From Crystal-clear to Limpide: Translating English [Noun+adj] Compound Adjectives with a Figurative-intensifying Noun into French

Thomas Prinzie; Ferran Suñer; Kristel Van Goethem

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.20.4.01

Authors

Thomas Prinzie Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
Ferran Suñer Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
Kristel Van Goethem Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.20.4.01

Keywords:

Compound adjectives, intensification, translation procedures, translation variation, English - French

Abstract

English [Noun+Adj] compound adjectives containing an intensifying metaphor (e.g. crystal-clear) pose particular challenges for French translation, due in part to the absence of a direct equivalent construction. Our study examines morphosyntactic and conceptual-semantic translation procedures that capture how these challenges are resolved. We also explore the little-investigated aspect of translation variation (the number of different solutions for each item). We analyze the potential effects of two factors: the presence or absence of figurative intensification and the items’ frequency of use in English. Our results indicate that translators prefer different morphosyntactic procedures for different compound subtypes. Overall, an adjective constituent is most frequently retained, although complete reformulations with a noun or verb also occur. Semantically, the intensifying meaning is often rendered non-figuratively, depending on what is available in idiomatic French usage. Intensification is also frequently dropped. Translation variation is remarkably high, due in part to extensive use of near-synonyms. High-frequency items do not appear to converge on a smaller number of translations, but instead provide more opportunities for diversification.

References

Adams, V. (2001). Complex Words in English. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Altenberg, B. and S. Granger. (2002). Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7

Arnaud, P. and V. Renner. (2014). English and French [NN]N lexical units: A categorial, morphological and semantic comparison. Word Structure, 7(1): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2014.0054
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2014.0054

Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846

Bauer, L. (1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics 2: 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000691
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000691

Bauer, L., R. Lieber, and I. Plag. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001

Bardaji, A. G. (2009). Procedures, techniques, strategies: Translation process operators. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 17(3): 161-173 https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903249372
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903249372

Berg, T. (2017). Compounding in German and English. A quantitative translation study. Languages in Contrast, 17(1): 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.03ber
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.03ber

Castagnoli, S. (2020). Translation choices compared: Investigating variation in a learner translation corpus. In S. Granger and M.-A. Lefer (eds). Translating and Comparing Languages: Corpus-based Insights. Corpora and Language in Use Proceedings 6. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain: 25-44.
Google Scholar

Corbin, D. (1992). Hypothèses sur les frontières de la composition nominale. Cahiers de Grammaire, 17: 27-55.
Google Scholar

Chuquet, H. and M. Paillard. (1987). Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais-français. Paris: Editions Ophrys.
Google Scholar

De Cock, B. and F. Suñer. (2018). The influence of conceptual differences on processing taboo metaphors in the foreign language. In A. Pizarro (ed). Linguistic Taboo Revisited. Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectives. Cognitive Linguistics Research Series. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter: 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110582758-011
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110582758-011

De Metsenaere, H., S. Vandepitte, and M. Van de Velde. (2016). Dutch and German NN compounds in translation. Lebende Sprachen, 61(1): 175-205. https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2016-0006
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2016-0006

De Sutter, G. and M.-A. Lefer. (2019). On the need for a new research agenda for corpus-based translation studies: a multi-methodological, multifactorial and interdisciplinary approach. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 28(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1611891

Delisle, J., H. Lee-Jahnke, and M. Cormier (eds). (1999). Translation Terminology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Dyvik, H. (2004). Translations as semantic mirrors: from parallel corpus to WordNet. Language and Computers, 49(1): 311-326.
Google Scholar

Fradin, B. (2009). “I.E., Romance: French.” In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 417-435.
Google Scholar

Gaspari, F. and S. Bernardini. (2008). Comparing non-native and translated language: Monolingual comparable corpora with a twist. In R. Xiao (ed). Proceedings of The International Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars: 215– 34.
Google Scholar

Gast, V. (2012). Contrastive linguistics: Theories and methods. In B. Kortmann and J. Kabatek (eds). Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science Linguistic theory and methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Gilquin, G. (2008). Causative 'make' and 'faire': A case of mismatch. In G. de los Ángeles and M. González (eds). Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 177-201. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.11gil
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.11gil

Grandi, N. (2017). Evaluatives in morphology. In R. Lieber (ed). Oxford Research Encyclopedia in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.250
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.250

Granger, S. (2018). Tracking the third code: A cross-linguistic corpus-driven approach to metadiscursive markers. In A. Čermáková and M. Mahlberg (eds). Corpus as Discourse. Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing: 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.08gra
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.08gra

Gries, S. T. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Amsterdam: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474

Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories. Language 86: 663-687. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021

Hendrikx, I. (2019). The acquisition of intensifying constructions in Dutch and English by French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL students. Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. Unpublished PhD thesis. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain.
Google Scholar

