Textbook Empirical Translation Studies 1St Edition Gert de Sutter Ebook All Chapter PDF

Empirical Translation Studies 1st
Edition Gert De Sutter

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/empirical-translation-studies-1st-edition-gert-de-sutter
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Textual and Contextual Analysis in Empirical

Translation Studies 1st Edition Sara Laviosa
https://textbookfull.com/product/textual-and-contextual-analysis-
in-empirical-translation-studies-1st-edition-sara-laviosa/
Multimodality in Translation Studies 1st Edition Pan
https://textbookfull.com/product/multimodality-in-translation-
studies-1st-edition-pan/
Feminist Translation Studies Local and Transnational

Perspectives Olga Castro
https://textbookfull.com/product/feminist-translation-studies-
local-and-transnational-perspectives-olga-castro/
When Translation Goes Digital: Case Studies and

Critical Reflections 1st Edition Renée Desjardins
https://textbookfull.com/product/when-translation-goes-digital-
case-studies-and-critical-reflections-1st-edition-renee-
desjardins/
Empirical Studies on the Development of Executable
Business Processes Daniel Lübke
https://textbookfull.com/product/empirical-studies-on-the-
development-of-executable-business-processes-daniel-lubke/
The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Translation Studies

Roberto A. Valdeón
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
spanish-translation-studies-roberto-a-valdeon/
Gender Approaches in the Translation Classroom:

Training the Doers Marcella De Marco
https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-approaches-in-the-
translation-classroom-training-the-doers-marcella-de-marco/
The Routledge handbook of translation studies and

linguistics First Published. Edition Malmkjær
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
translation-studies-and-linguistics-first-published-edition-
malmkjaer/
The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies 1st Edition

Anna De Fina
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-
discourse-studies-1st-edition-anna-de-fina/
Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer, Isabelle Delaere (Eds.)
Empirical Translation Studies
Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs
Editor
Volker Gast
Editorial Board
Walter Bisang
Jan Terje Faarlund
Hans Henrich Hock
Natalia Levshina
Heiko Narrog
Matthias Schlesewsky
Amir Zeldes
Niina Ning Zhang
Editor responsible for this volume

Volker Gast
Volume 300
Empirical Translation
Studies
New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions
Edited by
Gert De Sutter
Marie-Aude Lefer
Isabelle Delaere
ISBN 978-3-11-045684-4
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-045958-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-045729-2
ISSN 1861-4302
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
6 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Table of contents
Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere

Introduction 1
Sandra L. Halverson
1 Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model 9
Stefan Evert and Stella Neumann

2 The impact of translation direction on characteristics of translated texts.
A multivariate analysis for English and German 47
Isabelle Delaere and Gert De Sutter

3 Variability of English loanword use in Belgian Dutch translations.
Measuring the effect of source language and register 81
Haidee Kruger
4 The effects of editorial intervention. Implications for studies of the features
of translated language 113
Adriano Ferraresi and Maja Miličević

5 Phraseological patterns in interpreting and translation. Similar or
different? 157
Oliver Čulo, Silvia Hansen-Schirra and Jean Nitzke

6 Contrasting Terminological Variation in Post-Editing and Human
Translation of Texts from the Technical and Medical Domain 183
Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski
7 Exploratory Analysis of Dimensions Influencing Variation in Translation.
The case of text register and translation method 207
Bert Cappelle and Rudy Loock

8 Typological differences shining through. The case of phrasal verbs in
translated English 235
Kerstin Kunz, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski,

Katrin Menzel and Erich Steiner
9 English-German contrasts in cohesion and implications for
translation 265
Index 313
Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere
Introduction
In corpus-based translation studies (CBTS), many scholars have conducted
research based on the hypothesis that translated texts have certain linguistic
characteristics in common which do not, or to a lesser extent, occur in original,
non-translated texts. Baker’s (1993) seminal paper described these characteristics
as “features which typically occur in translated text rather than original utterances
and which are not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems”
(Baker 1993: 243). Research of this kind has resulted in observations of, for
example, how translations conform to the typical characteristics of the target
language (normalization) (Bernardini and Ferraresi 2011; Scott 1998), how
translated texts are linguistically more homogeneous than non-translated texts
(levelling out) (Olohan 2004), how translated texts are more explicit than non-
translated texts (explicitation) (Olohan and Baker 2000; Øverås 1998) or how
translated texts exhibit fewer unique items (under-representation) (Tirkkonen-
Condit 2004). In recent years, however, it has been shown that these detected
characteristics are not only attributable to the difference between translated
and non-translated texts, but co-vary with other (language-external) factors as
well, such as text type, source language and the translator’s educational back-
ground (see e.g. Bernardini and Ferraresi 2011; De Sutter, Delaere, and Plevoets
2012; Kruger and van Rooy 2012; Neumann 2011). As a consequence, linguistic
behaviour in translations versus non-translations has to be considered a multi-
factorial phenomenon rather than a monofactorial one. Multifactorial investiga-
tions into the linguistic behaviour of translators compared to non-translators
remain rather scarce though, and, as a result, standard multivariate statistical
techniques which can be used to visualize, describe, explain and predict patterns
of variation within translations and between translations and non-translations do
not easily find their way into CBTS (e.g. multidimensional scaling, hierarchical
cluster analysis, mixed-effect models). This type of multifactorial investigation,
using highly advanced and adequate statistical techniques, is urgently needed
in order to find out which factors simultaneously affect linguistic behaviour
in translations compared to non-translations. Next to the (language-external)
factors mentioned above, other possibly influencing factors include characteristics
of the writing process (did the translator use translation software?, did the trans-
lator experience any time pressure?, what is the degree of editorial control?,
what is the policy of the publishing house?), typological or usage differences
between source and target languages, the sociological status of the source and
DOI 10.1515/9783110459586-001
2 Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere
target languages, the style of the translator or original author, the sociological
status of different types of translators, etc.
Whereas the identification of the determining factors is a necessary first step
to take, the ultimate goal of CBTS is to find out what these factors reveal – on a
higher level – about underlying sociological, cognitive, . . . causes and motiva-
tions of linguistic choices in translations vs. non-translations. In recent years,
several interesting high-level explanatory mechanisms have been developed,
from different perspectives, but they have not been the object of extensive
empirical testing yet. From a sociological point of view, Pym (2008) has intro-
duced the idea of translators being risk averse: if they can choose between a
safe option (e.g. a variant that is widely accepted as a standard variant), and a
risky option (e.g. a variant that is considered restricted to informal conversa-
tions), translators will most often opt for the former option, depending on
whether they get rewarded or not when taking a risk. From a cognitive point of
view, Halverson (2003, 2010) has introduced the so-called gravitational pull
hypothesis, which seeks to connect translation behaviour with underlying cogni-
tive properties, such as salience and activation. The gravitational pull hypothesis
states that translation characteristics such as under-representation can be ex-
plained by the structure of semantic networks and prototypes, i.e. the distance
between the activated concepts in the semantic network of the bilingual or
multilingual translator.
The present volume aims to push the frontiers of CBTS by presenting original
and innovative research which is methodologically rigorous, descriptively ade-
quate and theoretically relevant. Each of the chapters sheds new light on what
constrains translational behavior – and to what extent – and how this all fits in
an empirical theory of translation. More particularly, this book’s aim is twofold:
(i) to bring together advanced quantitative (multifactorial) studies of translated
texts (compared to non-translated texts on the one hand and/or source texts on
the other hand), building on large-scale, well-structured parallel or comparable
corpora, which provide additional evidence for the effect of (language-external)
factors on translation behavior, resulting in more fine-grained insights into trans-
lational tendencies, and which elaborate on explanatory devices uncovered in
previous studies; (ii) to investigate to what extent other, complementary methods
from related research fields or new data sources can improve the descriptive and
explanatory accuracy of corpus-based results. By embracing other, comple-
mentary methods aiming at descriptive and theoretical progress, the field of
Corpus-Based Translation Studies will eventually emerge as Empirical Transla-
tion Studies, in which different methods and models are confronted, ultimately
leading to a more adequate and fully-fledged empirical theory of translation.
Introduction 3
Overview of the chapters in this volume

Sandra Halverson’s chapter is exemplary for the type of new-generation research
envisaged in the previous paragraph, viz. theory-based, methodologically plural-
istic and improving our understanding of the translational act. Starting out from
a well-informed cognitive-linguistic model of bilingual language processing,
Halverson investigates how translators deal with semasiological salience, using
so-called converging empirical evidence (corpus data and elicited data). She
distinguishes between three different types of salience, which might cause trans-
lations to be linguistically different from non-translations: a magnetism effect
occurs when a translator is attracted to a prominent sense in the target language,
a gravitational pull effect occurs when a translator is attracted to a prominent
sense in the source language, and an effect of association strength occurs when
two senses in the source and target language are often used as translational
equivalents. In order to test which of these effects occur under which circum-
stances, Halverson develops a multi-stage and multi-methodological research
design. First, an independent sentence generation test and a semasiological
contrastive corpus analysis of the English polysemous verb to get and two of its
Norwegian equivalents få and bli are conducted in order to establish a semantic
network of these verbs, elucidating which senses are more salient and how
strong the connection between the translation equivalents is. Then, a corpus
analysis of Norwegian fiction and non-fiction translated into English is carried
out in order to determine which of the above-mentioned salience effects occur.
Her results show a.o. a clear magnetism effect for one of get’s most prominent
senses, but other hypothesized effects remain unverified. Finally, an online
keystroke experiment reveals that salience also affects revision behavior in that
highly frequent verbs tend to be replaced more often than low frequent verbs
during later stages of the translation process. Although much more research is
needed along the lines sketched in this chapter, the research presented here
clearly demonstrates how the effect of bilingual cognition can be studied within
an empirical translation framework.
Stefan Evert and Stella Neumann present an advanced multivariate meth-
odology for investigating differences and similarities between original and trans-
lated German and English. Starting out from no less than 27 lexicogrammatical
features shared by both languages (frequency of finite verbs, passives, preposi-
tions, etc.), they apply a series of multivariate techniques, such as principal
component analysis, linear discriminant analysis and support vector machines,
to discern visual patterns in the data. The results convincingly show that English
and German originals have a clearly unique profile in terms of the lexicogram-
matical bundles they display, and that translations shift to some extent towards
the source language, which is interpreted as a shining-through effect. This effect,

