TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
333
SEMANTIC PREFERENCE AND SEMANTIC PROSODY:
A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF TRANSLATION-RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE MEANING OF
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
Ulrike Oster & Heike van Lawick
Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain
Abstract: Semantic preference and semantic prosody are subtle aspects of meaning that are
best revealed by the analysis of electronic text corpora. They are especially strong in the
case of phraseological units (both within such units and with relation to their context) because of their conventionality. In this paper, we concentrate on phraseological units (or
idioms) that are semantically and/or syntactically similar in the languages under analysis
(German and Spanish/Catalan) and which are generally accepted as “equivalent”. The
main objective of this paper is to develop a methodology that is simple enough for the
translation classroom and for professional translators to check the pragmatic adequacy of
seemingly equivalent idioms. Secondly it aims to present an exemplary analysis of the cooccurrence patterns for selected idioms in German, Spanish and/or Catalan in order to
illustrate the procedure, which leads to conclusions about similarities and differences regarding semantic preference and semantic prosody.
1. Introduction
Professional translators have always found text collections of various kinds very helpful in their daily
work. Since the emergence of large, easily accessible electronic corpora and processing tools like
concordancers, translators as well as linguists have gained access to information about aspects of language and texts that would, in many cases, not be retrievable through conventional reference works.
With respect to semantics, corpus linguists and translation scholars have been particularly attracted
by the concepts of semantic preference and semantic prosody (as formulated by Sinclair 1991, 1996
and Louw 1993).
This paper is meant as a contribution to bridging the gap between the findings of corpus linguistics
and the reality of professional translators, in which corpora do not yet play the role they deserve.
Therefore, it is our aim to make translator trainees (and hence future professionals) aware of the possibilities of corpora for translation. The procedure for identifying semantic preference and semantic
prosody described in this paper is part of a programme that we are currently working on with the aim
of gradually acquainting translation students with practical corpus use.1
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Corpus analysis for translation and translation teaching
The development of corpus linguistics has opened new possibilities for translation studies and for
language or translation teaching. Recent overviews on this type of work can be found, for example,
in Corpas 2002, Laviosa 2003, the volumes edited by Burnard and McEnery 2000 and Zanettin et al.
2003, or in the special issue of Meta in 1998. Some of the aspects of linguistic description that have
1
Our work is carried out within the framework of the research projects GV05/135 (Generalitat Valenciana)
and P1 1B2003-25 (Fundación Caixa Castelló-Bancaixa).
334
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
been discussed for either translation-oriented corpus analysis or for foreign language teaching2 are
(without trying to be exhaustive):
•
•
•
Grammatical aspects like syntax (Partington 1998, 2001), colligation (Tognini-Bonelli
2001), -ing forms, or grammatical polysemy (Brodine 2001).
Lexico-semantic aspects like collocation and phrase patterns (Legenhausen 1997, Partington
1998, Tognini-Bonelli 2001), synonymy (Legenhausen 1997, Partington 1998, 2001), true
and false friends (Partington 1998, Zanettin 2001), semantic prosody (Partington 1998,
2001, Kenny 1998, 2001, Berber Sardinha 2000, Hoey 2000), semantic preference (Kenny
2001), delexicalisation (Tognini-Bonelli 2001, Kenny 2004), ideology (Tognini-Bonelli
2001), idiom and metaphor (Partington 1998, 2001) or cultural connotations (Bertaccini and
Aston 2001)
Discursive aspects like discourse markers (Zorzi 2001), cohesion (Partington 1998), reference in texts (Partington 2001), the problem-solution pattern (Brodine 2001) or stylistic appropriateness (Zanettin 2001).
Within the field of pedagogical application, different types of corpora are employed for different purposes:
•
•
•
Parallel corpora3 can be used in translation teaching in order to make students aware of
“how professional translators have overcome specific translation problems” (Pearson 2003:
18). They also “may help learners to distinguish between different contexts of use, and
reduce their tendency to think in terms of one-to-one equivalence” (Aston 1999: 300).
Monolingual corpora in the source or target language or comparable corpora may be employed for finding out the meaning of specialised terms, and their equivalents can be sought
in the target language (Kübler 2003). On the other hand, “by drawing attention to the different ways expressions are typically used and with what frequencies, corpora can make
learners more sensitive to issues of phraseology, register and frequency, which are poorly
documented by other tools” (Aston 1999: 292).
Learner corpora4 are above all employed in foreign language teaching, usually in order to
establish comparison between native and non-native data (Granger 2002). Similarly, learner
translation corpora “can provide a means of identifying areas of difficulty that could then be
integrated into the curriculum and discussed in class” (Bowker and Bennison 2003: 103).
