1
Mandative constructions in English
and their equivalents in French
Applying a bilingual approach to the theory
and practice of translation
Noëlle SERPOLLET
LANCASTER University
n.serpollet@lancaster.ac.uk
My research in corpus linguistics - which focuses on mandative
constructions and uses bilingual parallel corpora - can, not only link
translation and linguistics but also bridge the gap between different
aspects of translation studies and help with the teaching of grammatical
concepts.
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
2
1. Background
1.1. Corpus linguistics and translation studies
TRANSLATION
PURE Translation Studies
Descriptive
APPLIED Translation Studies
Translation theory
translation studies
CORPUS STUDIES
(describes phenomena
of translating
and translation(s))
(establishes general principles
in order to explain and predict these
phenomena)
(teaching of translation)
Figure 1. Corpus studies as a link (Adapted from Holmes, 1988:71)
Corpus linguistics = powerful methodology, a tool, rather then a subject matter
(Leech, 1992:106)
Bilingual parallel corpora or translation corpora
 “original source language-texts in language A and then translated version in language
B” (Baker, 1995:230), typically the texts are from the same genre or text category
 used as practical tools
 examine and verify the validity of theoretical linguistics claims
 offer an insight in the linguistic system of 2 languages
 used to train translators / teach grammar / (provide databases of translation
patterns)
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
3
1.2. Previous recent studies and tendencies discovered

Asahara, 1994; Övergaard, 1995; Hundt 1997 and others have presented findings which show that
the use of the modal SHOULD as a periphrastic alternant to the non-inflected subjunctive seems
to be decreasing both in British and American English.

HOWEVER,

Asahara (1994): corpus data not computerized, instances counted by hand
 hence her results, although very interesting, are not totally reliable

Övergaard (1995): used the Brown and LOB corpora for the 1960s,

but worked with four other non computerized corpora for the 1990s, not truly parallel
 non-reliability of one part of her research

Hundt (1997): she used her own findings and also results from other linguists
 Are these results compatible, i.e. did she use the same criteria, retrieving software
and stop points as the other scholars?
 My own analysis is based on their results, while being more rigorous and thorough

I use two totally comparable, grammatically tagged and computerized corpora of British
English and I can run exactly the same retrieving queries in both corpora (LOB & FLOB).
2. Aim of my research
2.1. DATA
► The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (LOB)
has been compiled, computerized and word-tagged by research teams at Lancaster, Oslo and Bergen. It consists
of 500 British English texts of about 2,000 words each, printed in 1961 and consists of one million word.
► The Freiburg-LOB Corpus (FLOB)
has been modelled on LOB; it contains one million words of British English texts printed in 1991.
Exhaustive comparison of two text genres:
 Press (A, reportage; B, editorial and C, reviews), ca. 176,000 words
 Learned Prose (H, miscellaneous, mainly government documents and J, learned &
scientific writings), ca. 220,000 words
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
►► The
4
International Sample of English Contrastive Texts Corpus (INTERSECT)
has been manually aligned at the sentence level (Salkie, 1995) and contains about 1.5 million words in each
language (French & English)
 Press: extracts from the newspaper Le Monde 1992-93, ca. 113,000 words and their
translation in Guardian Weekly ca. 114,000 words
 Learned Prose: EU Document (Esprit), International Labour Organisation (ILO), French
Embassy (Franinfo), International Telecommunication Union (ITU – Telecom), ca. 237,000
words in French and 225,000 words in English
2.2. Objective of this analysis

Evolution of ‘mandative SHOULD’ in two texts categories of LOB and FLOB

Comparison of reference corpus FLOB results with the English corpora in INTERSECT

Analyse which French constructions are translated by occurrences of mandative
SHOULD
in
English, using ParaConc (Barlow, 1995) on the INTERSECT corpus

Use my parallel corpora as a test bed for translation studies, i.e. “the corpora can be used to call up
sets of words or grammatical features in one language for their examination, and/or for the call up
of the foreign language equivalents in the parallel aligned segments” (McEnery & Oakes,
1996:212).
P
r
e
s
s
L
e
a
r
n
e
d
P
r
o
s
e
Figure 2. A summary
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
5
2.3. A specific “mandative construction”

Etymologically, the term “mandative” comes from the Latin , to enjoin, command

SHOULD,

it follows, in a that-clause, mandative expressions (verbs, nouns and adjectives = triggers) which
acting as a ‘subjunctive substitute’ is the equivalent of a ‘commanding’ subjunctive
express a demand, request, intention, proposal, suggestion, recommendation, etc.