however, is more prominent in translated German (from English) than in trans-
lated English (from German). The authors connect this finding tentatively with
Toury’s hypothesis that less-prestigious languages are more tolerant towards
interference (or shining through) than vice versa. In sum, this chapter does not
only stand out because of its solid empirical foundations (27 features) and the
use of a series of multivariate techniques, it is also remarkable because of the
clear presentation of the methodology and the reasoning behind it (thereby
enabling replication studies) while at the same time revealing clear patterns,
thus contributing to a better understanding of translational behavior.
Isabelle Delaere and Gert De Sutter investigate three fundamental factors
that can impact on the linguistic features of translated text, namely source lan-
guage, register and editorial intervention. Relying on the Dutch Parallel Corpus, the
authors apply two multivariate statistics (profile-based correspondence analysis
and logistic regression analysis) to measure the exact effect of the three factors
investigated on the variability of English loanword use in translated and non-
translated Belgian Dutch. Their study, which draws on both comparable and
parallel data, shows that source language, register and editorial intervention
all influence the use of loanwords (vs. endogeneous alternatives) in translated
Belgian Dutch. The findings are interpreted in relation to the normalization
behavior of both translators and writers of original texts. Isabelle Delaere and
Gert De Sutter’s study compellingly illustrates the need to simultaneously consider
a wide range of factors that can influence the linguistic make-up of translated
language. As shown by their study, this can be done by relying on a combina-
tion of advanced multivariate statistics and careful qualitative analyses, which
makes it possible to further our understanding of the cognitive and social mech-
anisms that shape translation.
Next, Haidee Kruger examines the under-researched effect of editorial inter-
vention on the linguistic traits of texts. To do so, she relies on data extracted
from a monolingual English parallel corpus of originally produced edited texts
and their unedited counterparts, representing 4 registers (academic, instructional,
popular writing and reportage). Looking at 8 features traditionally used as lin-
guistic operationalizations of increased explicitness, simplification and conven-
tionalization in CBTS (such as cohesive markers, sentence length and trigrams),
she convincingly shows that revisers/editors make texts more explicit, syntacti-
cally simpler and more conventional, three features which, to date, have been
attributed to the translation process itself. Haidee Kruger’s study has far-ranging
implications for CBTS and – more generally – for studies of language mediation
and constrained communication (Lanstyák and Heltai 2012), as it demonstrates
that features attributed to translation may very well, in fact, be features of
Introduction 5
editing/revision, or more general features typical of mediated and constrained

language (some of these traits, for instance, have also been found to characterize
New Englishes). This can only encourage translation scholars to take editorial
intervention into account in their own work and to start collecting new types of
corpora to tease apart features of translated language and edited language.
Adriano Ferraresi and Maja Miličević’s chapter also addresses issues
related to language mediation, as it adopts an intermodal approach, i.e. an
approach where two translation modes (written translation and simultaneous
interpreting) are compared, with the aim of identifying the typical features of
translated language and interpreted language. Together with Silvia Bernardini,
the authors have built the comparable and parallel European Parliament Transla-
tion and Interpreting Corpus (EPTIC), which contains four components: (1) speeches
delivered at the European Parliament and (2) their interpretations, (3) verbatim
reports of the proceedings (which are edited versions of the original speeches)
and (4) their translations. In this study, the authors rely on four EPTIC sub-
corpora: interpreted Italian, translated Italian (both with English as source
language), original spoken Italian and original written Italian. The study focuses
on phraseology, which has been extensively studied in CBTS so far, mainly in
relation to interference and normalization/conventionalization. More specifically,
the study is devoted to infrequent, highly frequent and strongly associated collo-
cations made up of a noun and a modifier. The results suggest that translations
are more phraseologically conventional than interpretations, especially as regards
strongly associated expressions, which require more time for processing. This
trend, the authors argue, may be related to the cognitive and task-related con-
straints characterizing translation and interpreting. It clearly emerges from this
chapter that CBTS can (and will) benefit from a broader research focus, where
a.o. different translation modes are systematically compared (not only com-
paring written translation with simultaneous interpreting, but also considering
sight translation, consecutive interpreting, voice-over, subtitling, dubbing, etc.,
provided comparable corpora can be compiled).
Oliver Čulo, Silvia Hansen-Schirra and Jean Nitzke focus on an under-
researched, technology-related factor in CBTS, viz. the effect of computer-aided
translation. More particularly, the authors investigate terminological variation
across three types of translations: human translations, machine translations
and post-edited translations. They contrast texts translated from English into
German from two specific genres, which have been relatively overlooked in
previous research, viz. manuals and patient information leaflets. To do so, they
rely on the perplexity coefficient, a technique borrowed from the domain of
Machine Translation, which, to date, has not been used in CBTS. Although the
results suggest that post-edited translations are influenced by the initial machine
translation output, further research is needed to determine the cause(s) of this

trend. The authors put forward a number of hypotheses that require further
investigation, such as the idea that post-editors might tend to focus on the
micro-level rather than the overall text, thereby paying less attention to termino-
logical consistency.
Along the same lines, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski is the first to shed
empirical-quantitative light on the interplay between translation method and
text register. In this study, she compares a number of linguistic features in 5
translation varieties, such as professional human translation and rule-based
machine translation, and in seven written registers (including, for example,
manuals, tourism leaflets and fiction). The lexico-grammatical patterns under
investigation originate from the Hallidayan framework of field, tenor and mode
and are linked to a number of well-known translation features such as explicita-
tion, simplification and shining through. The author applies an unsupervised
technique, i.e. hierarchical cluster analysis, to investigate (i) variation across
translation methods, (ii) variation across registers, and (iii) the interplay between
translation method and register. The results reveal that both dimensions are
present in the clusters. Interestingly, an additional dimension emerges from the
analysis, i.e. translation expertise, which certainly requires further research in
the field.
The study presented by Bert Cappelle and Rudy Loock re-opens a dis-
cussion, which had been relegated to the periphery in Mona Baker’s research
programme (Baker 1993), viz. the effect of typological differences in source
languages on translational products. The authors set out to determine whether
there is a difference in usage of phrasal verbs in English translations from
Romance languages and from Germanic languages. Their study relies on a
monolingual comparable corpus made up of three components: the British
National Corpus and two Translational English Corpus components, representing
six Romance source languages and six Germanic source languages, respectively.
The distribution of phrasal verbs with up, down and out reveals that source
language family interference has a significant effect on translation. This leads
the authors to dismiss normalization and levelling-out as translation universals.
Additionally, a small-scale, more qualitative complementary study on Le Petit
Prince and its English translation is carried out to determine what elements in
the source text lead to phrasal verbs in the target text, revealing that morpholog-
ically complex verbs are much more likely to be translated with a phrasal verb
than simplex source verbs.
Finally, Kerstin Kunz, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Ekaterina Lapshinova-
Koltunksi, Katrin Menzel and Erich Steiner present the findings of a contrastive
study of cohesive devices in German and English original texts. Their aim is to
Introduction 7
uncover contrastive trends that can help translators overcome language-pair

specific pitfalls and make strategic choices with regard to the translation and
use of cohesive devices. The distribution of cohesive features is analysed both in
written and spoken registers in GECCo, a German-English corpus, which allows
for deriving suggestions with regard to register-specific translation strategies as
well. GECCo is analyzed by means of an exploratory data analysis technique,
i.e. correspondence analysis, so as to uncover similarities and differences with
regard to cohesive devices between the languages and the registers investigated.
In addition, a supervised technique with support vector machines is applied to
determine which cohesive features are distinctive and therefore contribute to the
differences between the languages and registers under investigation. The results
show, among others, that (i) register is an important variable when it comes to
lexicogrammatical variation, and (ii) the differences between registers in the
German subcorpus are more pronounced than those in the English subcorpus
which, in turn, reflects the importance of the language variable.
Acknowledgments
Most of the chapters in this volume were first presented at the New Ways of
Analyzing Translational Behavior in Corpus-Based Translation Studies workshop,
held at the 46th Societas Linguistica Europeae (SLE) meeting in Split, Croatia
in 2013. We would like to thank the organizers of the SLE meeting in Split for
providing us with the most optimal circumstances to discuss the current state
of the art in CBTS and identify some of the future directions that need to be
explored. In editing the present volume we were supported by various reviewers.
We would like to thank them all for sharing their insightful comments and advice.
We are also deeply grateful to the authors for doing such a wonderful job and
for not giving up on us after another round of critical remarks and suggestions.
We are very well aware that it might have annoyed them (and perhaps even
frustrated them at times), but we are convinced that it has greatly contributed
to the quality of the present volume. Finally, we wish to thank most heartedly
Julie Miess at Mouton for taking care of all practical details concerning this
publication.
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, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bernardini, S. & A. Ferraresi. 2011. Practice, description and theory come together: Normaliza-
tion or interference in Italian technical translation? Meta 56(2). 226–246.
De Sutter, G., I. Delaere & K. Plevoets. 2012. Lexical lectometry in corpus-based translation
studies. Combining profile-based correspondence analysis and logistic regression modeling.
In M. Oakes & J. Meng (eds.), Quantitative Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies.
A practical guide to descriptive translation research, 325–345. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Halverson, S. 2003. The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target. International Journal
of Translation Studies 15(2). 197–241.
Halverson, S. 2010. Cognitive translation studies: developments in theory and method. In G.
Shreve & E. Angelone (eds.), Translation and Cognition, 349–369. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kruger, H. & B. van Rooy. 2012. Register and the features of translated language. Across Lan-
guages and Cultures 13(1). 33–65.
Lanstyák, I. & P. Heltai. 2012. Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages
and Cultures 13(1). 99–121.
Neumann, S. 2011. Contrastive register variation. A quantitative approach to the comparison of
English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing corpora in translation studies. Taylor & Francis.
Olohan, M. & M. Baker. 2000. Reporting that in translated English: Evidence for subconscious
processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2). 141–158.
Øverås, L. 1998. In search of the third code. An investigation of norms in literary translation.
Meta 43(4). 557–570.
Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger &
D. Simeoni (eds.), Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Investigations in Honor of
Gideon Toury, 311–328. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Scott, N. 1998. Normalisation and readers’ expectations: A study of literary translation with
reference to Lispector’s A Hora Da Estrela. Liverpool: University of Liverpool doctoral
dissertation.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 2004. Keywords and ideology in translated history texts: A corpus-based
analysis. In A. K. Mauranen & P. Kujamäki (eds.), Translation Universals. Do they exist?,
177–184. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sandra L. Halverson
1 Gravitational pull in translation.
Testing a revised model1
Abstract: The gravitational pull hypothesis was introduced as a possible explana-