Methodologically, we find a cline that goes from teacher-controlled, data-driven learning (as described in Johns 1994) to autonomy-oriented approaches like the serendipitous activities described by
Bernardini (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004) or the description of learning-driven data by Seidlhofer (2002).
In this paper, it is our aim to provide the student with a tool that will make him/her more autonomous. For this purpose, we will make use of monolingual corpora in both the source and the target
language. The linguistic aspects that we are going to concentrate on are semantic preference and semantic prosody, which we will therefore explain in some more detail.
2
For an account of the methodology of data-driven learning, cf. especially Johns and King 1991, Legenhausen
1997, Johns 2002 and King 2003.
3
We adhere here to the generally accepted notion of parallel corpus as a collection of original texts and their
translations into one or more languages. A comparable corpus consists of two or more subcorpora (one for
each language) of original texts that have been compiled according to the same criteria (“similarity of content,
domain and communicative function”; Zanettin 1998: 617), which makes them comparable.
4
Learner corpora are electronic collections of learner data made up of complete texts containing erroneous
and correct use of language.
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
335
2.2 Semantic prosody and semantic preference
The concepts of semantic prosody and semantic preference go back to John Sinclair's work on collocations in a Firthian tradition. They are two of the ties that bind words tightly into their contexts and
into linguistic convention. Sinclair has termed the cluster of words in a text that are bound together in
this way “extended units of meaning” and proposes four steps to identify them:
• “identify collocational profile (lexical realisation)
• identify colligational patterns (lexicogrammatical realisations)
• consider common semantic field (semantic preference)
• consider pragmatic realisations (semantic prosody)” (adapted from Sinclair 1996 by
Tognini-Bonelli 2001: 19)
Let us begin our discussion with the fourth step, which addresses the pragmatic level of meaning.
Classical examples of semantic prosody include:
•
•
•
happen (Sinclair (1987) showed that things that happen are usually negative),
utterly (which Louw (1993) showed to be overwhelmingly combined with ‘bad’ adjectives),
and
cause (which according to Stubbs (1995) collocates most frequently with nouns like harm,
alarm, quarrel, danger, etc.).
One of the first and most widely accepted definitions of semantic prosody is proposed by Louw: “a
consistent aura of meaning with which a form is imbued by its collocates” (1993: 157). However
beautiful this definition, we must concede that it does leave some room for interpretation as to what
semantic prosody is exactly. For example, it is interesting to note that the concept of semantic prosody is sometimes used to refer to a combination of both aspects (semantic field and pragmatic realisation) as can be seen in the definition by Hunston and Francis: “… a word may be said to have a
particular semantic prosody if it can be shown to co-occur typically with other words that belong to
a particular semantic set.” (2000: 137).
Although closely related, we believe that it is advisable to separate both meaning aspects, not least
for the sake of practical application. In the following, semantic preference is understood as the semantic field a word’s collocates predominantly belong to, whereas semantic prosody is restricted to a
more general characterisation of these collocates, chiefly in terms of a positive or negative evaluation. Semantic prosody thus takes the analysis to a pragmatic level (Sinclair 1996: 87), as it reveals
an evaluative potential of the extended unit of meaning that is not always obvious (cf. Channell
2000).
The relevance of these concepts for language teaching and translation studies has been pointed out by
several authors. However, as far as we are aware, analyses have concentrated almost exclusively on
English. Some work has also been reported on for Italian (Partington 1998, Tognini-Bonelli 2001)
and Portuguese (Berber Sardinha 1999), and a contrastive analysis of semantic prosody can be found
for the linguistic combination Portuguese–English (Berber Sardinha 2000). In a German–English
study, Kenny (1998, 2001: 167-170) shows the ways semantic prosody and semantic preference can
be relevant for translation. She comes to the conclusion, for example, that the translator’s failure to
recognise semantic prosodies and render them adequately may contribute to “sanitisation” of the target text, so that “the translation is somehow tamer than the original” (1998: 520).
2.3 Semantics and pragmatics of phraseological units
So, why have we decided to look at semantic prosody and preference in combination with the translation of phraseology? There are two main reasons. For one, because of their conventionality, idioms
are especially laden with connotative meaning, which can be traced through their collocates in corpora. On the other hand, it is well known that idioms often make an important contribution to the
336
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
argumentation of a text (Wirrer 1998, Lüger 2001, Tappe 2002). We are convinced that this is, at
least in part, due to the effect of semantic prosody, which makes idioms perfect candidates for an analysis of this aspect of meaning.