Hendrikx, I. (2020). The learnability of English intensifying constructions in French-speaking learners receptive versus productive competence. In M. Schlechtweg (ed). The learnability of complex constructions (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 34). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton: 127-164. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110695113
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110695113-006

Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum (eds). (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530

Kövecses, Z. (2014). Conceptual metaphor theory and the nature of difficulties in metaphor translation. In D. R. Miller and E. Monti (eds). Tradurre Figure / Translating Figurative Language, Quaderni del Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali, Atti di Convegni CeSLiC, Bologna: AMSActa: 25-40.
Google Scholar

Lefer, M.-A. (2020). Parallel Corpora. In M. Paquot and S. T. Gries (eds). Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_12
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_12

Lefer, M.-A. and N. Grabar. (2015). Super-creative and over-bureaucratic: A cross-genre corpus-based study on the use and translation of evaluative prefixation in TED talks and EU parliamentary debates. Across Languages and Cultures, 16(2): 187-208. https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2015.16.2.3

Malloggi, P. (2017). Intensifying structures of adjectives across German and Italian. In M. Napoli and M. Ravetto (eds). Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives. (Studies in Language Companion Series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing: 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.13mal
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.13mal

Miller, D. R. and E. Monti. (2014). Introduction. In D. R. Miller and E. Monti (eds). Tradurre Figure / Translating Figurative Language, Quaderni del Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali, Atti di Convegni CeSLiC, Bologna: AMSActa: ix-xii.
Google Scholar

Molina, L., and A. Hurtado Albir. (2002). Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach. Meta 4: 498–512. https://doi.org/10.7202/008033ar
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/008033ar

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315691862
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315691862

Napoli, M., and M. Ravetto. (2017). Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives. (Studies in Language Companion Series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189

Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Google Scholar

Noël, D. (2003). Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics, 41(4): 757-785. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.024
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.024

Olohan, M. and M. Baker. (2000). Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2): 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1

Paillard, M. (2011). English-French contrasts in word-formation. Morphological patterns and stylistic effects. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47-4: 913-927. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicl-2011-0043
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/psicl-2011-0043

Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive linguistics, 12(1): 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47

Pierini, P. (2015). Translating English compound adjectives into Italian: problems and strategies. Translation and Interpreting, 7(2): 17-29. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.107202.2015.a02
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.107202.2015.a02

Pym, A. (2016). Translation solutions for many languages. Histories of a flawed dream. Bloomsbury Academic.
Google Scholar

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Rainer, F. (2015). Intensification. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer (eds). Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton: 1340-1351.
Google Scholar

Schäffner, C. (2017). Metaphor in translation. In E. Semino and Z. Demjén (eds). The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. London and New York: Routledge: 247-262.
Google Scholar

Shuttleworth, M. (2014). Scientific rich images in translation: A multilingual study. JoSTrans, 2: 35–51.
Google Scholar

Sjørup, A. C. (2011). Cognitive effort in metaphor translation: An eye-tracking study. In S. O'Brien (ed). Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum International Publishing Group: 197-214.
Google Scholar

Suñer, F. (2018). The interplay of cross-linguistic differences and context in L2 idiom comprehension. Research in Language, 16(4): 495-513. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0024
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0024

Van Goethem, K. (2009). Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalized A+N phrases: The position of French in comparison to Germanic languages. Word Structure, 2(2): 241-253. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1750124509000439
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/E1750124509000439

Van Goethem, K., and D. Amiot. (2019). Compounds and multi-word expressions in French. In B. Schlücker (ed). Complex Lexical Units. Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions. Amsterdam: De Gruyter: 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-005
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110632446-005

Villoing, F. (2012). French compounds. Probus, 24: 29–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2012-0003
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2012-0003

Vinay, J., and J. Darbelnet. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation (translated and edited by J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. [Original: Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais. Paris: Didier, 1973].
Google Scholar

Baisa, V., J. Michelfeit, M. Medveď, and M. Jakubíček. (2016). European Union Language Resources in Sketch Engine. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16). European Language Resources Association. Portorož, Slovenia. https://www.sketchengine.eu/eurlex-corpus/
Google Scholar

Jakubíček, M., A. Kilgarriff, V. Kovář, P. Rychlý, and V. Suchomel. (2013). The TenTen corpus family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference: 125-127. https://www.sketchengine.eu/ententen-english-corpus/
Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, A., V. Baisa, J. Bušta, M. Jakubíček, V. Kovář, J. Michelfeit, P. Rychlý, and V. Suchomel. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1: 7-36. https://www.sketchengine.eu
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9

Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In MT summit, Vol. 5: 79-86. https://www.sketchengine.eu/europarl-parallel-corpus/
Google Scholar

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Google Scholar

Tiedemann, J. (2012). Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’2012). https://www.sketchengine.eu/opus-parallel-corpora/
Google Scholar