Spelling Out the Optionals In Translation: A Corpus Study

Spelling out the optionals in translation: a corpus study Maeve Olohan Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, UMIST PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD maeve.olohan@umist.ac.uk Abstract While the use of translations in parallel corpora, mostly for the purposes of contrastive linguistic analysis, is relatively well established, the analysis of translated language as an object of study in its own right has only fairly recently been made possible through the development of corpus resources designed specifically for this purpose. The Translational English Corpus (TEC) at UMIST was the first corpus consisting exclusively of translations, in English, from a variety of source languages and text types. Much of the research carried out thus far using TEC (e.g. Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996, Kenny 1999 and 2000) has been interested in identifying and confirming features of translated language such as explicitation, normalisation, simplification and levelling out (Baker 1996). This kind of research is based on the assumption that, by retrieving and analysing data from TEC and a comparable corpus (e.g. the British National Corpus), it is possible to pinpoint consistent differences in syntactic or lexical patterning between translated English and original English. Some of these may arise from deliberate translation strategies on the part of the translator who wishes to make his/her text more explicit, to normalise or simplify etc. However, TEC can also be used as a means of identifying linguistic patterning which translators will not have been aware of producing, but which occurs as a result of the complex nature of the translation activity itself. Against this background, this paper presents an investigation of explicitation in translation. Preliminary studies using TEC and a subcorpus of the BNC (Burnett 1999, Olohan and Baker 2000) have shown that patterns of use of the optional that with reporting verbs are rather different in translated English than in original English, with translated English very much favouring the use of that, even in contexts which do not warrant it, e.g. for purposes of disambiguation or for the signalling of more formal style. This paper will present further analysis of optional syntactic features in English and their occurrence in TEC and the BNC, test the hypothesis that translated English displays a higher incidence of a range of optional syntactic features than is observed in a comparable corpus of original English, and that this is direct evidence of subconscious processes of explicitation in translation. 1. Corpus-based translation studies Corpus-based translation studies is a relatively new area of research within translation studies, motivated by an interest in the study of translated texts as instances of language use in their own right. This is in contrast to the not uncommon perception of translations as ‘deviant’ language use, a view which has generally led to the exclusion of translated texts from most ‘standard’ or ‘national’ corpora (Baker 1999). While translations have been seen as useful in parallel bilingual or multilingual corpora, this has usually been for contrastive linguistic analysis which has studied the relationship between source and target language systems or usage. Parallel corpora are naturally also of interest to the translation scholar as they facilitate investigation of the relationship between a translation and its source. Recent work using corpora in translation studies has, however, been more concerned with building corpora of translations so that the use of language in translations may be studied. The first corpus of this nature was the Translational English Corpus at UMIST (described below) which, since its inception, has provided the impetus and inspiration for a number of similar projects for other languages, including Italian, German, Spanish, Finnish, Catalan and Brazilian Portuguese. One of the fundamental concepts in corpus-based translation studies has been the notion of comparable corpus, defined by Baker (1995: 234) as ‘two separate collections of texts in the same language: one corpus consists of original texts in the language in question and the other consists of translations in that language from a give source language or languages…both corpora should cover a similar domain, variety of language and time span, and be of comparable length’. Baker’s initial groundbreaking work posited a number of features of translation, or ‘translation universals’, which could be investigated using comparable corpora (Baker 1996). While the term universal in this context is somewhat controversial, not least because of the practical difficulties involved in testing whether something holds true across diverse languages (for many of which corpora of translations and/or original writing do not exist), it has been suggested, for example, that translations tend to be more explicit on a number of levels than original texts, and that they simplify and normalise or standardise in a number of ways. Much of the corpus-based work carried out to date has focused on syntactic or 423 lexical features of translated and original texts which may provide evidence of these processes of explicitation, simplification or normalisation. It should be stressed that, while translators may at times consciously strive to produce translations which are more explicit or simplified or normalised in some way, the use of comparable corpora also allows us to investigate aspects of translators’ use of language which are not the result of deliberate, controlled processes and of which translators may not be aware. 