2.3.1 Phraseological units in discourse
Upon closer look, the influence between idiom and text is not unilateral. Theoretically, one of the
most salient characteristics of phraseology is its structural fixedness. Nevertheless, this fixedness is
relative, allowing for variants with the same function as the main form, as well as for unusual modifications for stylistic effect, which are context-dependent. These can consist either in internal modifications of the idiom or in its combination with an unexpected co-occurrence partner. In table 1, the
modified elements of the idiom are underlined.
1. Variant with the
same function
2. Modification for
stylistic effect:
a) internal
modification
b) unexpected cooccurrence
partner
ofegar-se en un got d’aigua
‘to make a mountain out of a molehill’ (García-Pelayo
1984); ‘to get nervous over apparent difficulties with
little importance’
variants: ofegar-se dins un got d’aigua; negar-se en un
got d’aigua.
a) “El nou govern no deixarà pedra legal sobre pedra.”
(Example by Sancho 1999: 30)
‘The new government will not leave any element of
the legal construction in one piece.’
b) “..., weil auch der Schrank ihn mit offenen Armen
empfing.” (Example by Burger et al. 1982: 84)
(‘the wardrobe welcomed him with open arms’)
Table 1: Variants and modifications of idioms
In phraseology, type 2. a) is considered a deviation from the conventional pattern of external valency5 and is explained as a “breaching of semantic selectional criteria” (Verletzung der semantischen
Selektionsbedingungen, Burger et al. 1982). It must be pointed out here that what is called external
valency of the idiom bears a strong resemblance to what has been described above as semantic preference (a preference for collocation of a unit with items from a certain semantic field). On the other
hand, semantic prosody, as stressed in section 2.2, goes one step further as it introduces a pragmatic
level whose analysis reveals evaluative meaning. Both aspects (semantics and pragmatics) can be
found in Steyer’s (2004) account of the analysis of phraseological units in the Cosmas II online corpus of German compiled by the IDS (Institut für Deutsche Sprache). For Steyer, external valency and
“pragmatic usage contexts” are important aspects of corpus-driven lexicographical description.
“Bei vielen Kookkurenzpartnern von Kookkurenzclustern handelt es sich nicht allein um die
Ausfüllung externer Valenzen, vielmehr indizieren sie Domänengebundenheiten, typische Sprechereinstellungen und –bewertungen, oder typische Kontextualisierungen im Diskurs [...]”
(2004: 110)
This brings together the three elements we are dealing with here: the corpus-based analysis of phraseological units in terms of semantic preference and semantic prosody. What we will try to do in the
following is to exploit this kind of analysis for the benefit of translation.
5
External valency is seen as a combination of semantic compatibility and syntactic valency (Fleischer 1982:
164-165).
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
337
2.3.2 Translating phraseology
Idioms are frequently problematic in translation because their metaphorical base is often functionally
relevant, especially in literary texts, and because they usually carry a pragmatic value. Most authors
agree that, if possible, the first option for the translation of an idiom should be an idiom in the target
language as well. Considering the idiom as a translation problem, Koller (1994) emphasises the limits of contrastive analysis from a translational point of view, because it does not take into account
connotative, (con)textual or pragmatics factors.6 Within the framework of Descriptive Translation
Studies, he suggests a translation-relevant textual analysis of the original text and also the target text.
Also Schmidt (1994: 165-166) proposes a dynamic model in which the textual functions of the idiom
are taken into account and their relevance is assessed. As an example, she cites the following functions, which take into account both semantic and pragmatic aspects:
•
•
•
•
semantic coherence with the context
characterisation of a character’s way of speaking
special effects that are caused by tensions between the idiom and its linguistic or situational
context
complying with or breaching of genre conventions (Schmidt 1994: 165, our translation).
In order to “optimise equivalence”, Schmidt suggests that several possible solutions from a list of
“tentative equivalents” should be analysed according to the same parameters until a functionally optimal solution is found (1994: 166). We think that analysing the idiom’s textual functions in such a
way is a step in the right direction. In order to find “tentative equivalents”, the translator must rely on
his linguistic competence and/or bilingual phraseological dictionaries/glossaries. However, bilingual
dictionaries and glossaries are admittedly not as reliable as translators might hope for. And, when it
comes to semantic prosodies as they can be found in corpora, it is thought that not even native speakers are intuitively aware of these aspects of meaning (Louw 1993: 173, Stubbs 1995: 51). They can
therefore only be established through the analysis of large electronic text corpora, and it is important
that translators have access to corpus-based semantic prosody information in their mother tongue as
well (Berber Sardinha, 2000).
