Corpus-based functionality and translatability

Corpus-based functionality and translatability English–Spanish progressive constructions in contrast and translation* Marlén Izquierdo

University of León (Spain)

This paper reports on a descriptive study of English and Spanish progressive constructions to identify degrees of common functionality and, therefore, translatability. Here, the functionality of the resource under study is examined contrastively, in order to observe functional correspondences which can be considered translation equivalents. In addition, a descriptive study of actual translations provides a broader picture of the degree of translatability between the languages under investigation. To this end, a corpus-based approach has been adopted to account for language usage in a cross-linguistic setting. Two complementary types of corpora have been used, a comparable corpus made up of BoE and CREA, and the ACTRES Parallel Corpus. The result constitutes a comprehensive approach to language description oriented towards application. Keywords: functionality, translatability, corpus linguistics, equivalence, English/ Spanish

1. Introduction This study examines the functions of English and Spanish progressive constructions to contrast their common ground in order to favour English-Spanish translation. The working hypothesis underlying this piece of research is that English and Spanish progressive constructions share some meanings but differ in others, either due to idyosincrasies of realization per language or to gaps, thus posing a problem in translation. Contrastive functional linguistics focuses on the differences and similarities of meaning realization between languages, providing patterns of functional correspondences as well as lack of correspondences. All this is useful for translators

Languages in Contrast 12:2 (2012), 187–210. doi 10.1075/lic.12.2.04izq issn 1387–6759 / e-issn 1569–9897 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

188 Marlén Izquierdo

since such correspondences can be considered functional equivalents. Thus, when the functionality of at least two linguistic resources belonging to two different languages is contrasted, their degree of translatability1 is also ascertained. However, this is not fully covered by means of a contrastive analysis alone, especially when the contrastive analysis starts from given linguistic resources, as is the case here. Therefore, another source of translatability has to be supplied and examined: in this case, actual translations. In other words, actual translations would reveal functional equivalents of English progressive constructions that are not easily considered a priori. This is why I choose corpus linguistics (CL) as the methodology which best suits the purposes of a functional description of language, both within a contrastive and a translation-descriptive framework. In this particular case, two types of corpora are suitable. For the contrastive functional analysis, I have used BoE and CREA,2 two large, independent, monolingual reference corpora which have been customised for my purposes as one comparable corpus. The data analysed in the descriptive translation study come from the ACTRES Parallel Corpus (P-ACTRES) (Izquierdo et al., 2008). Bearing all this in mind, I believe that a descriptive, joint, contrast-translation study will ultimately provide correspondences in the two languages that are, in turn, potential translation equivalents useful and usable for translators. Their usefulness lies in their being authentic instances of language usage, whereas their usability derives from their tangible nature and the possibility of formulating such correspondences in descriptively based guidelines (Rabadán, 2008) for successful cross-cultural communication. 2. Corpus-based cross-linguistic research The principles underlying this piece of research as well as the criteria for the analyses of the data selected belong to a functional model of cross-linguistic research which draws on several functionalist tenets, whose common ground is the analysis of meaning in context. Such a functional approach will focus on meaning and also on the form that meaning takes, as these contribute to the semantic function of any given linguistic resource. Following Bondarko (1991), a functional description of language can be carried out in two different, but equally valid, directions: from meaning to form (onomasiological analysis) or from form to meaning (semasiological analysis). Whatever the starting point might be, a functional description is attained since the forms are motivated by the meaning, which can only be observable through concrete means.

Progressive constructions in English and Spanish 189

The present study combines two complementary analyses, each of which moves in either direction. Whereas the contrastive functional analysis (CFA) studies the semantic functions of given forms, namely, progressive constructions, the descriptive translation study (DTS) focuses on how certain meanings have been conveyed in Spanish translations. When translating from one language to another, translators need be familiar with the various possibilities of expression of the meaning that has to be first decoded prior to being (re)coded into the target language (TL). The better the choice in terms of qualitative match and typicality of usage, the more acceptable the target text and the more successful the instance of cross-cultural communication. Two interrelated questions, thus, arise: first, how can translators be aware of the functionality patterns of a language resource? And second, in which way is the common ground between the functionality of one and another language made evident? Rabadán (2002: 725) provides an answer to the questions above: To unveil the aspects that contribute to the construction of translation correctness, contrastive analysis and translation theory play a dialectical role: the bridge between actual descriptive empiricial regularities and effective practical application of findings are translational norms. Norms are to be formulated on contrastive descriptions pertaining to three main areas: linguistic acceptability, appropriate rhetorical usage, and effective translation function (2002).