2. Corpus data The Translational English Corpus is a corpus of translated English held at the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at UMIST. It was designed specifically for the purpose of studying translated texts and it consists of contemporary written translations into English of texts from a range of source texts and languages. At the time of writing, it has over 6.4 million words. TEC consists of four text types – fiction, in-flight magazines, biography and newspaper articles – with fiction representing 82%, and biography and fiction together making up 96% of the corpus. The translations were published from 1983 onwards and were produced by translators, male and female, with English as their native language or language of habitual use. The corpus of original English put together for this particular study is a subset of the BNC made up of texts from the imaginary domain. It is thus comparable in terms of genre and publication dates (from 1981 onwards). The texts have been produced by native speakers of English, both male and female. A minor difference between the two corpora which is not significant for current investigations is that TEC consists of full running texts whereas some of the BNC texts are extracts (some as long as 40,000 words). There is a little variation in size between the two corpora with TEC now slightly bigger than the BNC corpus. As TEC continues to grow, new texts will be added to the BNC subcorpus so that the corpora remain comparable in all respects. The data discussed here was extracted from these two untagged corpora using Wordsmith Tools V.3.0. 3. Explicitation The analyses reported on here arose from an interest in studying processes of explicitation in translation, where explicitation refers to the spelling out in target text of information which is only implicit in a source text. This has long been considered a feature of translation and has been investigated by a number of scholars (e.g. Vanderauwera 1985, Blum-Kulka 1986; Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996; Laviosa 1998; Baker 1995, 1996) who have identified different means or techniques by which translators make information explicit, e.g. using supplementary explanatory phrases, resolving source text ambiguities, making greater use of repetitions and other cohesive devices. This current research focuses, in so far as this is possible, on subconscious processes of explicitation and their realisation in linguistic forms in translated texts. Since the starting point is the linguistic form, we have concentrated on optional syntactic features, hypothesising that, if explicitation is genuinely an inherent feature of translation, translated text might manifest a higher frequency of the use of optional syntactic elements than original writing in the same language, i.e. translations may render grammatical relations more explicit more often – and perhaps in linguistic environments where there is no obvious justification for doing so – than original writers. 4. Analysis of optional syntactic features in English Linguists may present the optional syntactic features of English in different ways, but we opted to base this study on Dixon’s (1991: 68-71) omission conventions for English, presented in summary form as follows: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Omission of subject NP Omission of complementiser that Omission of relative pronoun wh-/that Omission of to be from complement clause Omission of predicate Omission of modal should from a THAT complement Omission of preposition before complementisers that, for and to Omission of complementiser to Omission of after/while in (after) having and (while) *ing Omission of in order 424 These features span a range of linguistic phenomena, from frequently occurring relative pronouns to much less common constructions (e.g. to be in complement clause), and that they do not focus exclusively on optionality of omission. As will be obvious from the discussion below, they also vary considerably in terms of their identification and quantifiability in a corpus which is neither tagged nor parsed. In some instances, as can be seen in 4.3, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10, omission is difficult to measure but occurrence, i.e. inclusion, can be traced and compared across corpora to give an indication of differences in usage of the longer surface form between corpora. 