3. A procedure for assessing the pragmatic equivalence of idioms
What we are trying to work out now is a procedure for assessing the pragmatic equivalence of possible translations of idioms. The procedure is meant for students or professional translators. It is
therefore our intention to keep it as simple as possible because our target group cannot employ as
much time and effort as might be expected in a scholarly investigation. This means that the procedure itself should be simple to use and not too theory-laden and that the electronic resources to be
used should be easily accessed and handled. For the three languages under analysis, we make use of
the following on-line corpora:
•
•
6
Wortschatz-Korpus, Universität Leipzig (500 million words),
http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/.7 This is not the largest corpus for German, yet it is very
easy to handle. It offers not only a list of concordances, but also information on significant
neighbours and graphical representations of co-occurrences.
Corpus de referencia del español actual (CREA), REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA (150
million words), http://www.rae.es
These drawbacks are partially solved in the systems of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic parameters developed by Dobrovol'skij (2000) and Corpas (2000) that allow for the comparison of idioms on all of these three
levels.
7
Another large on-line corpus for German is Cosmas II (IDS, Mannheim, 2 billion words). This offers more
possibilities for elaborate searches but is more complicated to use.
338
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
•
•
Corpus del Español (20 million words): http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/
Corpus Textual Informatitzat de la Llengua Catalana (CTILC), Institut d’Estudis Catalans
(50 million words), http://pdl.iecat.net/entrada/paraules.asp
Our point of departure is the situation of a translator who has come across an idiom in the source
text. S/he has already established its contextual meaning and has made out one or more possible
phraseological equivalents on the level of langue. Then, the first step consists in assessing the pragmatic function of the idiom in the source text. This includes finding out whether the idiom in question is used in the normal way or if it is an instance of creative use and is done against the backdrop
of the collocational information collected from a corpus in the source language.
In the second step, the pragmatic equivalence of the target language idiom(s) is assessed. The same
analysis is carried out on a corpus in the target language. If it yields the same or very similar results,
we can take the idiom in the target language as pragmatically equivalent.
4. Exemplary analysis
We are now going to carry out a more detailed exemplary analysis of a German idiom and its Spanish equivalent. In order to do so, we will concentrate on a sentence found in the Spanish translation
of an interview with former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, published in the Spanish newspaper El
País:
Precisamente hoy en día, con la ampliación a 25 Estados miembros, habría que tomarse
a pecho la frase de Winston Chruchill en su discurso de Zúrich en 1946. Dijo que las
pequeñas naciones valdrían tanto como las grandes y que se labrarían la gloria con su
contribución al interés común.
Roughly, this might translate as:
At the moment of the enlargement of the European Union to 25 member states, we
should pay attention to what Winston Churchill said in a speech in Zurich in 1946. He
said that the small nations would be worth the same as the big ones...
The item we are interested in is the idiom tomarse algo a pecho – the most literal translation of
which would be ‘to take something to heart’. This rendering of the German sich zu Herzen nehmen
seems a rather straightforward decision, given that any bilingual dictionary would list both idioms as
equivalent. Nonetheless, the Spanish sentence has something odd about it. We will therefore follow
the analytical procedure suggested above and check whether semantic preference and prosody can
tell us something about the adequacy of the solution.
The first step will be the analysis of the source text in comparison with corpus data about the source
language.
Source text
What element(s) is the idiom combined with?
Does there seem to be some kind of evaluation of
these elements?
a sentence by Winston Churchill
Taking Churchill’s advice is
presented as something highly
desirable.
Table 2: Analysis of the source text
If we turn to the German corpus, we find that there are 142 instances of zu Herzen nehmen. Following the parameters of semantic preference and semantic prosody, we can identify three different meanings (see tables 6-8 below):
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
•
•
•
339
“beherzigen” (‘to heed’, ‘to pay attention to’),
“schwer nehmen” (‘to take to heart’, ‘to take offence at something’), and
“ernst nehmen” (‘to take seriously’).
The first two types coincide in their semantic preference of something SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE,
their most frequent left-hand collocates being “Worte” (‘words’), “Lehre” (‘lesson’) and “Ratschläge” (‘advice’). They differ, however, in their semantic prosody. In the first case (G1), the contexts
are very clear about presenting the taking of the advice as something desirable.8 This is frequently
enhanced by the appearance of “sollte” (‘should’).
Type G1
Paraphrase
“beherzigen” (‘heed’, ‘pay attention to’)
Semantic preference
SOMETHING SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE
Semantic prosody
positive, desirable
Frequency
106/1429
1. Dennoch, wer wohlbehalten vom fünften Kontinent zurückkehren will, sollte
sich einige Ratschläge zu Herzen nehmen.
2. "Ich werde sie mir zu Herzen nehmen, Sennor.
3. Gut möglich, dass Schröder sich im Ernstfall auch die naheliegenden Einwände
zu Herzen nehmen würde.
4. Der Ministerpräsident sollte es sich auch selber zu Herzen nehmen.
5. Eine Devise, die sich zumindest der deutsche Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl
(CDU) und Außenminister Klaus Kinkel (FDP) sehr zu Herzen nehmen werden.
6. Da wird ein Sieger-Spiel nach Romanmotiven von Herrn Konsalik angeboten,
hinter dem sich das gute alte Karriere der Firma Kenner Parker verbirgt/ ein
Spiel, das sich der Ex-ASS -Vorstandsvorsitzende Hans W. Jany hätte zu Herzen nehmen sollen.
7. Jetzt muß sich Paul Gascoigne nur noch Clementes Worte zu Herzen nehmen,
der bemängelte, daß Englands Star bei der spanischen Nationalhymne die Socken hochgezogen hat.
8. Auch die auf der Konferenz anwesenden Anbieter von Sicherheitssoftware sollten sich dies zu Herzen nehmen und ihre Programme öffentlich machen.
9. Die besonders häufige Kritik an Druck- und Sprachfehlern werden wir uns zu
Herzen nehmen und uns um Abhilfe bemühen.
10. Die Devise des Autokonzerns "Klotzen, nicht kleckern" sollten sich auch die
Berlinale-Macher mehr zu Herzen nehmen.
11. "Don't give up", hat er auf der Eröffnungspressekonferenz verkündet, und auch
das wird er sich wohl bald selbst zu Herzen nehmen müssen.
Table 3: Meaning type G1
In type G2, by contrast, the thing that has been said is perceived as negative, often reinforced by
“sollte nicht” (should not). This type is much less frequent than the first.
8
Only the piece of advice in example 7 can perhaps not be considered “desirable” in itself, but we can interpret it as ironic, as Paul Gascoigne is possibly not the person who would take seriously the advice of not pulling up his stockings while listening to his opponents’ national anthem.
9
We reproduce the first and the last example appearing on each page.
340
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
Type G2
Paraphrase
“schwer nehmen” (‘to take to heart’, ‘to take offence at sth.’)
Semantic preference
SOMETHING SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE
Semantic prosody
negative
Frequency
33/142
1. Was nicht von Herzen kommt, sollte man sich aber auch nicht zu Herzen nehmen.
2. ...wie kann man sich gewisse unvermeidliche Dinge dermaßen zu Herzen nehmen!
Table 4: Meaning type G2
The third type is even less frequent and has a different semantic preference: it combines with elements that could be summed up as tasks (being successful at the Olympic Games, the destiny of one’s
people, the fight against unemployment). The semantic prosody is that of something positive and important to achieve.
Type G3:
Paraphrase
“ernst nehmen” (‘to take seriously’)
Semantic preference
TASK
Semantic prosody
positive, important
Frequency
3/14210
1. Da solle er nicht so siegessicher sein und sich die Olympiade zu Herzen nehmen, empfiehlt der Sprecher der Metallgesellschaft:
2. antwortete er ernst, ohne den Gruß zu erwidern. "Ein Richter des Landes sollte sich das
Schicksal seines Volkes in so schwerer Zeit mehr zu Herzen nehmen!
3. Das altbekannte Thema Arbeitslosigkeit sollte sich die Bundesregierung als Vorsatz für
das neue Jahr zu Herzen nehmen.
Table 5: Meaning type G3
As to the conclusion of this first step in our analysis, there does not seem to be anything unusual about the usage of zu Herzen nehmen in this context. It corresponds to type G1 (“beherzigen”, ‘to pay
attention to something.’). Churchill’s sentence is clearly a piece of advice and is entirely compatible
with a semantic prosody of something positive and desirable.
The second part of the analysis is based on a query about tomarse algo a pecho at the on-line corpora
CREA (ten instances) and Corpus del Español (two instances). The small number of examples makes
clear that this expression is much less frequent in Spanish.11 Furthermore, we were able to differenttiate only two meanings. Like in German, there are two types of semantic preference: either SOMETHING SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE or TASK. However, the first does not subdivide into positive and
negative prosody (‘to pay attention to something’ vs. ‘to take offence at something’), but it collocates
in all cases with something negative or offensive: “admonición” (‘admonition’), “modificaciones
como si fueran una traición” (‘modifications taken as treason’), “agrio comentario” (‘sharp comment’), “expresión ofendida” (‘offended expression on his face’), “muy enojado” (‘very angry’), etc.