In other words, the insights gained from a CFA and those observed in actual translations will portray actual instances of functionality, and therefore, of translatability.

Language use

CL

CFA

DTS

Figure 1. Tripartite, functional model of cross-linguistic research


Bearing all this in mind, I propose an original, tripartite, functional model as the theoretical framework of the present study. Figure 1 illustrates such a model. Contrastive Functional Analysis (CFA) and Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) are on the same level because they are the two disciplines which serve as the basis of the model where the object rests, i.e. the contrast of the English progressive constructions with their Spanish counterparts, and the objective, to apply any new findings to translation. The arrow connecting CFA and DTS is bidirectional because of the duality inherent in the functional description of language, as indicated by Bondarko (1991). In the relationship established between CL-CFA and CL-DTS, the starting point is CL because this is the source of data from which the researcher in CFA and/or DTS extracts material for analysis. 3. Method and tools The method adopted in the two complementary analyses is inductive, as the starting point of the analysis is the data provided by linguistic corpora, as this type of database best matches the nature of the object and objectives of study. 3.1 Comparable-corpus-based, contrastive, functional analysis For the CFA, data have been extracted from a custom-made comparable corpus comprising BoE and CREA. The comparability of these two, independent, monolingual, large corpora has been ensured3 by selecting the same subcorpora, namely, written books (both fiction and nonfiction) produced in British English and European Spanish within a fairly similar span of time. Once the corpus was ready for browsing, an independent but parallel procedure was carried out on either language, comprising four stages: selection, description, juxtaposition, and contrast. 3.1.1 Selection of contrastive data On the assumption that frequent linguistic resources will have more numerous co(n)texts of appearance and hence display a wider range of functionality, the ten most frequent Gerund-Participles and Gerunds in both English and Spanish were selected. The statistical information needed was borrowed from existing frequency lists as neither of the databases comprising the comparable corpus provided such information at the time of searching. The sources used are Leech et al. (2001), and Alameda and Cuetos (1995), revealing the most frequent gerund forms. A statistical formula had to be applied on the initial population in order to narrow it down to a manageable sample which remained statistically significant


Table 1. Ten most frequent G-Ps and Gs, selected for analysis. ENGLISH Being Going Having Using Making Looking Taking Doing Working Getting

SPANISH Siendo Haciendo Mirando Hablando Dando Pensando Esperando Dejando Buscando Viendo

and representative. The formula employed, previously tested in similar studies (Labrador de la Cruz, 2005; Ramón García, 2003), is the following: n=

N (N−1)E2+1

where n stands for the expected sample per G-P/G, N represents the whole population of each G-P/G respectively and E is the margin of error (0.05%). The final sample amounts to 3,156 for English and 3,520 for Spanish. Yet, not all of these concordances contained a progressive construction because both the G-P and the G are multifunctional resources. Therefore, all the concordances were qualitatively sorted, manually, which yielded a final sample of 1,660 progressive constructions: 878 instances in English and 782 in Spanish. 3.1.2 Description The descriptive stage adopts a semasiological approach whereby all the formal structures extracted for the analysis are classified semantically. Three main criteria for semantic classification have been applied: co(n)text, lexis and rephrasing. According to the first, co(n)textual items in the surroundings of the progressive construction might contribute to its actual semantic function, mainly modifying the original, inherent, progressive content. Lexis also plays a leading role in meaning-making, as the lexical nature of the G-P or G might bear specific shades of meaning. Another criterion for semantic classification is the possibility of rephrasing the progressive construction into another type of VP, which disambiguates the meaning of the progressive by means of verb forms which are more lexically marked.4 Along with these criteria, labels suggested in previous studies (Leech 1991; Rabadán 2009; Römer 2005) have also been used to refer to the various


meanings observed. Some of these labels have been adopted as they are, but others have been adapted, when appropriate. Similarly, new labels have been established in an attempt at defining the phenomena observed as empirically as possible. The descriptive phase has revealed patterns of complex functionality per language. The English resource realizes twice as many semantic functions as the Spanish progressive does. Furthermore, whereas the English resource depends more heavily on co(n)text for semantic realization, the Spanish one does not, although this is due to the fact that there exists another repertoire of progressive periphrases in Spanish which are more typically used to convey certain meanings. By juxtaposing both repertoires, it is easier to observe correspondences and mismatches, as illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Juxtaposition of functions realized by progressives per language. BE + G-P Progression Temporary habit Gradual progression Future intention General validity Iteration Temporary state Inchoation Continuation Result