4.1. Omission of subject NP This refers to omission of a subject NP in a number of circumstances, e.g. under coordination, in subordinate time clauses, from an ING complement clause or from a modal (FOR) TO complement clause. There is no obvious way of finding instances of these in a corpus which is not tagged for parts of speech. 4.2. Omission of complementiser that Dixon states that ‘the initial that may often be omitted from a complement clause when it immediately follows the main clause predicate (or predicate-plus-object-NP where the predicate head is promise or threaten’ (1991: 70). An extensive analysis of the use of that/zero-connective with reporting verbs SAY and TELL, with reference to TEC and BNC, is presented in Olohan and Baker (2000). The results are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below, which present both the absolute values (i.e. occurrences) and the percentages for each form: Form that zero say (TEC) 316 55.5% 253 44.5% say (BNC) 323 26.5% 895 73.5% said (TEC) 267 46.5% 307 53.5% said (BNC) 183 19.2% 771 80.8% says (TEC) 116 40.4% 171 59.6% says (BNC) 64 12.8% 435 87.2% saying (TEC) 76 67.3% 37 32.7% saying (BNC) 142 43.0% 188 57.0% tells (BNC) 28 37.5% 52 62.5% telling (TEC) 64 73.6% 23 26.4% telling (BNC) 85 42.3% 115 57.7% Table 1: SAY + that/zero in BNC and TEC Form that zero tell (TEC) 247 62.8% 146 37.2% tell (BNC) 300 38.2% 486 61.8% told (TEC) 353 60% 233 40% told (BNC) 584 43.6% 755 56.4% tells (TEC) 55 68.7% 25 31.3% Table 2: TELL + that/zero in BNC and TEC It is immediately clear that the that-connective is far more frequent in TEC than in BNC. With the exception of said and says, that occurs more often than zero for all forms of SAY and TELL in TEC. By contrast, the zero-connective is more frequent for all forms of both verbs in the BNC corpus. These differences have been proven to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the results of the SAY and TELL study were consistent with findings by Burnett (1999) who reviewed use of the verbs SUGGEST, ADMIT, CLAIM, THINK, BELIEVE, HOPE and KNOW in TEC and BNC . While that study did not include all forms of these verbs, the data available shows that the that-connective is far more common than the zero-connective in translated than in original English for forms of all seven of the verbs investigated. The hypothesis that the optional that in reporting constructions occurs proportionately more frequently in translated texts than in original English texts is thus supported. Although Olohan and Baker (2000) highlight the relative vagueness with which omission and inclusion are accounted for in the linguistics literature, and the lack of guidance on this in reference works for users of English, there are clear patterns of usage in contemporary English writing as evidenced in the BNC corpus, and there is an equally clear contrast between these patterns and those perceived in translated English. A brief analysis of one of the verbs suggested by Dixon, namely PROMISE, serves as further illustration and corroboration. Table 3 and Figure 1 below show that, although the number of instances of promise + that/zero were almost identical in the two corpora (135 in BNC and 131 in TEC), the relationship between that and zero in TEC (that = 67.9%, zero = 32.1%) is almost directly inverse to that in BNC (that = 34.1%, zero = 67.9%). 425 Corpus BNC Corpus TEC Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total That/zero zero 89 65.9% 67.9% 33.5% 42 32.1% 32.1% 15.8% Total that 46 34.1% 34.1% 17.3% 89 67.9% 65.9% 33.5% 135 100.0% 50.8% 50.8% 131 100.0% 49.2% 49.2% Table 3: PROMISE + that/zero in BNC and TEC Figure 1: occurrences of PROMISE + that/zero in BNC and TEC A breakdown of each lexical item (Table 4 and Figure 2) shows that this holds true for all forms of the verb, although some have low occurrences in general (e.g. promises + that/zero occurs only twice in TEC and not at all in BNC). Figure 2: All forms of PROMISE + that/zero in BNC and TEC 426 BNC promise Corpus TEC promises Corpus TEC BNC promised Corpus TEC BNC promising Corpus TEC Form Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total Count % within Corpus % within That/zero % of Total That/zero zero that 38 19 66.7% 33.3% 64.4% 41.3% 36.2% 18.1% 21 27 43.8% 56.3% 35.6% 58.7% 20.0% 25.7% 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 46 20 69.7% 30.3% 69.7% 27.8% 33.3% 14.5% 20 52 27.8% 72.2% 30.3% 72.2% 14.5% 37.7% 5 7 41.7% 58.3% 100.0% 43.8% 23.8% 33.3% 9 100.0% 56.3% 42.9% Total 57 100.0% 54.3% 54.3% 48 100.0% 45.7% 45.7% 2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 66 100.0% 47.8% 47.8% 72 100.0% 52.2% 52.2% 12 100.0% 57.1% 57.1% 9 100.0% 42.9% 42.9% Table 4: All forms of PROMISE + that/zero in BNC and TEC 4.3. Omission of relative pronoun wh-/that This frequently occurring construction is difficult to measure in an untagged corpus. Thus far, only total counts of occurrence of which have been taken, with 11,201 in BNC and 23,607 in TEC. A first step in discarding irrelevant instances was to identify sentence-initial and sentence-final/clause-final which. Their removal leaves 10,457 concordance lines in BNC and 22,483 in TEC, indicating considerably higher usage of which in TEC. Obviously further detailed analysis of these instances is required to identify the occurrences in relative clauses where the coreferential NP is not in subject function in the relative clause, i.e. where omission could have taken place. 