The Spanish type S1 is thus quite similar to type G2. Curiously enough, this also means that the type
that is most frequent in German (G1) – and the meaning we find in the source text at that – is not
present at all in Spanish.
10
Only the first of these examples was among the original sample of the first and last example on each page.
We have added the other two in order to make our interpretation of semantic preference and prosody more
transparent.
11
This holds true even if we take into account that the Spanish corpora are relatively smaller. In these corpora,
German sich zu Herzen nehmen is almost four times as frequent as Spanish tomar a pecho.
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
Type S1:
Paraphrase
341
“tomar (demasiado) en serio” (‘to take (too) seriously’, ‘to take offence at
sth.’)
Semantic preference
SOMETHING SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE
Semantic prosody
negative, dangerous
Frequency
6/12
(1) .. que más han avanzado en las últimas décadas han tomado a pecho esta admonición y han
hecho de la educación ...
(2) ... celo profesional y, a diferencia de Faulkner, tomaba a pecho las modificaciones introducidas
en la en la filmación, como si cada uno de ellas fuese una traición a la obra ...
(3) La morfina calma especialmente el “dolor de corazón”. Quien ingiere opio no ha de “tomarse a
pecho” las cosas, y su uso como analgésico ...
(4) Querida, debí llamarte antes. Espero que no hayas tomado a pecho lo que me creí obligada a
decirte...
(5) no viejos tiempos en que me tenía bajo su protección no creía merecer tan agrio comentario, que
era por la obra, no por él. Sin embargo, se lo tomó a pecho pero no fue directo al grano. Recuerdo que con expresión ofendida me inquirió: «¿Sabes algo de teatro?».
(6) Algunas cosas sí, las tomo a pecho sobre todo cuando mi mujer me manda a lavar los platos,
pero lo hago de todos modos eh...muy enojado, sí.
Table 6: Meaning type S1
On the other hand, S2 shares the semantic preference of G3 (task), but their prosodies are very different. Whereas the German examples refer to a positive or important task (possibly a difficult one too),
the Spanish contexts are once again rather gloomy. Although the nouns themselves are neutral (profession, service), the situations that are depicted are characterised in a clearly negative way: “sometido” (‘subjugated’), “intratable” (‘intractable’), “trato perruno” (‘being treated like a dog’), “algo retrasado” (‘somewhat retarded’), “partido a vida o muerte” (‘the match is a matter of life and death’),
“el cadáver en el fondo del lecho” (‘the corpse in the bed’), etc. It is also interesting to note that
many of the examples occur in military contexts, which is not the case even once in German.
Type S2:
Paraphrase
“tomar en serio”, ‘to take seriously’
Semantic preference
task
Semantic prosody
negative, hard
Frequency
6/12
1. ... sometido a un hombre cerrado a las cosas del mundo, e intratable y desmandado cuando se
abría a ellas, adjudicándole trato perruno como pago de una entrega tan amplia que ya tenía poco
de humano, [...] o, si él, Balbino el Alguacil, no se lo tomaba a pecho y se batía el cobre para
solventarlos ...
2. ... es un maromo, algo retrasado y no de los que se toman a pecho la profesión que si no le habría
visto ...12
3. ... estaría comiendo el coco al Cabo-. Eso sí que es tomarse a pecho el servicio. - Escucha bien.
Nunca, [...] hay que descuidar la guardia. Nosotros tenemos siempre un enemigo que está ahí.
4. ... los jugadores dirigidos por Antonio López se tomaron a pecho aquello de que este era un partido de vida o muerte ...
5. ... va por mitad del escenario, y es que se lo ha tomado a pecho porque ya tiene al cadáver en el
fondo del lecho, y porque ya tiene su alma en su almario.
6. ¿Va a estarse toda la noche? INVITADO 1º Se ha tomado a pecho la consigna. El ejército debe
permanecer ...13
Table 7: Meaning type S2
12
13
The profession they are talking about is that of a prison guard.
The speaker is a nazi soldier.
342
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
Taking into account these results, tomarse algo a pecho does not seem a pragmatically equivalent solution for a context which refers to advice that is being presented as worth taking. Within the semantic preference of SOMETHING SOMEBODY HAS SAID OR DONE, this idiom is used in Spanish texts predominantly with negative or offensive utterances. If used as we have seen in the translated fragment,
the negative semantic prosody that our corpus data has shown for this expression in Spanish might
even cast some doubt on the speaker’s sincerity.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this presentation has been to describe a way of raising student translators’ (and hence future professional translators’) awareness of certain semantic and pragmatic aspects of lexical items
and of analysing them for the purpose of translation. For translators, semantic preference is important
because it tells them something about the semantic fields that the collocates of a lexical item may
come from. Semantic prosody imprints a specific argumentative direction on an utterance through
positive or negative connotations. In both cases, failure to meet the target language conventions may
lead to unintended awkwardness in the translation.
