linguistics, cultural studies and social psychology. Teaching 
translation, but not translation studies, is covered in one paragraph in the language teaching 
section. The lack of attention to translation studies may be because the use of corpora in 
translation studies is relatively new, or perhaps because the exchange of knowledge between 
linguistics and translation studies has tended to be rather mono-directional. Moreover, the 
perception of translations has traditionally not been particularly favourable in linguistics; their 
exclusion from so-called language reference corpora (such as the British National Corpus) would 
indicate that they are not considered as representing language use, in English-speaking contexts 
at least. Often, the way in which they are used in parallel corpora indicates that translations are 
not seen as texts which exist and function in their own right in the target language system, nor as 
being subject to a range of constraints which differ from other text production situations. One 
conventional view taken of translation in corpus linguistics is revealed by the following 
definition: “a bilingual parallel corpus is a corpus that contains the same text samples in each of 
two languages, in the sense that the sample are translations of one another” (Oakes & McEnery, 
2000:1).
Corpus-based methodology clearly has some applicability within the broad theoretical 
framework of descriptive translation studies, since it appears to provide a method for the 
description of language use in translation. Unlike much multilingual corpus linguistics research, 
corpus-based translation studies focus on the translation, not in terms of its relationship to a 
source text but instead foregrounding it as an instance of text production and communication in 
its own right. The discussion of what we understand translation to be is therefore important for a 
number of reasons. Firstly, researchers’ view points on the concept of translation form an 

25 
important basis for the application of corpus-based methodology to the study of translation, since 
they will underpin the choice of object of study, i.e. what kind of translation, produced when, by 
whom, for what purpose. They thus form the basis of decisions in corpus design and issues of 
representativeness, i.e. decisions as to which particular texts might be included in a corpus to be 
used to study that particular kind of translation. They are crucial in the analysis and interpretation 
of data too, since this requires clarity on the issue of what concept of ‘translation’ is being 
described by these data. And, since corpus analysis usually places emphasis not only on what is 
observable but also on what is regular, typical and frequent, it relates directly to norms as 
discussed by descriptive translation scholars. 
Against this backdrop, Mona Baker’s (1995:234) initial suggestions for research using a 
comparable corpus (i.e. a corpus of translations in a language and a comparable corpus of non-
translations in that same language) were to capture “patterns which are either restricted to 
translated text or which occur with a significantly higher or lower frequency in translated text” 
(ibid.:235). She points out that these may be related to a specific linguistic feature in a specific 
language, but that we may also find out about “the nature of translated text in general and the 
nature of the process of translation itself” (ibid.:236). From this comes Baker’s focus on what 
she termed “universals of translation” at that time – in the light of the problematic nature of the 
notion ‘universal’, these are now more commonly referred to as features of translation. She 
posited a number of features of translation which could be investigated using comparable 
corpora (Baker, 1996), for example, that translations may be more explicit on a number of levels 
than non-translated texts, and that they may simplify and normalize or standardize in certain 
ways.

жүктеу/скачать 1,4 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: