FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W295886850> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W295886850 abstract "The following is the result of a research project on the information structure of nominal phrases (DPs) in translations between English and German, sponsored by the DFG. DPinternal differences are to some extent grammaticalized, concerning adjectival and non-finite attributes, but even more similar options like prepositional phrases and relative clauses will often be used differently. The overall trend seems to suggest constraints on the distribution of information in the DP parallel to the verb phrase or sentence structures of English and German. 1. Language-specific processing and the method of control paraphrases It is a well-known phenomenon that English uses attributes with non-finite verbs in many cases where German would use prepositions (see e.g. Kortmann and Meyer, 1991) But as there are also prepositional attributes in English and prenominal non-finite attributes in German, the interesting question is when do we use which attribute? Moreover, there are also full clausal attributes and nominal or adjectival attributes and paraphrases will often allow us to choose between several of these forms, thus the question covers a wide range of variations. If we classify attributes according to their reductive potential, attributes form a hierarchy where adjectival attributes seem to be most economical and relative clauses least. If we assume that language use is to some extent controlled by a principle of least effort (part of the trade-off between processing effort and cognitive gains, summarized as the principle of relevance by Sperber and Wilson, 86), we could expect a strategy of attributive parsimony, SAP, which makes us prefer an attribute of the lowest category possible: SAP: AP > NP > PP > VP > CP. (with AP for adjective phrases, NP noun phrases, PP prepositional phrases, VP verb phrases, CP clauses; > for preference in line with SAP). That is, if we can express an attribute in the form of an AP, this would be preferred to any of the other attribute phrases, etc. The hierarchy reflects the increasing structural weight which would be associated with the different categories normally. SAP is an extremely simplified strategy, which, however, offers something like a foothold for the language-specific conditions on attributive parsimony. It is obvious that categorial choice The study involved the members of the project (Dr. Bettina Seifried, Thomas Bonk, Renate Kostritza, Jessica Schmidt, Rebecca Schopfer, Andreas Ljungstrom, Jenny Ziebal) and students specializing on translation about ten to twenty German participants and a few native speakers of English. The data were drawn from the Berlin translation corpus, in particular from a sample of twelve popular scientific English texts and their German translations. The original sentences and their translations are aligned and have been screened by the method of control paraphrases, which will be demonstrated in the following discussion. This paper reports the results of the first year, which concentrated on DP-internal differences between original and translation. Adjectives proper as in 'das offene Fenster' were classified as AP. But deverbal APs which show their verbal origin, as in 'das geoffnete Fenster', were classified as VP-attributes. Although we can follow Maienborn, 2000, who presents altogether seven diagnostics (syntactic and morphological) in favour of an adjective-analysis of such deverbal cases, the combinatorial properties of the verbs made us use the VP-label not only for postnominal VP-attributes in English but also for the corresponding prenominal case in German. 2 depends upon the lexical and syntactic means available in the language involved and that there is a natural limit to parsimony, viz. the amount of information contained in the attribute. However, there are also language-specific stilistic limits to parsimony. For example, if we look at English texts and their German translations, we notice that a great deal of the nonfinite attributes in English seem to violate SAP. In almost two thirds of the cases in which attributes are reformulated in the German translation, they have been turned into a lowercategory attribute. A sentence like (1) Another idea is to alter the genes that code for various storage proteins in plants so that they would produce proteins containing a greater proportion of the amino acids that are essential for human nutrition. g 109 has been translated into German as (2) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene fur verschiedene pflanzliche Speichereiweise so zu verandern, das sie Proteine mit einem hoheren Gehalt an den fur unsere Ernahrung notigen Aminosauren erzeugen. There are four instances of attribute reduction in the German sentence: (a) CP to PP, (b) PP to AP, (c) VP to PP and (d) CP to AP. (2) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene [a fur verschiedene[b pflanzliche] Speichereiweise] so zu verandern, das sie Proteine [c mit einem hoheren Gehalt an den [d fur unsere Ernahrung notigen] Aminosauren] erzeugen. But except for the VP all the English attributes could have been translated analogously into German: (3) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene, [die verschiedene Speichereiweise[ in Pflanzen] kodieren], so zu verandern, das sie Proteine erzeugen,[ die einen hoheren Anteil der/jener Aminosauren] aufweisen, [die fur die menschliche Ernahrung notig sind]. It is obvious that the sentence in this form is difficult to process because of its 'nested' structure. It will already become more transparent if we use a prepositional attribute in (c): (4) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene, die verschiedene Speichereiweise in Pflanzen kodieren, so zu verandern, das sie Proteine mit einem hoheren Anteil der/jener Aminosauren erzeugen, die fur die menschliche Ernahrung notwendig sind. If we accept transparency (processing ease) as a control factor explaining why we prefer (4) to (3), we can also say that (4) is more difficult to process than (5) with its PP: (5) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene fur verschiedene Speichereiweise in Pflanzen so zu verandern, das sie Proteine mit einem hoheren Anteil der/jener Aminosauren erzeugen, die fur die menschliche Ernahrung notwendig sind. and (5) is more difficult to process than (6) with its AP: Despite their verbless appearance German APs corresponding to English CPs or VPs with predicatively used APs are a subclass of AP closer to VP than to AP proper. They were included in the following generalizations on attributes with 'weak' verbs the copula before predicatively used APs being one of the 'weak' verbs. 3 (6) Man denkt auch daran, die Gene fur verschiedene Speichereiweise in Pflanzen so zu verandern, das sie Proteine mit einem hoheren Gehalt an den fur unsere Ernahrung notigen Aminosauren erzeugen. etc. Using this method of control paraphrases we can compare the various forms of attributes in translations between English and German and look for the language-specific conditions determining the different preferences found in recurring patterns. It is important to remember that all the DPs compared are embedded into their intraand extrasentential discursive context. We can assume that under normal conditions of language use processing ease contributes to the discourse appropriateness of sentence structure. We can also assume that discourse appropriateness of sentence structure in the target language is the dominant criterion in a neutral translational maxim, TM: (7) TM Normally a translation is as close to the original in form and content as is possible under the conditions of target language appropriateness. Applied to sets of systematically varied sentence structures in context, the method of control paraphrases should provide us with discourse-appropriate translations, 'target versions'. The following sections will present ample evidence of the discourse-dependent aspects of appropriateness. However, some properties of appropriateness concern sentence structure directly. For example, if the target version (2) is translated back into English, the brevity of (8) Another idea is to alter the genes for various storage proteins in plants so that they would produce proteins with a greater proportion of the amino acids essential for human nutrition. seems to suggest that it is easier to process than the original (1). But two of the differences between (1) and (8) concern adjuncts in the form of PPs. As it were, such adjuncts have figured prominently in psycholinguistic research on language processing because they may be processed as attributes or as adverbials. Processing times for sentence pairs like (9) The spy saw the cop with binoculars (10) The spy saw the cop with a revolver (Rayner, Carlson and Frazier, 83) (11) Manfred fesselte den Mann mit der schwarzen Krawatte. (12) Manfred fesselte den Mann mit dem festen Strick." @default.
• W295886850 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W295886850 creator A5089880472 @default.
• W295886850 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W295886850 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W295886850 title "SAP - a strategy of attributive parsimony and its constraints characterizing translations between English and German" @default.
• W295886850 cites W141389376 @default.
• W295886850 cites W1500278335 @default.
• W295886850 cites W1504955803 @default.
• W295886850 cites W1603387868 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2000526102 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2029420047 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2037932387 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2053089403 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2062837929 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2069946818 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2131210296 @default.
• W295886850 cites W2500827130 @default.
• W295886850 cites W43710320 @default.
• W295886850 cites W486870431 @default.
• W295886850 cites W84933277 @default.
• W295886850 cites W96036421 @default.
• W295886850 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W295886850 type Work @default.
• W295886850 sameAs 295886850 @default.
• W295886850 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W295886850 countsByYear W2958868502014 @default.
• W295886850 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W295886850 hasAuthorship W295886850A5089880472 @default.
• W295886850 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W295886850 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W295886850 hasConcept C2778854177 @default.
• W295886850 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W295886850 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W295886850 hasConceptScore W295886850C138885662 @default.
• W295886850 hasConceptScore W295886850C154775046 @default.
• W295886850 hasConceptScore W295886850C2778854177 @default.
• W295886850 hasConceptScore W295886850C41008148 @default.
• W295886850 hasConceptScore W295886850C41895202 @default.
• W295886850 hasLocation W2958868501 @default.
• W295886850 hasOpenAccess W295886850 @default.
• W295886850 hasPrimaryLocation W2958868501 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W1124669180 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W1517801199 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W1559319290 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W1658718295 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W1682594137 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2059024668 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2204331987 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2283301984 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2300267878 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2368606592 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2386903059 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2391289046 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2436649845 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2496197127 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2545460528 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2611532089 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2620957717 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W808229668 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2142511560 @default.
• W295886850 hasRelatedWork W2618791148 @default.
• W295886850 isParatext "false" @default.
• W295886850 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W295886850 magId "295886850" @default.
• W295886850 workType "article" @default.