We have concentrated on phraseological units because of their conventionality, but the procedure
might prove equally useful for less complex structures. On the other hand, the examples we have analysed are instances of “normal” use of idioms. We would therefore like to conclude with the suggestion (combined with a wish for further research) that these phenomena could be just as relevant for
translation – especially literary translation – when the idiom is not used in a conventional way but
when the conventions are overridden by creative use.
References
Aston, G. (1999), "Corpus use and learning to translate." Textus (12). 289-314.
Berber Sardinha, A. P. (1999), Padrões lexicais e colocações do português. Computational Processing of
Portuguese Symposium, 9th InPLA, PUCSP, Catholic University of São Paulo, Brasil.
Berber Sardinha, T. (2000), "Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study." Cuadernos
de Filología Inglesa 9(1). 93-110.
Bernardini, S. (2000), Competence, Capacity, Corpora: a Study in Corpus-aided Language Learning. Bologna, CLUEB.
Bernardini, S. (2001), "'Spoilt for choice': a learner explores general language corpora." In Learning with corpora. A. Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 220-249.
Bernardini, S. (2002), "Exploring New Directions for Discovery Learning." In Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. B. Kettemann and G. Marko (Eds.) Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi. 165-182.
Bernardini, S. (2004), "Corpora in the classroom." In How to use corpora in language teaching. J. Sinclair
(Ed.) Amsterdam, Benjamins. 15-36.
Bertaccini, F. and G. Aston (2001), "Going to the Clochemerle: exploring cultural connotations." In Learning
with corpora. A. Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 198-219.
Bowker, L. and P. Bennison (2003), "Student Translation Archive. Design, Development and Application." In
Corpora in translator education. F. Zanettin et al. (Eds.) Manchester, St. Jerome. 105-117.
Brodine, R. (2001), "Introducing corpus work into an academic reading course." In Learning with corpora. A.
Partington Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 138-176.
Burger, H., et al. (1982), Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin, de Gruyter.
Burnard, L. and T. McEnery (Eds.) (2000), “Rethinking Language Pedagogy from a Corpus Perspective”. Papers from the third international conference on Teaching and Language Corpora. Frankfurt a. M., Peter
Lang.
Channell, J. (2000), "Corpus-Based Analysis of Evaluative Lexis." In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance
and the Construction of Discourse. S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
38-55.
Corpas Pastor, G. (2000), "Fraseología y traducción." In El discurs prefabricat. Estudis de fraseologia teòrica
i aplicada. V. Salvador and A. Piquer (Eds.) Castelló, Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. 107-138.
Corpas Pastor, G. (2002), "Traducir con corpus: de la teoría a la práctica." In Texto, terminología y traducción. J. García Palacios and T. Fuentes (Eds.) Salamanca, Almar. 189-226.
TRANSLATION AND MEANING, PART 8, 2008, 333 - 344
343
Dobrovol'skij, D. (2000), "Idioms in contrast: a functional view." In Las lenguas de Europa: Estudios de fraseología, fraseografía y traducción. G. Corpas Pastor (Ed.) Granada, Comares. 367-388.
Fleischer, W. (1982), Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig, VEB Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig.
García-Pelayo y Gross, R. (1984), Larousse Gran Diccionario Español-Inglés/English Spanish. Mexico,
Larousse.
Granger, S. (2002), "A Bird's-eye view of learner corpus research." In Computer Learner Corpora, Second
Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. S. Granger et al. (Eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
John Benjamins. 3-33.
Hoey, M. (2000), "A world beyond collocation: new perspectives on vocabulary teaching." In Teaching Collocation. Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. M. Lewis (Ed.) Hove, LTP. 224-243.
Hunston, S. and G. Francis (2000), Pattern Grammar - a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of
English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1994), "From Printout to Handout: Grammar and Vocabulary Teaching in the Context of Datadriven Learning." In Approaches to Pedagogic Grammar. T. Odlin (Ed.) Cambridge, CUP. 293-313.
Johns, T. (2002), "Data-driven Learning: The Perpetual Challenge." In Teaching and Learning by Doing
Corpus Analysis. B. Kettemann and G. Marko (Eds.) Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi. 107-117.
Johns, T. and P. King (Eds.) (1991), Classroom Concordancing. (English Language Research Journal 4). Birmingham, Birmingham University.