878

%

514 81 69 51 41 38 36 17 16 15

54.8% 8.6% 7.4% 5.4% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6%

ESTAR + G Progression

782

724 Gradual Progression 2 Iteration 41 Inchoation 13 Continuation 2 -

% 92.6% 0.3% 5.2% 1.6% 0.3% -

The proper contrast stage focuses mainly on the correspondences as these represent the functional common ground. Likewise, some attention is also paid to mismatches, for these have also shaped the degree of functionality between both languages (see Section 4). Before presenting the results obtained from the CFA and extrapolating their information on functionality, I will deal with the methodological decisions and implications for the DTS, as I have just done with those concerning the CFA. 3.2 Parallel-corpus-based descriptive translation study Translational data have been extracted from P-ACTRES, a custom-made, EnglishSpanish translation corpus built by the ACTRES Research Group (Izquierdo et al., 2008). The DTS unfolds in four main stages: selection, description of OTs, description of TTs and control. The last two are actually contrastive in nature, contrasting the use of originally produced progressive constructions and those found in the translations.


3.2.1 Selection of parallel concordances The second constituent of the progressive construction is always a verb form ending in ‘–ing’, so this has been the key query, although many of the hits retrieved by the search engine are superfluous and have therefore been discarded from the analysis. Along with the progressives, there are many more gerund constructions, as observed in a co-text-based manual classification (Izquierdo, 2008). The final sample analysed in the DTS amounts to 2,330 parallel concordances, all of which contain an original progressive construction and its Spanish translation. 3.2.2 Description of original texts The descriptive stage of the DTS is onomasiological since the OTs first need to be sorted functionally in order to correlate the translational options observed per meaning. This descriptive phase proceeds along the same lines as the descriptive phase of the CFA. Concerning the functional realization of this particular sample, some differences have been observed in relation to the sample of the CFA. It is believed that these divergences are due to the lexical nature of the G-Ps and to the fact that only ten English G-Ps have been considered for contrast, whereas there are many more English forms in the parallel sample. The functionality pattern of the original texts is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Functions realized by the original progressive constructions. OTs BE + G-P Progression Temporary state Iteration Future intention Temporary habit Inchoation Gradual Progression General Validity Continuation Result Total

N 1,439 307 165 110 85 70 57 46 40 11 2,330

% 61.7% 13.2% 7.1% 4.7% 3.6% 3% 2.4% 2% 1.7% 0.5% 100%

This stage is merely methodological: interest lies not so much in the functions realized, but in how these meanings have been expressed in the TT, which is explained in greater detail in Section 5. Nonetheless, the insights gained from this descriptive stage strengthen an observation made earlier, i.e., that the combination of lexical content and co-textual elements contribute to meaning building, which