tion for some general features of translated language (Halverson 2003, 2010a),
building on the cognitive semantic concept of semasiological salience in linguistic
categories. The basic idea is that highly salient linguistic items (lexis or gram-
matical constructions) would be more likely to be chosen by translators and
thus be overrepresented in translational corpus data. The hypothesis is being
developed into a more comprehensive and detailed cognitive linguistic model to
incorporate salience phenomena in both source and target language categories
as well as the effects of entrenched links between translation pairs. This chapter
presents preliminary investigations of central elements of the model using the
polysemous verb get as a test case. Following a presentation of the revised
model, the first stage of the analysis involves using independent empirical studies
of get (Berez and Gries 2008; Johansson and Oksefjell 1996; Gronemeyer 1999)
and of get and its Norwegian counterparts (Ebeling 2003) to establish a viable
model of a bilingual (Norwegian-English) schematic network for this verb. In
order to test this model in an online non-translation task, an elicitation test
is run on Norwegian-English bilinguals. This provides further evidence of the
salience structure within the target language category in these bilinguals. In
the second stage, corpus data from the English-Norwegian parallel corpus and
Translog performance data are analyzed to look for evidence of the hypothe-
sized effects. The empirical results are discussed both in terms of the evolving
cognitive model and in terms of the contribution of various data types to testing
cognitive theoretic notions.
1 Introduction
Twenty-odd years have passed since Baker’s (1993) call for corpus linguistic
investigation of aggregate patterns in, or features of, translated language (‘trans-
lation universals’). In that period, a body of research has provided evidence of
1 Some of the work presented here was financed by a grant from the Meltzer Foundation (project
number 11498) and by a joint grant from the Research Council of Norway and the Faculty of
Humanities at the University of Bergen. I am indebted to these institutions for this support. I
would like to thank Ingeborg Hitland for the coding of the corpus data, and Josep Marco, the
editors and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript. All remaining errors are mine alone.
DOI 10.1515/9783110459586-002
10 Sandra L. Halverson
some of the proposed features, e.g. simplification, generalization, normalization/

conventionalization, interference (see Laviosa 2009, 2011; Chesterman 2011a
for overviews). While the empirical results are not conclusive on all accounts,
the viability of this research paradigm seems evident. As the field develops,
the fundamental starting point of the research paradigm remains constant:
the idea that translated language is in some way distinct, that it demonstrates
characteristics that make it different from language that is not the result of a
translation process. This idea underlies Toury’s laws of translational behavior
(1995) as well as Baker’s universals (see Pym 2008). It is also related to the
concept of so-called translationese (Gellerstam 1986; Santos 1995) and the notion
of a third code (Frawley 1984) or hybrid text (Schäffner and Adab 2001).
As part of the emerging paradigm of Corpus-Based Translation Studies (CBTS),
empirical investigations have been accompanied by work querying some aspects
of the universals framework (see especially the papers in Anderman and Rogers
2008; Kruger et al. 2011, Mauranen and Kujamäki 2004; Oakes and Ji 2012; Xiao
2010). The question of whether or not the postulated features are unique to
translated language is one that has also been the subject of some discussion,
and this question too is receiving renewed attention (e.g. Halverson 2003, 2010b,
2015b; Lanstyák and Heltai 2012; Mauranen 2004/5), though the issue remains
unresolved empirically.
Quite recently, corpus-based translation studies (CBTS) has emerged as the
locus of a new phase of methodological innovation. This innovation is charac-
terized by the use of advanced statistical methods (see e.g. current volume and
Oakes and Ji 2012; Delaere et al. 2012; Cappelle and Loock 2013; Delaere and De
Sutter 2013; Vandevoorde 2016) and mixed methods research (e.g. Alves et al
2010; Hansen 2003).
While much has happened since the late 1990s and early 2000s, it is fair to
say that the most substantial gains have been empirical and methodological
ones. The addition of individual studies has meant that more patterns have
been studied across additional language pairs. More advanced statistical tools
are facilitating more in-depth and robust investigations of the linguistic data. It
is also fair to say, however, that these empirical gains have not been accom-
panied by equally striking developments in theory. Here progress has been more
modest and incremental.
At present there are two main approaches taken to the problem of explaining
translational patterns. These two are socially and cognitively oriented, respec-
tively. In the former domain, Pym (2005) has suggested that translators are risk
averse, and that this may account for some of the patterns demonstrated, e.g.
explicitation. This is described as a socially motivated explanation because the
propensity for risk aversion is motivated by employment conditions, status,
Gravitational pull in translation: testing a revised model 11
features of the communicative situation, and other social contingencies (2005:

34). With a basis in systemic functional linguistics, Steiner (2001, 2012), Alves
et al (2010), Neumann (2014), and Teich (1999, 2003) seek explanations in either
register (in what might be considered a proxy for social forces) or in character-
istics of a language system or a pair of systems. For instance, in Teich (2003),
patterns of normalization and shining-through in translated text are linked to
register characteristics and to particulars of the differences between German
and English. Register is also a key variable in Kruger and van Rooy (2012) and
Delaere and De Sutter (2013).
As regards cognitive explanations, there are two main alternatives: the rele-
vance-theoretical account advanced by Alves and Gonçalves (2003, 2007) and
the cognitive grammatical one proposed in Halverson (2003, 2007, 2010b). There
are fundamental differences in the two approaches, despite their common cogni-
tive orientation and a shared interest in developing a “psychologically plausible
account of communication” (Evans and Green 2006: 463). The most important
differences lie in a set of underlying assumptions concerning learning mechanisms
(relevance theory adopts a nativist assumption, and cognitive grammar does
not), and the relationship between language and general cognitive processes
(relevance theory assumes a separate language module, while cognitive grammar
does not). The two also differ in that relevance theory requires a distinction
between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge, while cognitive grammar
assumes the converse (for comparison of the two approaches, see Evans and
Green 2006: 463–465). For the present author, the case for a cognitive grammar
approach is more compelling, and it is this framework that is adopted.
The aim of this chapter is to present preliminary tests of the expanded
model that is emerging from the original gravitational pull hypothesis. The tests
are to be considered preliminary in that the key relationships are not modelled
in their full complexity, and in that new data types are being tried in this type of
investigation (an elicitation test and keystroke logs). Finally, the statistical tests
used are quite simplistic. The objective is to use these rather simple tools to
inform more refined statistical modelling at a later stage.
In section 2, the current, expanded version of the gravitational pull hypothesis
will be sketched out. In section 3, a test case is outlined, and a network structure
is postulated for the selected bilingual verbal category on the basis of non-
translational data. Section 4 presents predictions based on the posited structure
and tests of these predictions using translational corpus and keystroke data.
The results are discussed in section 4.4, and section 5 includes concluding
remarks.
2 The gravitational pull hypothesis revised:

three sources of translational effects
The gravitational pull hypothesis was originally derived from the theory of
Cognitive Grammar and certain assumptions about how this theory could be ex-
trapolated to make it compatible with relevant models of bilingual semantic and
syntactic representation (Halverson 2003). Later revisions have also incorporated
findings from studies of bilingualism (Brysbaert et al. 2014; Halverson 2010a;
Hartsuiker et al. 2004; Hartsuiker 2013; Kroll and Stewart 1994; Pavlenko 2009).
Particular emphasis is also placed on current knowledge of bilingual cognition
and crosslinguistic influence (Bassetti and Cook 2011; Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008).
As a consequence, the current version of the hypothesis is more firmly grounded
in the multicompetence perspective (Cook 2003), which emphasizes that linguistic
cognition in bilinguals is qualitatively different from that in monolinguals. On this
view, “[. . .] people who know more than one language have different knowledge
of both their first and second languages from monolingual speakers of either
(Cook 2003) [. . .]” (Bassetti and Cook 2011: 144). Within this framework, it has
been demonstrated that not only do linguistic categories in bilingual speakers
differ from those of monolingual speakers, they also change structure throughout
these speakers’ linguistic life history. This dynamically developing competence is
reflected in language performance at all linguistic levels (Bassetti and Cook 2011;
Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008; Pavlenko 2009). The methodological consequence of
this starting point is that in modelling linguistic categories in bilinguals, it is not
sufficient to consider monolingual data alone.
As originally presented, the gravitational pull hypothesis assumed a cognitive
grammatical model of semantic structure. In this account, all linguistic items
constitute form-meaning pairings (Langacker 1987: 76), and both form and
meaning are represented cognitively. Form is taken to be either graphemic or
phonological, and meaning (conceptualization), in turn, is accounted for through
reference to conceptual content and processes of construal (Langacker 1987: 99–
146). Conceptualizations which have been used enough to become entrenched
are ordered into networks of related meanings. For example, the network for a
lexical item would link all of the senses of that item, and each individual sense
would also be linked to synonyms (Langacker 1987: 385; Langacker 2008: 27–54).
The features of the posited semantic networks that are of current interest are
two: first, the relative prominence of specific elements within a network, and
second, connectivity within the network, i.e. the existence and strengths of the
links between network elements.
Prominence within the network, or salience, is a complex notion and can be

understood to be related to a number of cognitive phenomena. For the purposes
of this discussion, the term salience will be used to refer to the idea that some
patterns of activation within schematic networks will be more prominent than
others, due to their higher frequency of use over time. As a result of frequent
use, these patterns are thus the “most entrenched and most readily activated”
(Langacker 2008: 226), making the linguistic forms (words/constructions) asso-
ciated with them more likely to be selected.2 Asymmetries of this type within
lexical categories are described in Geeraerts (2009), and for the purposes of the
current discussion, one of the salience types he identified is most important:
semasiological salience. According to Geeraerts, “Semasiological salience is a
relationship among the various semantic possibilities of a given lexical item”
(2009: 79). Geeraerts continues, “some of the values expressed by the lexical
item may be more central than others, for instance because they occur more
frequently within the range of application of the lexical element, [. . .] (2009:
80). I interpret this type of salience, which is one of many in Geeraerts typology,
as much the same type suggested by Langacker (2008). This suggests that one of
a word’s many senses may be more prominent than the others, giving it greater
cognitive weight and increasing its likelihood of being selected. It is important
to note that cognitive salience may be impacted by a number of factors, including
type of meaning, recency of activation, and various elements of the unfolding dis-
course representation. In the current context, however, we will be operationalizing
salience solely as frequency of use. This is a more restricted use of the term than
that presented by Geeraerts in 2009 and later work.
In terms of the bilingual networks activated in translation, semasiological
salience (or frequency, for the current purpose) may be evident in both the
lexical category activated in the source language and in the lexical category or
categories that are being jointly activated for the target language3. It is impor-
tant to remember that this form of salience is a gradable quality that is identified
within the networks linked to individual lexical items or constructions and is
thus manifested by one of a word’s multiple senses in the case of a polysemous
lexical item, for example.
2 Note that the network is a visual metaphor that builds on the conceptual notion of spreading
activation. Langacker has pointed out the problems inherent in taking the discreteness of the
depicted elements too literally, and has proposed a ‘mountain range’ metaphor as an alternative
(2008:227).
3 There is a broad agreement in bilingualism research that a bilingual’s two languages are both
activated during language use, and that some kind of control mechanism is responsible for
inhibiting the undesired language. A number of different models have been proposed to
account for this process (de Groot 2011: 279–338).
Semasiological salience in the target language is the phenomenon that was