4.4. Omission of to be from complement clause From a very frequent feature above, we come to a very infrequent structure. Dixon is referring here to the omission of to be with ‘some verbs taking a Judgement TO complement clause, whose VP begins with be’ (1991: 70), with an example of thought + to be + modifier. Both THINK + to be and FIND + to be were investigated in the corpora (see Table 5). The most common occurrence in both corpora was for the past tense forms (thought and found), and TEC exhibits a greater tendency overall to include to be, but the number of occurrences overall was very small in both corpora. THINK (+ FIND (+ Form *)(+ *) to be *)(+ *) to be BNC 2 4 TEC 6 7 Table 5: think + to be and find + to be in BNC and TEC 4.5. Omission of predicate The omission of the predicate in coordinated clauses is difficult to capture in an untagged corpus and this has therefore not yet been investigated. 4.6. Omission of modal should from a THAT complement This refers to the omission of modal should from a THAT complement with examples of verbs ORDER and SUGGEST. Neither is particularly common, and both occur predominantly in the past tense form (ordered and suggested). A greater proportion of omission is seen in TEC (see Table 6). 427 Form ORDER + that + should ORDER + that + zero SUGGEST + that + should SUGGEST + that + zero BNC 1 2 19 43 TEC 6 7 19 58 Table 6: ORDER and SUGGEST + that + should/zero in BNC and TEC 4.7. Omission of preposition before complementisers that, for and to Some transitive verbs with a preposition as last element in their lexical form which may take a complement clause in object function will omit the preposition before that, for and to, e.g. he confessed to the crime, he confessed to strangling her, but he confessed that he had strangled her. This is not an optional omission and is therefore not of interest in this study. 4.8. Omission of complementiser to According to Dixon, the complementiser to is optional following HELP or KNOW. The form help was analysed, first discarding all uses of help as noun, as reflexive verb, verb + ING complement and verb + preposition, and then looking at occurrences of help (*) (*) to in detail (Table 7). Form Occurrences of help help + to help + * + to help +* + * + to Total help (+*) (+*) + to help (+*) (+*) + zero BNC Total Relevant occurrences occurrences 2374 300 62 26 67 50 19 3 79 229 TEC Total Relevant occurrences occurrences 1792 365 72 38 98 80 35 19 137 228 Table 7: help (+*) (+*) + to in BNC and TEC This data tells us that although the word form help is more frequent in TEC, its verbal use in both corpora is quite similar with help (+*) (+*) + to/zero occurring slightly more often in TEC than in BNC, of which the complementiser to is used in 37.5% of TEC instances, compared with 26% of the BNC occurrences. 4.9. Omission of after/while in (after) having + participle and (while) *ing As in 4.3 and 4.4 above and 4.10 below, we can more readily measure occurrence of these features rather than omission. Concordances of while *ing are pruned, discarding constructions such as all the while *ing, after/in/for a while *ing, worth your while *ing. The while *ing construction is much more frequent in TEC overall and in relation to the gerundial use (Table 8). Form Total while *ing concordances Relevant concordances BNC 150 138 TEC 360 330 Table 8: while *ing in BNC and TEC A count of after *ing *ed (which obviously does not take irregularly formed past participles into account) also shows a tendency for TEC to use this construction more frequently than BNC (Table 9). Form after *ing *ed BNC 11 TEC 65 Table 9: after *ing *ed in BNC and TEC 4.10. Omission of in order According to Dixon, in order is usually omitted before to and may occasionally be omitted before for or that. While the investigation of every instance of the items to, that and for to see whether an in order has been omitted is not practical, we can easily measure usage of in order to, in order for and in order that and compare results from the two corpora. This investigation yields the following (Table 10): 428 Form in order to in order for in order that Total BNC 250 1 12 263 TEC 1225 14 18 1257 Table 10: in order to/for/that in BNC and TEC This does not conclusively prove that in order has been omitted more often in BNC but certainly indicates that the longer forms of the conjunctions appear with markedly higher frequency in TEC. 5. Correlations, contractions, co-occurrences To return to the notion of explicitation then, it could be claimed, on the basis of these measures of inclusion and/or omission of optional syntactic elements above, that the language of TEC makes explicit grammatical and lexical relations which are less likely to be made explicit in original English. Furthermore, this tendency not to omit optional syntactic elements may be considered subliminal