instantiates the lexico-grammatical interface. Linguistic functions can, therefore, be analysed from a lexico-grammatical viewpoint, as will be reported in Section 4. 4. Functionality in contrast This section is devoted to the functional regularities of English ‘be + G-P’ and estar + G. Usually, the contrastive stage of a CFA would concentrate only on the commonalities, for it is on the basis of a similar basis that differences can be identified. However, I would like to draw attention to the concept of functionality as [capability of] usage, which also entails mismatches or gaps. Correctness of usage is easier to achieve if translators are aware of the situations in which they can use a given linguistic resource, as well as of the situations when they ought not to use it. In other words, how to use (a) certain resource(s) in translation correctly entails both what to do and what not to do, and contrasting languages is a way of raising awareness of correct usage. As illustrated in Table 2, English and Spanish progresssive constructions share five semantic functions, namely, progression, gradual progression, iteration, inchoation and continuation. Let us look thoroughly at the actual realization of each function per language resource. 1. Progression. This is the typical meaning of the formal resources under study with a 54.8% and 92.6% share of usage in English and Spanish, respectively. It is, by far, the most frequent function of all the possibilities of the progressive constructions and is particularly outstanding in Spanish. This is due to the fact that the English resource is capable of conveying a wider range of meanings. The notion of progression is inherent in the G-P and G forms, as they relate to an action which is ongoing. The realization of this meaning barely resorts to co-textual elements, but if present, these are deictic and adverbial items referring to the moment and place where or when the action is taking place, such as ‘here’, ‘now’, ‘at this moment’, aquí, ahora, en este momento, etc. Since progression implies an incomplete action, the complex VPs under consideration predominantly display an imperfective tense, usually present or past simple. These facts explain a high degree of functional equivalence between ‘Be + G-P’ and Estar + G for expressing progression, which reveals, in turn, such a high degree of translatability that it is fair to acknowledge both resources as assumed equivalents. Examples 1 and 2 show how the idea of progression is easily attained with or without co-textual support. (1) a. You’re making direct linkage between the two issues? b. “I believe he’s having a nervous breakdown now”


(2) a. …si es de eso de lo que estamos hablando “…if (it) is of that of what (we) are talking” b. …es evidente que en el momento actual nadie está pensando en un viaje a Marte “…(it) is evident that in the actual moment nobody is thinking of a trip to Mars”

2. Gradual progression. There is a drastic difference in frequency of realization. Whereas it is fairly frequent in English (7.4% of frequency rate), it is rather rare in Spanish, occuring in 0.3% of all the functional realizations of the progressive constructions. This is due to the fact that there is another resource which typically realizes this function in Spanish, namely, Ir + G (Izquierdo, 2008). This prompts a careful use of ‘Be + G-P’ and Estar + G as equivalent resources when gradual progression is to be expressed. As a matter of fact, the Spanish periphrasis Ir + G might be a better equivalent in Spanish. Yet, it is possible to make use of the progressive construction as long as its syntactic surroundings favour the realization of gradual progression. There are two main issues to bear in mind concerning the realization of this function. According to the data, in English this meaning depends to a great extent on the lexical content of the G-P. A second factor to consider is the interplay of co-textual elements which add gradation to the action in progress, such as comparative adverbials. Whereas the lexical nature of the gerund form is more prominent in English, the grammatical support of adverbials modifying the action is required for Estar + G to convey gradual progression.

(3) It was getting close to eleven o’clock, and soon it would be time for the raging mob to be let in. (4) La crítica a esta educación bancaria que imparten las escuelas está siendo cada día mayor. “Criticism to this bank education that schools teach is being every day bigger.”

3. Iteration. This function refers to an action that has been taking place over a certain period of time, repeatedly, but not successively. Both English and Spanish progressives convey iteration, so they can be used as translation equivalents without compromising the acceptability of the translation. It is slightly more frequent in Spanish (5.2%) than in English (4.1%). However, there are some idyosincrasies of realization the translator should take into account. To begin with, Spanish provides other means for conveying iteration (Izquierdo, 2008), and even if they are not as frequent as the combination Estar + G, they are common enough for translators to have a choice and enrich their TTs. Moreover, whereas these constructions, referred to as perífrasis de gerundio, convey iteration through a combination


of the lexical nature of the main verb5 and that of co-textual elements, Estar + G always needs co-textual support for modifying the original progressive meaning into an iterative one. In relation to this, some similarities are observed between English and Spanish. The function of iteration can be further subdivided into three sub-functions whose realization derives from the influence of co-text. These shades of meaning are duration, approximation and subjectivity. A difference in frequency of occurrence affects the last two, since approximation is the least frequent in Spanish. With regard to duration, the progressive construction is always surrounded by adverbials of time that refer to the duration of the action, as shown in examples 5 and 6.

(5) Because I’ve been working here for years and you’ve never so much as noticed me and now you’re so curious. (6) Tres días estuvieron mirando al cielo “Three days were (they) looking at the sky”

In relation to subjectivity, there is a key co-textual element that adds the subjective connotation to the progressive in both languages, namely ‘always’ and its referential equivalent siempre (cf. examples 7 and 8).