VERB
(3)
We
recommend
that
the
Department
SHOULD
give
further
attention to tailoring publicity about benefits[…]. (FLOB Learned Prose, H)

NOUN
(4)
[…]
there
were
also
overriding
requirements
that
photomultiplier and electronic noise SHOULD not contribute to the background
counting rate […]. (FLOB Learned Prose, J)
ADJECTIVE
 (5) It is essential that the government SHOULD stand firm. (LOB
Press, B)
3. Results LOB/FLOB
 This analysis involved developing complex queries (using Xkwic, Christ, 1994) to retrieve only
the relevant instances of the modal.
Table 1. Concordance of SHOULD in LOB and FLOB
SHOULD
CATEGORIES
PRESS1 (A-B-C)
LOB
FLOB
Difference
(abs)
Difference
(%)
285
185
- 100
- 35.1
2
FICTION (K-L-M-NP-R)
214
250
+ 36
+ 16.8
GENERAL PROSE3
472
330
- 142
- 30.1
LEARNED PROSE4
(H-J)
330
382
+ 52
+ 15.8
TOTAL
1301
1147
- 154
- 11.8
(D-E-F-G)
1
A = reportage, B = editorial, C = reviews.
K = general fiction, L = mystery & detective fiction, M = science fiction, N = adventure & western fiction, P = romance &
love story, R = humour.
3
D = religion, E = skills, trades & hobbies, F = popular lore, G = Belles Lettres, bibliography, essays.
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
2
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
6
Results:
 Overall number of occurrences of SHOULD has decreased between the 1960s and the 1990s.
 Per text category: decrease in the press and general prose categories but increase in fiction and
learned prose.
Using Xkwic to retrieve only the relevant instances of SHOULD
I can indicate the word [word = “should”] I want to retrieve and the POS I don’t want [pos!= “\.|\!|\?|\;”], specify
the minimum and maximum number of words between two expressions.
The example below summarises the situation:
(6) It is vital [therefore] {1} that [, before any form of control is
introduced, Britain] {10} SHOULD consult […]. [LOB Press, B]
Table 2. Concordances in LOB and FLOB [A-B-C] with verbs, nouns and
adjectives as triggers
SHOULD in LOB (Press)
SHOULD in FLOB (Press)
VERBS
NOUNS
ADJ.
TOTAL
VERBS5
NOUNS
ADJ.
TOTAL
19
9
6
34
12
7
1
20
 Mandative SHOULD has decreased in the Press category from the 1960s to the 1990s after the three
types of triggers (general tendency of Press as a whole category).
(7) All that is known is that Sheffield proposes Ø the funds SHOULD be spent
in a wide area across Attercliffe [...]. [FLOB Press, A]
(8)
The
suggestion
that
Sadler’s
Wells
opera
SHOULD
join
the
National
Theatre on the South Bank entirely changes the whole picture. [LOB Press,B]
Table 3. Concordances in LOB and FLOB [H-J]
4
SHOULD in LOB (Learned
SHOULD in FLOB (Learned
Prose)
Prose)
VERBS
NOUNS
ADJ.
TOTAL
VERBS
NOUNS
ADJ.
TOTAL
25
6
15
46
29
6
1
36
H = miscellaneous, mainly government documents, J = learned & scientific writings.
This count of 12 occurrences includes one occurrence of SHOULD in a that-deleted clause triggered by the verb propose.
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
5
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
7
 No that-deleted clause was encountered in the Learned Prose category (contrary to 1 occurrence in
the Press category)
 Mandative SHOULD has decreased in the Learned Prose category, but only after the triggering
adjectives (– whereas SHOULD as a whole had increased in this genre).
Conclusion: The trend identified by previous research is verified - mandative SHOULD is
decreasing in the two categories analysed.
4. Bilingual analysis
(French forms translated by
 Comparison of the findings about
SHOULD
SHOULD)
in INTERSECT with the results from my
reference corpus FLOB (TRIGGERS)
Triggers in FLOB (Press)
Triggers in INTERSECT (Press)
1
2
Verbs
Nouns
Adjectives
7
12
4
2
Triggers in FLOB (Learned
Prose)
Triggers in INTERSECT (Learned
Prose)
19
1
6
Verbs
Nouns
Adjectives
29
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
9
90
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
8
 Types of French constructions translated by the mandative use of the modal*.
Table 4. Press (NEWS [Le Monde & The Guardian Weekly 1992, 93])
English data
SHOULD (Total)
French data
Mandative
Subjunctive
Others
2
6
SHOULD
75
8
Verbs
4
Verbs
0
Infinitive
3
Nouns
2
Nouns
0
Indicative
1
Adject.
2
Adject.
2
Nominali-
1
sation +
infinitive
Nominali-
1
sation
 75 occurrences of SHOULD retrieved, amongst them only 7 are mandative SHOULD
 the French equivalents of this type of SHOULD  2 subjunctive,