originally discussed as gravitational pull in Halverson (2003). In the current
version of the developing model, I propose that salience in the target language
may be more clearly captured by the metaphorical term magnetism. This alterna-
tive term would be a more appropriate means of expressing the idea that in the
cognitive search for a target language item, the translator is more likely to be
drawn to a target language item with high salience/frequency. While this type
of salience impacts all linguistic choice, the model for translation hypothesizes
that this particular frequency effect will be greater in translation than in mono-
lingual language production. Similar frequency effects have been identified in
bilinguals, compared to monolinguals in various bilingual tasks (see Diependaele
et al. 2013).
Prominence in the source language category, which may also impact trans-
lational choices, could then be metaphorically understood as a true form of
cognitive gravity, i.e. a cognitive force that makes it difficult for the translator
to escape from the cognitive pull of highly salient representational elements
in the source language. This would cause what is referred to as interference/
transfer or cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition research.4
In addition to the two types of salience discussed above, an additional
source of hypothesized translational effects is the nature and strength of links
between elements in a bilingual’s two languages. Let us call this connectivity.
A helpful way of describing this is in terms of frequency: if salience patterns
emerge due to the type frequency of source and target elements, this third
source reflects the impact of high frequency co-occurrence of a translation
pair, either in learning or in production tasks over time, or both.5 Indeed, the
links between translation pairs across languages are also strengthened through
frequent activation of one member of the pair, given an assumption of joint
activation at some representational level.6 In earlier work (Halverson 2003), it
was noted that this feature of the model might be relevant for the unique items
hypothesis (Tirkonnen-Condit 2004, 2005), which claims that source language
4 I have not factored in here the effect of discourse factors in increasing or decreasing salience.
Langacker refers to the type of salience under consideration (linked to schemas and prototypes)
as ‘less transient cognitive salience’ (1987: 430), while at the same time recognizing that
contextual/discourse factors also impact salience. For the time being, we are attempting to
isolate the less transient type to look for possible translational effects.
5 This reasoning may be linked to the notion of the ‘dominant translation’, or the most frequently
chosen translation for a given word (see Boada et al. 2013).
6 The issue of the bilingual representational model is not dealt with here, but several of the
alternative models share this fundamental assumption. See de Groot (2011: 129–144) for an
overview.
(SL) lacunae in semantic networks could cause underrepresentation of target

language (TL) items. Thus the more established (entrenched) a link is, the more
likely it will be activated and used in translation, and vice versa.
The distinction between three different potential sources of translational
effects, two based on prominence and one on the entrenchment of translation
pairs (‘equivalents’) clarifies the account given in Halverson (2003). The original
gravitational pull hypothesis is now split into three posited sources of trans-
lational effects: source language salience (gravitational pull), target language
salience (magnetism), and link strength effects (connectivity). However, the basic
thrust of the cognitive model remains the same: that specific characteristics of
schematic bilingual networks are hypothesized to have translational effects,
more specifically aggregate patterns of over- and underrepresentation in trans-
lated language.
3 Step one: developing a partial Norwegian-

English bilingual schematic network
In order to test the three related hypotheses outlined above, a semantic network
is needed to serve as a case. In selecting the case to be investigated here, two
main criteria were adopted:
1. The network should involve a polysemous category in the target language.
2. The sense distinctions and their relationships should be described in existing
(preferably corpus-based) studies, including the crosslinguistic relationships
in one language pair.
Based on these criteria, the network selected for this investigation is the poly-
semous target language verb get. The bilingual network will include, for the
purposes of this study, two Norwegian verbs, få (‘get’) and bli (‘become’).
Though these are not the only two Norwegian verbs that are of relevance to the
entire get network, they overlap semantically with several of get’s senses, and
are consequently the starting point for the development of a partial network
model.
In the following, two types of non-translational data will be used to look for
salience in the semantic network for get and its closest Norwegian counterparts,
få and bli. In section 3.1, corpus data for both English and Norwegian will be
considered, and in section 3.2, an elicitation task is used to investigate possible
network effects in English produced by a group of bilingual Norwegian-English
speakers. The problems associated with using corpus data in the investigation of
cognitive theoretic notions are well known (see Gilquin 2008; Heylen et al. 2008;
Tummers et al. 2005). In this chapter, we adopt the stance taken by Divjak and
Arppe:
Although corpus data do not reflect the characteristics of mental grammars directly, we do
consider corpus data a legitimate source of data about mental grammars. Since the results
of linguistic cognitive processes, e.g. corpus data, are not independent of, or unrelated to,
the linguistic knowledge that is represented in the brain, we may assume with justification
that characteristics observable in language usage reflect characteristics of the mental
processes and structures yielding usage, even though we do not know the exact form of
these mental representations. (2013: 229)
For the purposes of the current analysis, the corpus data is therefore comple-
mented by performance data7, presented in section 3.2. The two data types are
used to postulate salience and connectivity patterns within the bilingual network,
which will be tested in translational data in section 4.
3.1 Monolingual English and Norwegian: evidence from

corpora
For the purposes of this study, semasiological salience will be operationalized
in terms of rank order by frequency among the various senses of the verbs
in question. In other words, the senses that occur most frequently are taken to
be the most salient in the category. The sense distinctions for get have been
described in Gronemeyer (1999) and in Johansson and Oksefjell (1996). Grone-
meyer describes her analysis as “based on data from the Brown corpus” (1999:
2), and her analysis involves describing the syntactic environments associated
with the various senses of the verb. In her classification, there is a very clear
association between sense distinctions and syntactic frames, which makes the
syntactic frame a useful indicator of the sense. Johansson and Oksefjell also
used corpus data, including the Brown, LOB and London-Lund corpora of
written and spoken British and American English, and their description was
7 I have previously argued for a three-way classification of translational data, with the term
‘product’ reserved for observational data such as translated texts (either singular ones or
corpora), ‘performance’ used about observational data that is not a translational product as
such, and ‘process’ used about data types that can be immediately linked to theoretical notions
regarding cognitive processing. Thus we would avoid the confusing use of ‘process’ to refer
both to cognitive processing and to the observable behaviors involved in creating a translation,
not all of which may be directly linked to cognitive theoretical accounts (yet).
primarily a syntactic one. A number of the same distinctions were later con-
firmed by Berez and Gries (2008) in a corpus analysis using the behavioral profile
methodology8.
In the analysis of the English data, the figures presented here are from the
English original texts in the English Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC) and a
comparable subcorpus of the British National Corpus (BNC). The sense categories
are those given in Gronemeyer (1999), with three simplifications: a) the collapsing
of obligation/permission (which share the syntactic frame get + to infinitive),
b) the grouping together of all of the causative senses and c) the addition of a
category for idioms.
The ENPC (http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/services/omc/enpc) consists
of English originals, Norwegian translations, Norwegian originals, and English
translations (c. 2.6 million words). The translational and non-traditional sub-
corpora are further subdivided into fiction and non-fiction subcorpora and the
fiction subcorpus accounts for roughly 60 percent of the material. The texts
in the non-fiction corpus represent primarily a type of popular science genre,
though there are also a few legal texts. The non-fiction subcorpus is not further
subdivided by genre. It is important to note that genre has not been incorporated
as a variable in this investigation, due to both the relatively coarse descriptions
of genre categories in the corpora and the relatively small size of the ENPC
subcorpora. For the current purpose, an attempt has been made to alleviate the
potential genre effect by matching the BNC subcorpus as closely as possible to
the ENPC, in order to enable the comparison of translated to non-translated
language. This was done by selecting written books and periodicals and written
miscellaneous as the text categories for the BNC. Since the genre categories in
both corpora are relatively imprecise, they do not really ensure complete com-
parability. This is only acceptable in this early stage of hypothesis testing and
development. It is certainly possible that there are genre differences in the
sense distributions, and this variable must be more carefully catered for in later
investigations. For now, the attempt to ensure corpus comparability will have to
8 The sense distinctions utilized by Berez and Gries (2008) were derived from WordNet 2.1, and
the data was taken from ICE-GB. The authors classified the senses in their data and coded each
for a set of semantic, morphological and syntactic information. They used this information in a
cluster analysis to see whether the sense categories identified at the outset were confirmed by
the cluster analysis. Their initial categories were the same as the ones identified in Table 1, with
the exception of the causative senses, which were classified as either passive or inchoative,
the ingressive sense, which was listed as a subsense of movement, and the combination of the
obligation and passive senses. Two variants of cluster analysis confirmed the onset, possession,
movement and must/passive and causative clusters.
serve as an interim solution, and caution should be exercised in interpreting the

results.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the sense categories in the English original
material. All instances of get in the ENPC were analyzed, and the selection
of occurrences in the BNC is a random sample representing 1% of all of the
occurrences. All corpus data was coded manually. The sense classifications were
enabled by the high degree of isomorphism between semantic and syntactic
classifications: in almost all cases the senses are distinguished also by syntactic
means. For example, the onset sense involves get + NP, while stative possession is
expressed by have + got + NP. Movement requires an adverbial, and permission/
obligation a to-infinitive complement. The only ambiguous case involved the
distinction between an inchoative and passive reading given a participial com-
plement (e.g. attached, married). This was resolved by classifying all cases
involving participles classified as adjectives in the Collins English Dictionary
as inchoatives. If the participle was only listed as a verb form, the instance was
classified as a passive. Idioms were identified through a criterion of semantic
opaqueness9. Movement also incorporated metaphorical movement.
The frequency rankings of the various senses correspond very closely across
the two corpora. The three most frequent senses, in descending order, are move-
ment, onset, and inchoative in both corpora. Rank orders 4–6 vary marginally
across the two corpora, primarily due to the higher frequency of stative posses-
sion (have got) in the ENPC originals. The categories of passive and idioms are
ranked slightly differently, but represent similar percentages of the respective
corpus occurrences (5 v 6 percent passives and 9 v 8 percent idioms in the
ENPC and BNC respectively). A Mann-Whitney test10 demonstrates that the dif-
ferences in the distributions of senses across the corpora are not significantly
different (n = 2471, p = .931). Thus we see that the rank orders of the senses of
get are largely the same across the two monolingual English corpora, which
suggests that we may tentatively posit a higher degree of semasiological salience
for the most frequent senses: get3, get1 , and get6 , in that order11. The relative
positions of the senses as illustrated here will serve as a basis for the construc-
tion of the verbal category in English.
9 Occurrences of the verb were defined as idioms if they were semantically opaque, even if
they exhibited the same syntactic frames as the other senses. Examples include: get wind of,
get on somebody’s nerves, get something over with.
10 The Mann-Whitney is a non-parametric test that can be used to see whether two samples are
independent with regard to one dependent variable (whether the differences between the
two groups are statistically significant). In this test, the calculation makes use of ranks within
groups, so that the rank order of the sense scores is not significantly different.
11 Salience is posited for the three most frequent senses, which account for roughly 70 percent
of the occurrences in both corpora.
Table 1: Sense categories for get with corpus frequencies in ENPC originals and BNC
Sense Meaning Example – from ENPC N (%) Rank n (%) Rank
ENPC ENPC BNC BNC
get1 onset of Would you like me to go out 304 (23) 2 324 (28) 2
possession and get some croissants?
get2 stative Have you got any of those? 139 (11) 4 67 (6) 6
possession
get3 Movement I don’t want you to get there 418 (32) 1 340 (30) 1
after dark.
get4 permission/ You’ve got to take into account 36 (3) 7 46 (4) 7
obligation that I’m virtually single-handed
here.
get5 Causation Despite his tuggings with the 28 (2) 8 26 (2) 8
wrench he couldn’t get the
screw to shift.
get6 Inchoative Sit down and get warm 188 (14) 3 164 (14) 3
get7 Passive . . . and you really do have to 66 (5) 6 70 (6) 5
be a winklebrain to get ejected
from there . . .
get8 Ingressive I’m going to get moving. 22 (2) 9 23 (2) 9
get9 Idioms Like the Whistler, they get 122 (9) 5 88 (8) 4
their kicks from watching
people die.
Total 1323 (100) 1148 (100)
The bilingual network in this study is a Norwegian-English one. The relevant