(7) He is facinated by the unknown and his enquiring mind is always looking for answers

(8) Tú siempre estás hablando de Dios “You always are talking about God”

Concerning approximation, both languages tend to present the action in perfective aspect, formally indicated by the present perfect and past perfect tenses. As a matter of fact, the data suggest that it is the combination of these tenses and some co-textual support that triggers the approximative meaning. Likewise, the co-text includes adverbials realized by prepositional phrases (PP) headed by ‘since’ (desde) ‘since’, ‘from’ or hasta (‘till’), prepositions which mark either the moment from which or the moment up to which the action has been developing, as illustrated in examples 9 and 10.

(9) What the hell have you two been doing since you set up practice where you did?

(10) Después, y como desde tiempos inmemoriales han estado haciendo los pastores, las dejaban triscar por los riscos “Later, and as from old times have been doing the shepherds, (they) let them graze in the cliffs”


4. Inchoation. Inchoative progressives might refer to the (near) beginning of the action, which is not a very frequent function (1.8% and 1.6% realization share in English and Spanish) and always depends on co-textual information. The most recurrent resources are ‘already’ and ya in the two languages, respectively, as seen in examples 11 and 12. (11) Even at this early stage secular and religious (allegorical) interpretations were already doing battle with each other. (12) … y me hace gritar, pero que en cuanto termina ya estoy pensando: “venga, a ver cuando empezamos otra vez.” “…and makes me scream, but as soon as it is over, already I am thinking: “okay, let’s see when we start again.””

The low frequency of this function might be due to the existence of other resources whose degree of typicality for expressing this meaning is higher, such as the so-called semiperiphrases, comprising a main verb which lexically implies inchoation followed by the G-P and G, such as ‘Begin + G-P’ or Empezar + G (Izquierdo, 2008). 5. Continuation. Progressive constructions might also express continuation, although very infrequently (1.7% in English and 0.3% in Spanish), as there are other central expressive resources (Izquierdo, 2008). A common occurrence in the realization of this meaning is the need for co-textual support through ‘still’ in English, and aun and todavía in Spanish. Concordances 13 and 14 provide examples of this function. (13) I was still using in 1984 packets of sprouts, winter cauliflower and sprouting broccoli I bought from Chases (14) Aún le estoy esperando. “Still for him am (I) waiting”

The observation of the concordances extracted from the comparable corpus reveals important features of the functionality of the resources under contrast. The progressive meaning is characteristic of all the semantic functions realized by the English and Spanish progressive constructions. However, in certain co-texts other meanings overlap and, somehow through the intervention of co-textual elements, impose another semantic function. This, in turn, provides evidence of the relevance of co(n)text in meaning making, which also justifies, even demands, the need for corpora in the analysis of language use. From a contrastive point of view, such an observation reveals a more autonomous functionality of the English progressive construction, which might realize some semantic functions by itself. It should be pointed out, though, that this stems from the influence of the lexical nature of the gerund form, which might well be possible in Spanish too. As such, it seems selfevident how grounded in the lexico-grammar the functionality of language is.


70

60,2

60 50 40 30 20 10

25,3 6

2,4

1,8

1,2

1,2

0,9

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,05

0,05

Ad vP

PP Pr ed ic at ive G

G

G

Ad De jP sc rip tiv e Su bA dv

TR Ad ju nc t

NP

No

VP Es Pe tar G rip hr as es In fin iti ve

0

Figure 2. Translational options for the English progressive constructions.

Along with commonalities, the contrastive stage identifies mismatches or lack of correspondences between the English and Spanish progressives which also shape their degree of common functionality. The most outstanding feature is the wider array of functions realized in English, which leads to two major conclusions for translators. First, if, according to the data, certain functions are not realized by the Spanish counterpart, translators will keep on the safe side as long as they do not make use of it. Therefore, the mismatches identified are anchor phenomena for assessing translation quality. Second, there is no reason to assume that these functions cannot be expressed in Spanish, so translators should try to find the means whereby Spanish conveys such meanings. Such a search would be a daunting task if undertaken a priori and with a comparable corpus, so an alternative source of information is needed. This study advocates the use of real translations as an empirical source of functional correspondences which have not been captured in a comparable corpus, and that is why the CFA is complemented with a parallelcorpus-based DTS, as reported upon in Section 5. All in all, an assessement of how functionally equivalent two resources are indicates how translatable they are. In other words, contrasting functionality is the first step in describing translatability. 5. Description of translatability The advantage of analysing real translations is twofold: first, the translated usage of the assumed equivalent as well as other equivalents previously identified in a CFA can be tested, with the aim of enlarging the knowledge on translation as both