Kenny, D. (1998), "Creatures of habit? What translators usually do with words." Meta XLIII(4). 515-523.
Kenny, D. (2001), Lexis and creativity in translation. A corpus-based study. Manchester, St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2004), "Die Übersetzung von usuellen und nicht usuellen Wortverbindungen vom Deutschen ins
Englische. Eine korpusgestützte Analyse." In Wortverbindungen - mehr oder weniger fest. K. Steyer (Ed.)
Berlin/New York, de Gruyter. 335-347.
King, P. (2003), "Parallel concordancing and its applications." In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive
Linguistics and Translation Studies. S. Granger et al. (Eds.) Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi. 157-167.
Koller, W. (1994), "Phraseologismen als Übersetzungsproblem." In Studien zur Phraseologie und Parömiologie. Europhras 92. Tendenzen der Phraseologieforschung. B. Sandig (Ed.) Bochum, Brockmeyer. 351373.
Kübler, N. (2003), "Corpora and LSP Translation." In Corpora in Translator Education. F. Zanettin et al.
(Eds.) Manchester, St. Jerome. 25-42.
Laviosa, S. (2003), "Corpora and Translation Studies." In Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. S. Granger et al. (Eds.) Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi. 45-54.
Legenhausen, L. (1997), "Grammatikunterricht einmal anders. Das Arbeiten mit Konkordanzen im Fremdsprachenunterricht." In Multimedia Internet Lernsoftware. D. Kranz (Ed.) Münster, agenda. 37-44.
Louw, M. (1993), "Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic
Prosodies." In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. M. Baker et al. (Eds.) Amsterdam,
Philadelphia, Benjamins. 240-251.
Lüger, H.-H. (2001), "Phraseologie und Argumentation." In Phraseologie und Phraseodidaktik. M. LorenzBourjot and H.-H. Lüger (Eds.) Wien, Edition Praesens. 65-83.
Partington, A. (1998), Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.
Partington, A. (2001), "Corpus-based description in teaching and learning." In Learning with Corpora. A.
Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 63-84.
Pearson, J. (2003), "Using Parallel Texts in the Translator Training Environment." In Corpora in Translator
Education. F. Zanettin et al. (Eds.) Manchester, St. Jerome. 15-24.
Sancho, P. (1999), Introducció a la fraseologia. Aplicació al valencià col·loquial. Paiporta, Denes.
Schmidt, H. (1994), "Zur translatorischen Äquivalenz von Phraseologismen." In Wort und Text. Slavistische
Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Wolfgang Sperber. E. Eichler et al. (Eds.) Frankfurt a. M., Peter Lang.
161-171.
Seidlhofer, B. (2002), "Pedagogy and local learner corpora." In Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. S. Granger et al. (Eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John
Benjamins. 213-234.
Sinclair, J. (1987), "Collocation: a progress report." In Language Topics. Essays in Honour of Michael
Halliday. R. Steele and T. Threadgold (Eds.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Benjamins. 319-332.
Sinclair, J. (1991), Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1996), "The Search for Units of Meaning." TEXTUS IX(1). 75-106.
344
ULRIKE OSTER & HEIKE VAN LAWICK
Steyer, K. (2004), "Kookkurenz. Korpusmethodik, linguistisches Modell, lexikographische Perspektiven." In
Wortverbindungen - mehr oder weniger fest. K. Steyer (Ed.) Berlin/New York, de Gruyter. 87-116.
Stubbs, M. (1995), "Collocations and semantic profiles. On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies."
Functions of Language 2(1). 23-55.
Tappe, S. (2002), "Textmuster und Aufgabenschemata in argumentativen Gebrauchstexten." In Phraseologie
in Raum und Zeit: Akten der 10. Tagung des Westfälischen Arbeitskreises "Phraseologie/Parömiologie"
(Münster, 2001). E. Piirainen and I. Tapani Piirainen (Eds.) Baltmannsweiler, Schneider. 255-286.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001), Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Wirrer, J. (1998), "Phraseologismen in der Argumentation." In Phraseologismen in Text und Kontext. J.
Wirrer (Ed.) Bielefeld, Aisthesis.
Zanettin, F. (1998), "Bilingual comparable corpora and the training of translators." Meta XVIII(4). 616-630.
Zanettin, F. (2001), "Swimming in words. Corpora, translation and language." In Learning with corpora. A.
Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 177-197.
Zanettin, F. et al. (Eds.) (2003), Corpora in translator education. Manchester, St. Jerome.
Zorzi, D. (2001), "The pedagogic use of spoken corpora. Learning discourse markers." In Learning with
Corpora. A. Partington (Ed.) Houston, Athelstan. 85-107.