Norwegian items are the two verbs få (‘get’) and bli (‘become’). As we will see in
the discussion below, several senses of the former verb overlap with senses of
get. Bli, on the other hand, is a copular verb in Norwegian that expresses change
of state. It corresponds to the inchoative sense of get (get6). A cross-linguistic
corpus-based analysis exists for this network in the dissertation by Ebeling
(2003), who also based her analysis on the ENPC. Her analyses take the two
Norwegian verbs as a starting point and investigate the translational relation-
ships that pertain between the various senses and their English counterparts. In
addition, the Norwegian få has recently been described by Askedal (2012), using
a smaller corpus of Norwegian fiction and non-fiction material, comparable to
the ENPC.12 Both Ebeling and Askedal classified the Norwegian data on the basis
12 Askedal’s corpus consisted of eight novels and non-fiction writing, representing contem-
porary Norwegian fiction and non-fiction. It is comparable to the ENPC in text types. The total
size of his corpus is not given, but the total number of occurrences of få equalled 779, or
roughly half the number found in the ENPC. Askedal also has categorized his data on the basis
of primarily syntactic properties, but has incorporated semantic information in certain of the
categories. His discussion also allows for a recategorization into semantic categories. Any faults
in this process are the responsibility of the present author alone.
of syntactic criteria. Even so, they both provide numerous corpus examples and
they discuss the semantics of each syntactic category. With this verb also, there
is a high degree of isomorphism between the sense distinctions and the set of
verbal constructions. This information was used to reverse the classification
and reclassify the data semantically using the semantic descriptions given in
the two studies. The figures in the table are adapted from the studies by Ebeling
(ENPC) and Askedal (JOA), and any errors are those of the present author alone.
Table 2: Corpus frequencies for sense categories for få in ENPC (based on Ebeling 2003: 207)
and Askedal (2012). Examples from Ebeling (2003)
Sense Meaning example ENPC N (%) rank N (%) Rank

ENPC ENPC JOA JOA
få1 onset of Gutten fikk et eple./ 623 (40) 1 397 (51) 1

possession The boy got an apple
få2 movement Pengene de får inn/ 132 (9) 5 48 (6) 4
The money they get in . . .
få3 permission Får jeg spørre deg om en 239 (15) 2 133 (17) 2
sak?/May I ask you about
something?
få4 causation Vi fikk henne i godt 212 (14) 3 86 (11) 3
humør./We got her in a
good mood.
få5 reflexive Flere og flere chokoner 18 (1) 8 39 (5) 6
hadde fått seg ildvåpen/
More and more Chokonen
had firearms . . .
få6 Passive . . . det ikke gjorde vondt 138 (9) 4 29 ( 4) 7
å få en tann rotfylt/
it didn’t hurt to get a tooth
‘rootfilled’
få7 passive . . . før vi får kommet oss 2 (0) 10 47 (6) 5
resultative avgårde/before we get
ourselves off 13
få8 ingressive Snart skulle hun få vite. . ./ 68 (4) 7
Soon she would find out . . .
få9 Hun fikk lyst til. . ./ 112 (7) 6
She wanted to
pro Jeg får (gå) bort 3 (0) 9
form (I have to (go) . . .
Total 1547 (9914) 779 (100)
13 This example is from Askedal (2012: 1315).

14 Does not equal 100 due to rounding.
As shown in Table 2, the three most frequent senses of få (onset, permission,

and causation) correspond across the two corpora, while the less frequent
senses show slightly different distributions. An important characteristic here
is the overall frequency of the first ranked sense (onset), which is 40% of all
occurrences in the ENPC Norwegian material and 51% in the JOA corpus. The
second most frequent sense (permission) represents only 15 and 17% respec-
tively. A Mann-Whitney test demonstrates that the differences in rank order
of the sense distributions in the two corpora are not statistically significant
(n = 2326, p = .165). Thus, the relative positions of the senses illustrated here
will also inform the construction of the network model.
In order to fully describe the bilingual get network, we must also include
frequency information for the Norwegian bli. Ebeling (2003) analyzed all occur-
rences of this verb in the ENPC, and once again, her syntactic categories are
described in terms of their semantics. This description is used to reclassify the
instances into semantic categories, as indicated in Table 3. In this case the only
deviation from Ebeling’s classification is the merging of her copular and intran-
sitive categories, which constitute the inchoative here:
Table 3: Frequency of sense categories for bli, ENPC (adapted from Ebeling 2003)
Sense Meaning Example ENPC N (%)
bli1 Inchoative Hun ble redd./She grew frightened. 1545 (57)

bli2 Passive Barnet blir lagt til brystet./The child is put to her 884 (32)
breast.
bli3 aspectual aux Jeg blir stående her./I’ll stay standing here. 177 (6)
bli4 multiword verbs Hvor var det blitt av lykken deres?/What had become 119 (4)
of their happiness?
Total 2725 (99)
The frequencies of the senses of bli in the ENPC demonstrate that, according to
the corpus data, there is one predominant sense, the inchoative one, which
represents 57% of all uses. The verb is also frequently used as a passive auxiliary
(32%). It is important to note that in the inchoative sense, the verb can also take
an NP as its complement (e.g. [. . .] å bli landets lys. . ./to become the light of the
nation; Ebeling 2003: 85). In this case this sense does not correspond to get6, as
inchoative get takes only an adjectival complement. So while the two verb senses
correspond semantically, the verbs are not complete translation equivalents due
to the non-congruity of the syntactic frames in which they can be used.
The corpus data presented here thus provides a basis for establishing sema-
siological salience among the senses of get, få and bli. Of the three most salient
(frequent) senses of get, the first (movement) corresponds to a less frequent
sense of få. The second (onset of possession) corresponds semantically to the

most salient sense of få. This sense of få accounts for 40 and 51 percent of the
occurrences, respectively, in the two corpora investigated. The third-ranked
sense (inchoative) corresponds to the most salient sense for bli. This information
will be incorporated in specific predictions for translation in section 4.1.
One final note on the status of this corpus data for the cognitive model
under development: the corpus data analyzed here provides information on the
relative frequencies of the various senses of the verbs in aggregate language
use in a language community. We assume that there is a relationship between
aggregate patterns and individual knowledge, though this is not a straightforward
matter. For now, we will take the relative frequencies as a starting point in
elaborating a cognitive model, and this model will be considered in light of
other data types that provide better access to linguistic cognition.
The corpus does not provide information on the linguistic background of
the language users who have produced the texts, and we are assuming, for the
English data at least, that the authors are predominantly monolingual. As
regards the Norwegian data, monolingualism is not as tenable an assumption,
though most of the texts in this corpus were produced prior to the 1990s, when
general levels of English proficiency in Norwegian adults were much lower in
Norway than they are today. As argued elsewhere (Halverson 2015b), a cognitive
model based on the language of monolinguals alone is problematic for the
investigation of translational cognition. This is a further reason to investigate
other forms of data.
3.2 Effects of semasiological salience – evidence from