process and product. Second, new equivalents are found, broadening the repertoire of equivalent resources from which translators might choose to carry out their task. Importantly, corpus data also provide information on typicality and cotext, which, as already stated, define the functionality of a given linguistic resource in a given communicative setting, be it spontaneous or translated. Aware of this, translators have at their disposal the means to produce an acceptable TT. This DTS pursues a twofold aim as well: first, it seeks to observe the functionality of Estar + G in translations, which is not really spontaneous but a deliberate response to another functional pattern in the OT. This assessment will, in turn, reveal the degree of translatability of English and Spanish progressive constructions. Second, there is great interest in identifying other translational options, which will be classified per semantic function, in order to enlarge the patterns of translatability between English and Spanish. In addition, the functional classification of these options would make it possible to readily spot which of these options, if any, are preferred for conveying a given, original meaning. Considering all the translational options together, the data suggest a repertoire of thirteen possibilities, some of which display a significant frequency, whereas others are very much peripheral, as illustrated in Figure 2. The codes for each translational option are the following: Verb Phrase (VP), Noun Phrase (NP), if no translation has been provided, (No TR), Gerund Adjunct (G Adjunct), Adjectival Phrase (AdjP), Descriptive Gerund (G Descriptive), Subordinate Adverbial Clause (SubAdv), Prepositional Phrase (PP), Predicative Gerund (G Predicative) and Adverbial Phrase (AdvP). Despite the great number of possibilities provided by the corpus, only three of them can be considered recurrent functional equivalents, on the criteria that they occur over a hundred times and are used to translate any of the semantic functions realized by the English texts. These options are the VP (with a 60.2% share of usage), the Spanish progresssive construction Estar + G (25.3%) and complex VPs referred to as Periphrases (6%), which comprise several combinations, some of them lexically motivated by certain functions and therefore preferred over others. Without considering the wide functionality of the English progressive construction, the vast superiority of the VP as an equivalent might be surprising at first glance. However, that is precisely the phenomenon we should be aware of not only as expected but also acceptable, since the frequency of usage of each of these options refers to the whole sample analysed, including both shared and uncommon functions to English and Spanish progressives. In other words, having Estar + G as the most frequent option would have likely been due to source language influence (translationese) (Mauranen, 2002). The low frequency of occurrence of the remaining options accounts for their low degree of functional equivalence. Moreover, most of these options are of a


different syntagmatic nature, which diminishes their functional match with the OTs as well. In fact, the bulk of them are the result of a translation shift, whereby the target resource is far from the original one on the syntagmatic axis, so that the link between OT and TT is kept by means of lexical content alone. The three main options are expected to express certain semantic functions with different frequency rates and co-text influence. An advantage of classifying the translations functionally is the possibility to observe whether the progressive has been used to translate those functions which are not usually realized by such a resource in spontaneous Spanish, as presented in Table 2. If this is observed, instances of translationese could be confirmed. Let us, therefore, comment upon the options found per semantic function from a functional approach, recording frequency of occurrence, co-textual information and also the degree of immediacy within the syntagmatic axis of the translation option. 1. Progression. This is the only function for which there is at least one instance of each of the thirteen options found. The two most recurrent equivalents are the VP and Estar + G, occurring 61.9% and 26.7% of the time, respectively. Most of the original English progressive constructions occur in either the past or present tenses. Spanish presente simple and imperfecto are used to convey the idea of temporariness and incompleteness that the progressives imply, which makes them a suitable, functional, equivalent (Rabadán, 2009). Therefore, this might explain such a high frequency of occurrence. In third and fourth position are an infinitive and the periphrasis, representing 2.6% and 2.1% of usage each. When the English progressive corresponds to a Spanish infinitive, a process of grammatical shift is observed because the infinitive takes on a different syntactic role which is, in most instances, the direct object of another main VP; a noun adjacent or the subject of a sentence. The remaining instances consist of periphrases where the second element is an infinitive which lexically corresponds to the G-P of the English progressive. The periphrasis the infinitive belongs to is the result of a process of either elaboration on the part of the translator, or of merging of elements from the original so that the content is preserved, as shown by example 15.6 (15) a. “Are you saying that toe jam is flammable?” b. ¿Quieres decir que la roña de los pies es inflamable?