or subconscious rather than a result of deliberate decision-making of which the translator is aware – most translators do not have a conscious strategy for dealing with optional that, for example. It can be argued that it is the nature of the process of translation and the cognitive processing which it requires which produces the kind of patterning seen here. However, inclusion or omission of syntactic features do not reveal the whole story. Olohan and Baker (2000) pointed out that the optional that data discussed in that study revealed potentially different patterns in other features, such as use of modifiers, pronominal forms, modal constructions etc. in TEC compared with the BNC. Thus, although a specific syntactic or lexical structure can be investigated in terms of overall occurrence and of its usage within the narrow context of a concordance line, the wider issue of co-occurrence and interdependency of features must be considered. Research of this kind on the language of translation still has a long way to go; however a small example can be used to illustrate the possible significance of interdependencies and how they might be investigated further. We can take the data referred to earlier in relation to promise and re-examine it in relation to a number of linguists’ suggestions that that is more likely to be omitted in informal usage (for example Storms 1966; Elsness 1984; Dixon 1991). If we also accept that the use of contracted forms constitutes evidence of informal style, then a search for contracted forms, within the promise concordance line only, reveals the following (Table 11): Form promise total promise with contracted forms in concordance line promise + that with contracted forms in concordance line promise + zero with contracted forms in concordance line promise with no contracted forms in concordance line promise + that with no contracted forms in concordance line promise + zero with no contracted forms in concordance line BNC 57 41 (72%) 7 (17%) 34 (83%) 16 (28%) 12 (75%) 4 (25%) TEC 48 21 (43.75%) 4 (19%) 17 (81%) 27 (56.25%) 23 (85%) 4 (15%) Table 11: Co-occurrence of promise +that/zero and contracted forms in BNC and TEC From this we can see that, although that occurs with much higher frequency in TEC than in BNC, promise co-occurs with contracted forms to a much higher degree in BNC than in TEC, and that, when the that/zero usage is correlated with contracted forms and then compared across corpora, there is actually little difference between the two corpora. Using contracted forms as a measure of informality, this would indicate, firstly, that there is a correlation between inclusion of that and level of formality, and, secondly, that the language of TEC may thus be judged more formal. A large-scale study of contracted forms based on production and pruning of word lists for both corpora yielded the following Table 12 and Figure 3): 429 Form apostrophe *’s *’ll *’d *’t *’ve *’re it’s that’s there’s he’s she’s what’s let’s who’s where’s how’s here’s e’s I’m BNC forms 5,851 4,818 212 111 48 53 12 d’ = do t’ = the y’ = you 3 99 22 BNC totals 9,651 10,645 40,782 7,768 7,344 9,554 4,650 2,655 2,628 2,266 1,601 913 396 241 146 132 102 8,773 418 126 53 TEC forms 5,269 4,623 43 29 30 17 8 3 0 7 TEC totals 4,799 5,349 20,316 4,068 4,250 5,046 2,640 1,424 1,951 1,154 1,021 654 334 117 36 89 0 4,256 84 0 7 Table 12: Contracted forms in BNC and TEC Figure 3: Contracted forms in BNC and TEC as percentage of total occurrence across corpora The most frequent form with apostrophe is *’s, which in the vast majority of cases is a possessive marker rather than a contraction of is or was; many of the *’s occurrences are with names, and many occur only once or a couple of times in the corpus. For this reason, individual occurrences of *’s have not been counted, apart from the most common *’s contractions in BNC (it’s, that’s, there’s, he’s, she’s, what’s let’s, who’s, where’s, how’s, here’s, e’s). Without looking at data for individual occurrences for *’s forms, we can see from the figures above that the total number of *’s forms is similar for both corpora. This is in stark contrast with all other categories, which represent true contractions rather than grammatical markers. For all other contracted forms counted, a very clear and consistent pattern emerges; they are much more frequently used in BNC than in TEC. As mentioned above, one of the conclusions of the linguistics literature in relation to the optional that is that omission is more likely in informal usage. This may also be the case for omission of the relative pronoun that or which and the other optional features discussed above. The only exception is perhaps the modal should following verbs such as suggest and order; if the modal is omitted, the subjunctive is used, which arguably constitutes more formal style than the should construction. Interestingly this is the only feature above for which TEC seems to favour omission rather than inclusion. On all other optional forms, TEC is considerably more likely to use the optional item and longer surface form. According to the co-occurrence