performance data
As mentioned in the introduction to this section, corpus data gives us only
indirect evidence of cognitive linguistic structure. It is thus necessary to look
for some other type of evidence of the posited salience of the senses that are
most frequent in the corpus data. Moreover, the relationships posited for the
English verb senses were derived based on what we assume is language pro-
duced by monolingual speakers. Given our assumption of multicompetence
(see section 2) in bilinguals, it is also necessary to incorporate some informa-
tion about potential salience effects in English produced by Norwegian-English
bilinguals15. For this purpose, a sentence generation test similar to the one used
15 The subjects in the test are classified as ‘bilinguals’, even though they may not be equally
proficient in both languages. They were all native speakers of Norwegian who were highly pro-
ficient L2 speakers of English. In accordance with the multicompetence perspective, we assume
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
eloped, tore down the hill by special dâk, and were married at
Saharanpore. Where is she now?”
Wynyard made no reply. Captain Ramsay’s wandering memory had
evidently evoked a vision of his dark-eyed and remarkably pretty
mother. She had run away with the handsome Hussar officer, and
had, in consequence, been cast off by her relations.
“Dead?” inquired the other after a pause.
Wynyard nodded.
“Ah, well, we shall all be dead one day—some sooner—and some
later,” and he fell into one of his sudden silences.
“I think he is better!” whispered his wife to Wynyard, as they parted
at the hall door. “Didn’t he seem almost himself this evening? And he
took great notice of Topsy and Darkie, and made their dinner
himself.”
Two days later, as the chauffeur was leaving Mrs. Hogben’s cottage
after his midday meal, preparatory to getting ready the car, Mrs.
Ramsay suddenly appeared at her gate and beckoned to him
frantically. She looked white and frightened.
“Jim went off this morning,” she began, “and hasn’t been home
since. He never did this before. Oh, I ought to have taken your
advice,” and she wrung her hands. “I’ve been searching for him
since eight o’clock.”
“Did he speak to any one before he left the house?” inquired
Wynyard.
“No. Fanny saw him going out in a terrible hurry; he had on a pair of
white gloves, and said he would be late for parade.”
“Poor fellow!”
“And the stupid girl never said one word to me till she brought me my
hot water at eight o’clock.”
“I’m just off with the car, taking Miss Susan to a croquet tournament,
or I’d go and have a look round. What about the policeman?”
“The policeman! Why, he cannot walk! He weighs sixteen stone.”
“Well, anyway, if you don’t mind, I’ll send Tom Hogben and Jones;
they know the country, and will keep a shut mouth. I’ll just tell them
now,” and he hurried away.
Although Miss Susan had no money wherewith to buy diamonds,
sables, and motor cars, she contrived to extract a great deal of
pleasure out of her elderly spinster life. She enjoyed mild little tea-
parties, followed by bridge at sixpence a hundred—and received her
partner’s scoldings with disarming humility. Her one passion was
croquet. “Miss S. Parrett” was a notable player—her name appeared
in print in connection with local tournaments; her arm was steady,
her aim was deadly, and, not only this, she played the game with her
head as well as with her hands.
On the present occasion Miss Susan had lured her reluctant niece to
a meeting at Upstreet—a village about ten miles from Ottinge; in
fact, she made such a point of Aurea’s company, of Aurea’s support
—whether in success or failure—that the girl felt compelled to go—
and, at any rate, she took a sincere pride in Susan’s modest
triumphs. The tournament was prolonged till seven o’clock; Miss
Susan was detained, being in the Finals. Dusk was closing on the
world when the two ladies, with two prizes (salad bowl and a silver
cigarette-case), took their departure. The prize-winner, in exuberant
spirits, uttering effusive expressions of enjoyment and thanks, had
talked herself into the car, and there were so many after-thoughts
and messages that even the chauffeur became impatient with his
dear Miss Susan; he was desperately anxious to get home and hear
the result of the search for Captain Ramsay.
It was an unusually close evening—there was thunder in the air—
and the interior of the motor was stuffy even with the windows down
on both sides—and how they rattled! The old machine trundled along
at its best speed, as if inspired by the fear of Miss Parrett awaiting its
arrival, watch in hand. Its driver had another and more well-grounded
dread in his mind.
The ladies within discussed the recent party, the play, the prizes, and
the guests.
“The Wendovers were there; did you see them?” said Miss Susan
—“Mrs. Wendover and Gertrude. I thought they both looked very ill.”
“Yes, and I believe it was from hunger, Susan,” was her niece’s
surprising reply. “I never saw such a tea as they had—surreptitiously.
It’s shameful to watch, I know, but I was not playing, and happened
to be sitting near, and could not help myself. I felt so frightfully sorry
for them—I was inclined to cry!”
“My dear girl, surely you are not in earnest?”
“I only wish I wasn’t. Gertrude had a whole plate of sandwiches,
besides cakes; she took them quietly, when no one was looking, and
devoured them ravenously, and her mother pocketed several buns
and lumps of sugar.”
“But why? I don’t understand.”
“Because probably they have nothing to eat at home! Mrs. Lucas,
the parson’s wife, told me in confidence that they are almost
penniless; the little money they had has been lost in some bank that
tempted people with high interest and then went smash. The
Wendovers cling to the old cottage—it’s their own—but they have no
servant; they do their own washing and, very early in the morning,
their own doorstep! Everything is spick and span still. After dark they
steal out and collect firewood and apples, and even field turnips, and
yet they hold up their heads and ‘pretend.’ I heard Mrs. Wade
pressing them to have cake and tea—and they declined.”
“Have they no friends or relations?”
“I don’t know. Mrs. Lucas said she did not like to ask for their
confidence. She always has them to supper on Sundays, and sends
them eggs; but she is poor enough herself with eight children. She
thinks the Wendovers will break down now that the winter is coming,
and yet they won’t allow any one to guess that they are destitute.”
“Dear, dear, dear, how shocking! What is to be done, Aurea?”
“I’ve just had my allowance, and I’ll post them a five-pound note to-
morrow anonymously, and I’ll get something later on from dad.”
“Yes, yes, yes, and I must see what I can do too. Poverty is cruel—a
terrible thing—what a trial of one’s character!”
“It is indeed, and so are riches sometimes. They seem to change
people’s dispositions—if they come in for a fortune.”
“That’s true; but I do hope, dear child, you are not thinking of your
poor Aunt Bella?”
“Aunt Bella was much nicer when she lived in the Red Cottage,
dined at one o’clock, and put a penny in the plate.”
“Oh, now, Aurea, I can’t let you say that; she is very proud of you,
and a dear, kind sister to me. Why, only last week she gave me a
lovely lace parasol, and when she writes to me it is always ‘My own
darling Susan.’”
Aurea was silent. She was thinking of darling Susan’s many
deprivations, humiliations, and hardships.
“We all have our foibles, have we not, Aurea, my child?”
“Oh, I know that, Susan, and I——”
Whatever Aurea was going to add was cut short by her aunt’s
piercing scream. From some thick bushes on the left bank, a tall
figure had shot out; there was a lightning rush, a shout from the
chauffeur, who jammed on the brake, then a violent swerve, an
upheaval, and a sickening, crunching sensation.
A man had deliberately flung himself in front of the car, which had
gone over him, then stopped abruptly, shuddering throughout its
rickety frame.
The driver sprang off and dragged from beneath the wheels a limp
and motionless body. Yes, his vague fears had been justified.
“It’s Captain Ramsay!” he called to Aurea, who had already hurled
herself into the road. “I’m afraid he is done for. Stay where you are.”
As he spoke, he raised a limp and bleeding figure in his arms, which
he carried to the hedgerow; next, he took off his coat and laid him
upon it, and ran and lit a motor lamp. All his actions were surprisingly
prompt and vigorous.
“Now, will you come over here, miss?” he called to Susan
authoritatively, but she was almost beside him. In a crisis, simple,
talkative Susan was another person, and could rise to the occasion.
“And you, Miss Morven, try and find some water—we passed a
stream just now; bring it in anything—your hat or—yes, the salad
bowl! I’m afraid it’s a bad business,” he continued, “and his head is
all cut—and his wrist—it’s an artery. Miss Susan, fetch a stick
quickly, quickly, and I’ll make a tourniquet.”
The chauffeur seemed to have taken complete command of the
situation; he ordered the ladies hither and thither, he bandaged up
Captain Ramsay’s head with Aurea’s white scarf—which he tore into
strips—whilst Aurea stood by, eager to help, but trembling like an
aspen. She had never heard a man moan, or witnessed such a
scene.
“I think I’ve fixed him up just for the moment,” said Owen, rising, “and
now I’ll fetch the doctor. You two ladies won’t mind stopping, will
you?”
“Certainly not! What do you think we are made of?” rejoined Miss
Susan. “Here,”—now sinking down—“place his head in my lap, and
just go as hard as ever you can!”
“He is in a very bad way, I’m afraid, and I really don’t like leaving
you, but there’s no help for it.” Then, after sticking a flaring lamp on
the ground beside them, he climbed into his place and sped away.
In less than half an hour he had returned, accompanied by Dr. Boas;
they found the poor sufferer still alive and moaning, his head
supported by Miss Susan, and his lips bathed by her niece.
“I half expected this,” said the doctor, as he knelt beside Captain
Ramsay. “Internal injuries,” he announced, after a rapid examination,
“and fatal.”
“The stretcher and the parish nurse will be here presently,” said
Owen; and, hearing a familiar voice, Captain Ramsay slowly opened
his eyes and asked—
“Oh, it’s cold. Where am I? Where’s Katie?”
As he recognised Owen bending over him, he murmured—
“Wynyard, Wynyard—hold on—I’m coming!”
“You see he is off his head,” said Miss Susan, “poor fellow; he did
not know what he was doing.”
Then, as the chauffeur relieved her of the dying man’s weight, he
regained consciousness, and, again opening his eyes, he whispered
“Wynyard!” and passed away in the arms of Wynyard’s son.
CHAPTER XXI
BY THE SUNDIAL
A long time had elapsed since a tragedy or an inquest had taken