and
5
other
constructions
(infinitive, indicative and nominalisation).
Table 5. Learned Prose (MISCE [Esprit, ILO, Franinfo] + SCIENT [Telecom])
English data
SHOULD (Total)
French data
Mandative
Subjunctive
Others
84
34
SHOULD
854
118
Verbs
90
Verbs
65
Infinitive
9
Nouns
9
Nouns
1
Indicative
16
Adject.
19
Adject.
18
Conditio-
4
nal
Nominalisation
Different
construction
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
9
(9) He feels it is vital that a third party or alliance should
be able to muster about 30 per cent of the votes and act as a
blocking minority. (Guardian Weekly, 1992)
:: M. Pinto de Andrate croit “indispensable qu’un autre parti ou
une alliance puisse recueillir quelque 30% des suffrages et jouer le
rôle d’une minorité de blocage”. (Le Monde, 1992)
(10) However, it is preferable that these high-speed channels
should,
as
far
as
possible,
be
placed
[…].
(International
Telecommunication Union)
:: Toutefois, il est préférable que les voies à grande rapidité
de modulation soient dans la mesure du possible, établies […]. (ITU)
(11) […] it can decide that a specific day should be
commemorated at the national level […]. (International Labour
Organisation)
:: […] pour décider qu’une journée sera consacrée à célébrer un
événement ou une personne […]. (ILO)
5. Conclusion & applications
This is still work in progress… with some first pilot results.
 usefulness of the development of a direct translation database of expressions in
French and their equivalent in English and vice versa
 this research can make a significant contribution to
 translation studies (translator training / machine translation)
 improvement of learning process, knowledge acquisition (second language
acquisition)
 teaching methods applied to grammatical concepts
 improvement of existing grammar (books / Internet)
 creation of glossaries
 etc.
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
Mandative constructions in English and their equivalents in French
10
REFERENCES
ASAHARA, K., 1994, “English Present Subjunctive in Subordinate That-Clauses”, Kasumigaoka
Review, 1-30.
BAKER, M., 1995, “Corpora in translation studies: an overview and some suggestions for future
research”, Target, 7-2, 223-243.
BARLOW, M., 1995, “ParaConc : a Concordancer for parallel texts”, Computer and Text, 10, 14-16,
Oxford, OPU.
CHRIST, O., 1994, “A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system”,
COMPLEX'94, Budapest.
HOLMES, J. S., 1988, Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam,
Rodopi.
HUNDT, M., 1997, “It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora :
On the use of mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English”, in LINDQUIST, H. et al.
(eds), The major Varieties of English, Papers from MAVEN 97, Växjö University.
JOHANSSON, S. and NORHEIM, E. H., 1988, “The Subjunctive in British and American English”,
ICAME Journal 12, 27-36.
LEECH, G.N., 1992, “Corpora and theories of linguistic performance” in SVARTVIK, J. (ed.) Directions
in Corpus Linguistics: proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Berlin and New York, Mouton, 10522.
MCENERY, T. and OAKES, M., 1996, “Sentence and word alignement in the CRATER Project”, in
THOMAS, J. and SHORT, M. (eds), 1996, Using Corpora for Language Research, Longman,
London & New York, 211-231.
ÖVERGAARD, G., 1995, The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th
Century, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia
Anglistica Upsaliensia, Vol. 94.
QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G. N., and SVARTVIK, J., 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language, London, Longman.
SALKIE, R., 1995, “INTERSECT : a parallel corpus project at Brighton University”, Computer and
Texts, 9, 4-5, Oxford, OPU.
*
More research and analysis brought a change to the original results initially presented: 1 more occurrence of mandative
found in the Press category of INTERSECT and different results in the Learned Prose category.
TaLC 2000, Graz - July 20, 2000
©Noëlle SERPOLLET
SHOULD