patterns which Biber (1988) and Biber et al. (1998) suggest as underlying the five major dimensions of English, that-deletion and contractions are in the top three 430 features at the positive end of one scale (Dimension 1); this is indicative of their tendency to co-occur in texts of shared function. These and the other features grouped with them are associated with ‘involved, non-informational focus, related to a primarily interactive or affective purpose and on-line production circumstances’ (Biber et al. 1998: 149). Biber et al. continue to describe certain of these positive features, including the two we have dealt with here – that-deletions and contractions – as constituting a reduced surface form which results in a ‘more generalized, less explicit content’ (ibid.). They talk of two separate communicative parameters, i.e. purpose of the writer (informational vs. involved) and production circumstances (allowing careful editing vs. constraints of real-time production). Dimension 1 is therefore labelled ‘involved versus informational production’ (ibid.). Relating this to the findings above, it would appear than the BNC writing is more involved, more generalised, less explicit, less edited than the writing in TEC; the original writer’s purpose is more involved, the translator’s less so. The translator’s surface form is not reduced to the same extent as the original writer’s, the translator is thus more explicit, less generalised in both form and content. The translation is perhaps more carefully edited; are original writers more concerned with the creative content and translators with explicitation of linguistic relations? 6. Conclusion In terms of concrete findings of this kind in corpus-based translation studies, there is considerable scope for further studies, particularly in the area of co-occurrence. Mauranen’s (2000) study of research on comparison of co-selectional restrictions in Finnish translation and original English is one of the few which tackles collocational and colligational patterning in translated language using comparable corpora, and much more research of this nature needs to be done. In addition, the other co-occurrence features proposed by Biber for this and the other four dimensions of English could be investigated and compared across the corpora. Ongoing work in Saarbrücken using a tagged version of TEC is likely to yield interesting results in this respect, and research is continuing at UMIST to identify and investigate relationships between linguistic features of translated language and the cognitive and social factors which may give rise to them. References Baker M 1995 Corpora in translation studies: an overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2): 223-243. Baker M 1996 Corpus-based translation studies: the challenges that lie ahead. In Somers H (ed) Terminology, LSP and translation: studies in language engineering, in honour of Juan C. Sager, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 175-186. Baker M 1999 The role of corpora in investigating the linguistic behaviour of translators. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 281-298. Biber D 1988 Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, CUP. Biber D, Conrad S and Reppen R 1998 Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, CUP. Blum-Kulka S 1986 Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In House J and Blum-Kulka S (eds) Interlingual and intercultural communication: discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies. Tübingen, Gunter Narr. pp 17-35. Burnett S 1999 A corpus-based study of translational English, Unpublished MSc dissertation, UMIST. Dixon R M W 1991 A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Elsness J 1984 That or Zero? A Look at the Choice of Object Clause Connective in a Corpus of American English. English Studies 65: 519-533. Kenny D 1999 Norms and creativity: lexis in translated text. Unpublished PhD thesis, UMIST. Kenny D 2000 Lexical hide-and-seek: looking for creativity in a parallel corpus. In Olohan M (ed) Intercultural faultlines: research models in translation studies 1, Manchester, St. Jerome. pp 93104. Laviosa-Braithwaite S 1996 The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): a resource and a methodology for the empirical study of translation. Unpublished PhD thesis, UMIST. Laviosa S 1998 The English Comparable Corpus: a resource and a methodology. In Bowker L, Cronin M, Kenny D. & Pearson J. (eds) Unity in diversity: current trends in translation studies. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing. pp 101-112. Olohan M, Baker M 2000 Reporting that in translated English: evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2): 141-158. 431 Mauranen A 2000 Strange strings in translated language: a study on corpora. In Olohan M (ed) Intercultural faultlines: research models in translation studies 1, Manchester, St. Jerome. pp. 119 Storms G 1966 That-clauses in Modern English. English Studies 47: 249-270. Vanderauwera R 1985 Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ’Minority’ Literature. Amsterdam, Rodopi. 432