place in Ottinge; the last had occurred twenty years previously, when
Joe Watkins (a village name), being jealous, had thrown his wife
down a well, and, despite her prayers, entreaties, and screams, had
left her to drown, for which crime he had paid the extreme penalty of
the law in Brodfield Gaol.
A suicide was something entirely foreign to the character of the
community, and the topic was exhaustively debated in the Drum. Joe
Thunder gave it as his opinion that the remains of Captain Ramsay
—speaking from recollection—would be buried with a stake at a
cross-roads—probably at Crampton, being nearest. The village was
stirred out of its normal lethargy and, secretly, rather proud of being
the scene of a sensation, and newspaper paragraphs.
The Parson and Miss Morven spent the night succeeding Captain
Ramsay’s death at Ivy House, and were anxious to carry his widow
off to the Rectory; but she preferred to remain in her own home until
after the funeral, and then leave Ottinge. All Mrs. Ramsay’s little
world, gentle and simple, had shown her their kindness and
sympathy: the Rector looked after business matters, Miss Susan had
undertaken correspondence (she enjoyed letter-writing), Wynyard
took charge of the dogs, whilst Aurea gave personal attendance and
warm affection.
The inquest was conducted as quietly and as speedily as possible,
thanks to the good offices of Dr. Boas; the verdict returned was
“suicide whilst of unsound mind,” and the jury offered their sincere
condolences with the widow. At the funeral Ottinge was proud to note
a lord and two honourables appearing as mourners, and the remains
of Captain Ramsay received Christian interment in the churchyard;
there was no word of cross-roads—much less a stake!
Afterwards, Mrs. Ramsay’s brothers, who were guests at the
Rectory, took their departure, and it was generally known that their
sister would follow them to Ireland within a week. Her obstinate
persistence in for years clinging to a man who by rights should be in
an asylum had alienated her friends; but now that he was no more,
there reigned a great peace. The boarder dogs had been abruptly
dispersed, and Wynyard, who obtained special leave, personally
conducted several parties over the fields to Catsfield station, and
wound up matters out of doors. Aurea did the same within—but they
rarely met. She was surprised to discover the footing on which her
aunts’ chauffeur stood at Ivy House. Till now she knew little of their
acquaintance; it was a before-breakfast and after-dark affair.
It was also Wynyard’s task to collect and sort and pack the Captain’s
belongings, by his widow’s particular desire.
“I like to have you about,” she said. “Is it not wonderful how well we
have got to know one another, and how much we have in common,
since I opened the hall door to you, a stranger, that wet morning last
April? Jim was devoted to you, and you were so good to him—sitting
here, evening after evening, talking and listening and playing picquet
with that poor fellow. Oh, Owen, if you had known him as your father
and I knew him, you would understand why I, forsaking all my own
people, clung to him till the end!”
“Yes, you did that!” he answered, with emphasis.
“Only think of the tragedy of his life,” she resumed, in a broken voice,
“the last fifteen years, all through a branch knocking off his sun topee
and his determination to get first spear. Oh, what a little thing to
mean so much! The way of life.”
Wynyard, the handy man, packed up cases containing old Indian
relics, such as faded photographs, horns, bear skins, khaki uniforms,
Sam Brown belts, packets of tiger claws, and all sorts of rubbish
dear to Mrs. Ramsay. Among the collection was a photograph
album, aged at least thirty years, and considerably the worse for
Indian rains and Ottinge damp.
“I think this must be your father,” said Mrs. Ramsay, pointing to the
old-fashioned carte-de-visite of a handsome man in Hussar uniform,
“and this is your mother opposite,” indicating a pretty, dark-eyed girl
holding up a puppy. “You see, she was fond of dogs, like you and
me! Do you care to have them?” drawing them out as she spoke.
“Yes, thank you most awfully, I should. It’s funny that I should come
upon my people and hear so much of them in Ottinge of all the
world! I don’t remember either of them, for my mother died when I
was two years old, and my father was killed at polo—it killed her too
—and then my sister and I were sent home.”
“So you have a sister?”
“I have very much a sister,” and he laughed; “she has all the family
brains—and her own as well.”
“I will not allow that, Mr. Wynyard; it was marvellous how, with a few
hints from me, you threw yourself into a life before you were born.
Isn’t it strange that I am the only one in Ottinge who knows your real
name?”
“Except Miss Morven,” he corrected. “You know he recognised me,
and said ‘Wynyard.’”
“Yes, but no doubt she believes he was wandering. You don’t wish
your surname to be known here, do you?”
“No, my christian name does as well.”
“I must confess I wonder you remain! You are so young, and life here
is deadly dull for such as you, with all the years and energies before
you,” and she looked at him interrogatively. It was dusk; she was
sitting in the deep drawing-room window, her slim figure silhouetted
against the fading light. Wynyard had been nailing down some
cases, and came and stood, hammer in hand, in the middle of the
room. She knew perfectly well why he remained in the sleepy village;
it was because Aurea Morven had glorified Ottinge.
“I believe I know your secret,” she remarked suddenly. He made no
reply. Mrs. Ramsay was no doubt thinking of Aurea, whilst he was
dwelling on the bargain with his uncle. Should he tell her? They had
of late been drawn so much to one another—she already knew half
his story, and had just given him the photographs of his father and
mother—her husband and his father had been like brothers—yes—
he would!
And there in the semi-dusk, leaning his hands on the back of a chair,
in as few words as possible, he related his tale, and how he had
made a solemn compact for two years, which compact he was
bound to keep to the letter and the bitter end.
“And it’s a good deal more bitter than I expected,” he concluded.
Listening with tightly folded hands, the slim figure in black accorded
him her entire sympathy. Now she was in possession of all his
confidence, and such was his unhappy plight, he was desperately in
love with a girl, and could neither speak nor show a sign—nor make
his real position known. What an amazing state of affairs! Did Aurea
recognise in Wynyard a silent worshipper? And was it not true that
love and smoke cannot be concealed?
“You will keep this to yourself, I know,” he said. “I’m not sure that I’m
within my right in telling you, but somehow I had to.”
“You may be certain I shall never breathe it till you give me
permission,” she answered, drawing a long breath; “but what an
extraordinary man your uncle must be!”
“Yes, he is eccentric; but I believe he is right—this sort of
apprenticeship will do me a jolly lot of good. I know more of the
people now I’m one of them. Many a thing I’ve learnt here, that I’d
never have had a glimpse of, and I must tell you fair and square that
I gave Uncle Dick a lot of bother in the way of my debts.”
“Hereditary extravagance—your father—a younger son—drove a
four-in-hand, you know. Ah, here comes Aurea,” as the little gate
swung. “I half promised to go over there this evening.”
“Then good-bye, I’m off; I’ll finish the packing to-morrow,” and he
escaped through the back garden.
It was abundantly evident that of late Miss Morven avoided him, and
he had not spoken to her since the tragic occasion when they both
hung over a dying man on the high road to Upstreet.
More than six months had gone by since he had come to Ottinge;
sometimes it seemed an endless time, at others as but yesterday.
One thing was clear and stationary in his mind—his living among
working people had opened the eyes of a future landowner, given
him a better estimate of his responsibilities, and a sympathy and
understanding that nothing could obliterate.
At last Ivy House was closed; the blinds were drawn down, the key
hung in Mrs. Hogben’s bedroom, and the memory of the recent
catastrophe had become a little dim. It was three weeks since the
Captain had killed himself, and other events had begun to press
upon public attention. Since the tragedy Aurea had absolutely
refused to drive in the motor, to her Aunt Bella’s great annoyance;
she was painfully anxious to have it in daily use, for she feared that
being the cause of a man’s death might depreciate the car’s value!
And when the girl announced she would never get into it again, she
was furious, and her face assumed a dull red shade as she asked—
“Do you mean to tell me that, if there’s an accident to a carriage, or if
a cart runs over somebody, that cart is never to be used? How could
people get on?” she demanded. “I never heard of such affected
nonsense. And now I suppose you will go and give my nice car a bad
name? As if it could help the madman throwing himself under it!”
“I’ll say nothing about it, Aunt Bella, you know that perfectly well; but
if you had been in the motor yourself and felt the crunch, I don’t think
you would have cared ever to drive in it again.”
“Rubbish—you are hysterical! You should get Dr. Boas to give you a
tonic and go away somewhere for a change; only you are too much
away from your father as it is—every one says so. It was remarked
to me only the other day.”
“It is funny, Aunt Bella, how many people make nasty remarks about
me to you. Do you suppose that they think you like hearing them?”
and she laughed, and before Miss Parrett could find her breath or an
answer had left her.
It was a fact that Miss Parrett cultivated a cordon of idle, elderly
women, who came to tea or lunch or to spend the day, who were
aware that Miss Parrett had “a good deal in her power to bestow”
(not only in the form of fruit and vegetables), and who knew that,
even more than talking of herself and her wonderful successes in her
youth, her many broken-hearted lovers, she liked to discuss her
pretty, popular niece and to listen to their hostile criticisms. Miss
Parrett was openly jealous of this girl’s ascendancy in Ottinge, where
she was the great lady. After all, Aurea was only a sort of half-niece,
and she could leave her money where she liked. This notification
was promptly repeated, and received with unqualified and respectful
approval, by the two Miss Dabbs and Mrs. Forbes Cattermole and
her freckled daughters. On these occasions, when Aurea was the
topic, and her appearance, manners, and customs were figuratively
placed under the microscope, and then exhaustively debated, the
entrance of Miss Susan was invariably followed by an abrupt and
awkward silence.
It was a lovely afternoon—Saturday—the third day of September,

and the chauffeur was working in the Manor garden close by the
sundial, repairing some of the rose pergolas with nails and wire.
Suddenly, to his delight, he beheld Miss Morven coming through the
yew arch nearest to the house—a slim white figure in a dark green
frame—with her hat over her arm, and accompanied by Joss, who, in
exuberant joy, was leaping his own height from the ground.
As the young lady sauntered slowly up the broad walk, she stopped
every now and then to pick flowers from the luxuriant borders on
either hand. As these were white, she was evidently gathering them
for the church. He watched, surreptitiously, her wonderfully supple
figure, her lithe grace, as she stooped and stretched hither and
thither. Aurea had grown thin, her lovely colour had certainly faded,
no doubt she had not yet recovered from the shock of Captain
Ramsay’s horribly sudden death.
By and by his vicinity was discovered to her by Joss, who had been
dashing about among the cabbages in chase of an historic pheasant,
and now accorded him a rapturous acknowledgment. He had just
finished his task, and stepped out into the walk; as the young lady
approached he touched his cap, and she halted for a moment and
said, with obvious hesitation—
“A lovely day, isn’t it?”
“Yes, miss;” and then he ventured to add, “You never come out in the
car now?”
“No,” she answered, “never again; it’s a juggernaut!”
“I would not say that!” he protested. “What happened could not have
been helped; of course, it’s an old machine and out of date”—(he
was thinking of the 60 h.p. Napier at Westmere)—“and requires a lot
of humouring to get her to run at all, and if put to too high a pressure
might go to pieces—still——”
But here Miss Morven interrupted with a hasty gesture, and, laying
her flowers upon the sundial, turned to face him fully, and said—
“I’m rather surprised”—she paused for a moment, and then resumed
—“that when you saw what a dull sort of place this was, and what a
wretched old car you had to drive, you stayed on. You really have no
proper job; my aunt’s motoring is absurd. I cannot imagine why you
remain here.”
“Can you not, miss?” he answered, in a low voice, his gaze fixed on
the sundial and its motto, “Time Trieth All.” Suddenly raising his
eyes, he met hers steadily—for one unguarded moment the truth
was in his face!—and there was a thrill of passion in his voice as he
added, “Then, in that case, I am afraid it would be impossible for me
to tell you.”
For as long as one could count ten, there was an expressive silence,
only broken by the crashing of cabbage leaves, the notes of wood
pigeons, the boom of a passing bee.
Miss Morven remained motionless, but the trembling of her lip
indicated the tension of her self-control, and a wave of sudden colour
invaded her cheeks, and raced up into her wavy dark hair. This tell-
tale blush betrayed that she knew as well as the chauffeur, his sole
reason for remaining in Ottinge.
Then without a word she lifted the flowers, and, holding herself
unusually erect, the slim white figure proceeded down the walk that
led towards the old bowling-green.
Wynyard, as he stood watching her, asked himself, Was she also
passing out of his life? In another moment a yew hedge had hid her
from his eyes.
“I believe I’ve done it now!” he muttered. “I could not help it; she
knows, and is ready to kill me for my presumption! She will tell her
aunts, and I shall get the sack.”
He picked up a small blossom that Aurea had dropped on the
sundial, opened his watch, and carefully placed the little flower along
with the little photograph. When people are in love, what irrational
follies tempt them!
CHAPTER XXII
AUREA’S REFLECTIONS
But Aurea had no intention of “telling her aunts”; on the contrary,

she crossed the old bowling-green in order to avoid the Manor, and
returned home across the meadows that led by Claringbold’s Farm.
In the dim hall of the Rectory she encountered Norris—who, of an
afternoon, often haunted that vicinity—and said, as she handed her
the flowers—
“Will you please fill the church vases? I’ve rather a headache from
the sun.”
The girl really did feel considerably dazed and bewildered, and
passed into the drawing-room, where she ruthlessly dislodged Mac
from her own particular pet chair. Mac vacated the seat with an air of
injured deliberation, found another, and sighed as heavily as if he
were a human being.
The time had come for thinking things out, and his mistress, having
seated herself, prepared to hold a court of inquiry on Aurea Morven.
One would suppose that she really had had a sunstroke like poor
Captain Ramsay! What mad impulse had urged her to question the
chauffeur? At the moment, she seemed to be listening to another
personality speaking by her lips. She felt a fluttering in her throat as
she told herself that this inscrutable young man was certainly in love
with her. Behold, she summoned her evidence! The photograph in
the watch, the village concert, when, after a rousing camp song, he
had given, as an encore, “I’ll sing thee songs of Araby”; she believed
that the words were addressed to herself, that the singer was
pouring out his soul to her. Possibly other girls shared her conviction,
and had taken it to their tender and palpitating hearts. When the last
note had died away in a ringing silence, Ottinge recognised a
gentleman’s song and a gentleman’s voice; after a pause of
astonishment, there came a storm of belated clapping and applause,
and one or two timid female voices were heard to cry out “Encore!”
Some of the rustic audience grinned, and declared that the words
were no good, and damned nonsense, but the tune was pretty
enough; it was whistled in the street within the week.
Aurea summed up the photograph, the song, and the recent
interview by the sundial; the recollection of Owen’s voice, the look in
his extremely expressive grey eyes, set her heart beating. At the
same time she blamed herself for her amazing indiscretion. She,
who had lately avoided this gentleman chauffeur at choir practice, at
the Manor, and in the village—she, who knew that he treasured her
photo, to actually accost him in the garden, and demand what he
meant by remaining in Ottinge!
She felt her face burning, and no wonder! Well, at any rate the scene
had given her a shock—it had roused her to the knowledge of her
own feelings. It was with difficulty her maidenly reticence could put
the thing into thought, but it simply came to this—she had arrived, at
last, at the clear realisation that the daughter of the Rector of Ottinge
was in love with her aunts’ chauffeur! She whispered it to herself and
Mackenzie! How did it sound? How would it sound when talked
abroad, all over the parish and the county? What would people say?
When she thought of her Aunt Bella, she actually laughed aloud, and
Mackenzie, whom she had disturbed, raised his head and gave a
low growl.
The chauffeur disturbed her—even now her pulses were racing; she
had never felt like this when in the company of Bertie Woolcock—no,
nor any of Aunt Morven’s young eligibles—but this man affected her
differently. Was it because she knew that he cared for her? Was it
because he was handsome, reserved, and self-reliant? Was it
because there was a mystery about him? No; it was simply because
he was himself; his voice was still speaking to her inward ear—“It
would be impossible for me to tell you!” Nevertheless, his eyes had
been eloquent, and, since the truth must be confessed, her heart
was in a wild whirl of happiness.
But why was he here in retreat? Surely not because he had done
anything disgraceful? Mrs. Ramsay liked him, and said he had been
such a comfort to her husband and herself; her father liked him, so
did Susan, so did the village; the dogs adored him—all but
Mackenzie, an exception who proved the rule!
Yes, she would give her heart to the chauffeur—as a matter of fact it
was not a case of giving; it was already bestowed—and keep the
knowledge to herself. No one should ever know—above all, he
should not know. “Time Tries All.” His affairs might improve; some
day he might be able to throw off his chauffeur’s disguise and be
himself; meanwhile, she determined to avoid him, and never again
enter the Manor garden when there was a chance of meeting him; as
to the green motor, she had, as she assured him, done with it for
ever.
CHAPTER XXIII
AN HOUR OF LIBERTY
The white flowers had been gathered on Saturday in the Manor

garden, and it was now Monday. Miss Parrett had adventured a drive
to Westmere, returning home by four o’clock, and the car being
washed and put away betimes, the chauffeur found himself at liberty.
The glowing and golden September evening was enticing, and,
whistling for Joss, he set out for a good long stretch before supper.
On this occasion, man and dog deserted the low country and the
water-meadows, and climbed the hills which sheltered the village.
Their road lay by a grassy cart-track, which ran sometimes between
high hedges, sometimes along a headland, with here and there a
hoary old gate—it was chiefly used in harvest-time (indeed, wisps of
fresh hay and straw were still clinging to the bushes), and was the
short-cut to Shrapton-le-Steeple, a hamlet which lay eight miles
south of Ottinge. The track emerged upon a bare plateau, from
whence was a fine view of the surrounding country, and here was
also a sharp freshness in the air, which the man inhaled with
unmistakable enjoyment. Here, too, in the banks, were inviting
burrows, and these afforded the dog an absorbing interest, as he
drew their savour into his nostrils with long-drawn sniffs of ecstatic
satisfaction.
After a tramp of between three and four miles, Wynyard threw
himself down on a tempting patch of grass, drew out his case, and lit
one of Martin Kesters’ excellent cigars. His eyes roamed meditatively
over the broad landscape below, stretching away into the dim
distance—the spreading uplands splashed with orange gorse, dotted
with sheep and cattle, with here and there a rust-coloured
farmhouse, whose pale blue smoke lazily ascended into the cool
clear air. Wynyard enjoyed the scene and the sensation of absolute
freedom; at least he was out of livery—he glanced at his shabby
tweed coat—beyond the reach of orders, and master of himself! Not
much to boast of! To think that this job was the only one he could
take on when driven into a corner by circumstances and Uncle Dick!
He had no head, that was his trouble, although he could keep it at a
pinch—and wasn’t this what was called a paradox? If he were only
clever with his tongue and his pen, like Leila, and had her talent for
languages and for organisation, her genius for saying and doing the
right thing!
As he unconsciously picked bits of grass, his thoughts returned to
Aurea and their recent meeting in the Manor garden. Her confusion
and her vivid blush held for him a most stupendous significance.
Memory and imagination had magnified the occasion, until it seemed
to be the one important event in his whole life!
If, by any chance, Aurea cared for him, and saw in him something
more than her aunts’ civil man-servant, why should he not present
himself in his true character? The gruff replies in imitation of Tom
Hogben were surely an unnecessary handicap? Anyway, he had let
himself go on the night of the accident, hustling and ordering on the
spur of the moment, sending Miss Morven for water, Miss Susan for
wood—though no doubt they were both too much upset to have
noticed anything besides the tragedy.
Possibly a change of manner would make a difference, and Aurea
was so bright, and so wonderfully clear-sighted, she might divine
something of his situation, and wait. “Wait!” repeated incredulous
common sense, “wait eighteen months till he had cast off his
shackles!” On the other hand, Bertie Woolcock loomed large.
Undoubtedly he would not wait, nor would Aurea’s own relations.
The Rector himself was a good, unworldly old scribbler, but the
people that mattered, such as Miss Parrett and General and Mrs.
Morven, they would never allow their niece to refuse many
thousands a year and Woolcock, in order to keep faith with a
mysterious and penniless chauffeur. And Bertie undoubtedly meant
business; he was continually appearing at the Rectory or the Manor,
charged with paltry messages and unnecessary notes—any excuse
or none served him! He even attended evening church, where he
openly and shamelessly worshipped the Rector’s daughter, and not
the Rector’s God.
As Wynyard contemplated Woolcock’s position and the desperate
obstacles that lay in his own path, he picked many blades of grass.
Naturally he disliked his rival; he remembered him when he was in
the upper fourth at Eton, a big, loutish fellow—not of course in Pop—
and an awful duffer at games; who never did anything for himself,
that others could be bullied into doing for him. “Woolly” was now a
stout, sleek, well-groomed man of thirty, with a heavy red face, a
lethargic manner, and—in the company of respectable women—a
great talent for silence.
Supposing that Aurea was talked over? Westmere was a temptation.
No; he could not face such a hideous possibility—yet he was
penniless and gagged. Woolly, a rich man and free; he, a prisoner to
a promise and in a false position—a position which compelled him to
touch his cap, not only to his lady-love, but to his rival! and the latter
salutation made him feel murderous.
Woolly had tons of money; he was so rich that possibly he had never
seen a penny! His attentions to Aurea, his rides, his churchgoing, his
marked civilities to Miss Parrett, paraded themselves before
Wynyard’s mental sight—and the old Polly bird was all for the match!
Why, that very afternoon, as she was leaving Westmere, she had
held a long, mysterious “last word” conversation with Mrs. Waring
before she bundled into the car, and squeaked out “Home—and go
slowly!” Meanwhile, Woolcock’s fluffy-haired sister stood on the
steps with her hands on her hips, a newly lit cigarette in her mouth,
the very embodiment of triumphant satisfaction!
Undoubtedly a solemn treaty had been signed and sealed. He had
no powerful allies, how could he interfere? His mind groped round
the puzzle in confusion and despair. If his own forefathers had not
been such crazy, spendthrift fools, he would not have found himself
in this maddening situation. To think that his great-grandfather had
lost thousands of pounds and hundreds of acres, racing snails on the
dining-room mahogany, against another lunatic! However, the
original place still remained in the family, also the most important

Textbook Empirical Translation Studies 1St Edition Gert de Sutter Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Empirical Translation Studies 1St Edition Gert de Sutter Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Empirical Translation Studies 1st

Edition Gert De Sutter

Textual and Contextual Analysis in Empirical

Multimodality in Translation Studies 1st Edition Pan

Feminist Translation Studies Local and Transnational

When Translation Goes Digital: Case Studies and

The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Translation Studies

Gender Approaches in the Translation Classroom:

The Routledge handbook of translation studies and

The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies 1st Edition

Editor responsible for this volume

New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

6 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Gert De Sutter, Marie-Aude Lefer and Isabelle Delaere

Stefan Evert and Stella Neumann

Isabelle Delaere and Gert De Sutter

Adriano Ferraresi and Maja Miličević

Oliver Čulo, Silvia Hansen-Schirra and Jean Nitzke

Bert Cappelle and Rudy Loock

Kerstin Kunz, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski,

Overview of the chapters in this volume

the source language, which is interpreted as a shining-through eﬀect. This eﬀect,

editing/revision, or more general features typical of mediated and constrained

translation output, further research is needed to determine the cause(s) of this

uncover contrastive trends that can help translators overcome language-pair

Abstract: The gravitational pull hypothesis was introduced as a possible explana-

some of the proposed features, e.g. simpliﬁcation, generalization, normalization/

features of the communicative situation, and other social contingencies (2005:

2 The gravitational pull hypothesis revised:

Prominence within the network, or salience, is a complex notion and can be

Semasiological salience in the target language is the phenomenon that was

(SL) lacunae in semantic networks could cause underrepresentation of target

3 Step one: developing a partial Norwegian-

3.1 Monolingual English and Norwegian: evidence from

serve as an interim solution, and caution should be exercised in interpreting the

The bilingual network in this study is a Norwegian-English one. The relevant

Sense Meaning example ENPC N (%) rank N (%) Rank

få1 onset of Gutten ﬁkk et eple./ 623 (40) 1 397 (51) 1

Total 1547 (9914) 779 (100)

13 This example is from Askedal (2012: 1315).

As shown in Table 2, the three most frequent senses of få (onset, permission,

Sense Meaning Example ENPC N (%)

bli1 Inchoative Hun ble redd./She grew frightened. 1545 (57)

Total 2725 (99)

sense of få. The second (onset of possession) corresponds semantically to the

3.2 Eﬀects of semasiological salience – evidence from

A long time had elapsed since a tragedy or an inquest had taken

It was a lovely afternoon—Saturday—the third day of September,

But Aurea had no intention of “telling her aunts”; on the contrary,

The white flowers had been gathered on Saturday in the Manor

You might also like