In relation to the periphrases found (30 occurrences), there are various combinations: eleven instances of Ir a + Inf., five cases of Seguir + G, four instances of Empezar a + Inf., two occurrences of Ir + G and one of Continuar + G, Ponerse a + Inf’ and Tener que + Inf. All of these combinations introduce a change in meaning, mainly through the lexical content of the main verb, for some of them mark a stage in the process of development of the action, as is the case of example 16.


(16) a. Today the fishermen of Massachusetts are reduced to fishing the hideous hagfish, for which there is a slight market in the Far East, but even their numbers are now falling. b. Hoy día, los pescadores de Massachusetts sólo pueden pescar el repugnante ciclóstomo, para el que todavía existe un pequeño mercado en Extremo Oriente, pero ya empieza a escasear.

The remaining functions are evenly distributed and are so infrequent that their degree of translatability with the English progressive construction cannot be ascertained. At the same time, these options consist of resources that are very far from the progressives on the syntagmatic axis of the language, which reflects a low degree of functional equivalence. As a matter of fact, I would claim that these resources, per se, hold no correspondence with the progressives. If they appear in the translations and work as the target half of the translation unit, this is due to the co-textual information that has triggered them. Such co-textual information accounts for their acceptability too, even if they are not close equivalents with the OTs. These options in order of frequency of use are: NP (2.1%), No TR (1.3%), G Adjunct (1.1%), AdjP (0.6%), G Descriptive (0.5%), SubAdv (0.5%), PP (0.3%), G Predicative (0.07%) and AdvP (0.07%). 2. Temporary State. Nine different resources have been used to translate English progressives referring to a temorary state. As occurs with progression, the most frequently used option is the VP, taking a 67.7% share of usage. Estar + G is second with an 18.9% frequency rate. According to the results obtained in the CFA, this is not a function usually realized by Estar + G, which calls the acceptability of these TTs into question. On inspecting the concordances found, however, I observe that they are not agrammatical, nor do they sound unidiomatic. What is common to all these concordances is their emphatic force, i.e., they all seem to emphasize a state or situation, as example 17 shows. (17) a. Perhaps Niketas is being a touch too harsh here, given that there was no certainty of an attack… b. Acaso Nicetas esté siendo demasiado severo aquí, pues hasta el acuerdo entre el príncipe Alejo y los cruzados en Zara no había ninguna certeza…

This emphatic force is actually a feature of some of the spontaneously produced concordances analysed in the CFA, although it has been recorded as a secondary functional feature. Therefore, even if this is not a central function of the Spanish progressive, in certain co-texts, it might be considered a sub-function, which could well validate the translational option as an acceptable and correct functional equivalent.


On the other hand, some of the Estar + G occurrences are the result of a shift in point of view whereby the Spanish progressive construction is no longer conveying temporary state, but ‘progression’, as seen in example 18. (18) a. Justin, you are being outrageously misused b. Justin, están abusando de ti de una manera indignante

All the other options, with ten or fewer occurrences, display a similar frequency: AdjP (3.25%), Periphrases (2.9%), NP (2.3%), Infinitive (1.95%), PP (1.3%), No TR (1%), G Adjunct (0.3%) and G Predicative (0.3%). There are various periphrases, amongst which no recurrent pattern of one given semantic connotation has been observed. As happens with the periphrases associated with the function of progression, the periphrastic phrase adds semantic information which is not really interpreted in the OT. Such an option might be motivated by further information extracted not from the nearby co-text but from the whole story where the concordances have been extracted. An example of this is the pair 19a-b. (19) a. To add to my stress, I was too busy to do any writing and I was having withdrawal symptoms b. Para colmo de males estaba demasiado ocupada para poder escribir y empezaba a tener mono

This concordance has been taken from a novel about a girl writing a book but she is so busy taking care of her mother and with her job that she cannot spend as long as she yearns to go on writing. That is why it is possible for the translator to interpret the withdrawal symptons as something arising from her stressful state. Temporary state is the function for which the number of AdjPs as translational option is the highest, which might well be due to their characterizing nature. A state usually describes a quality of someone or something, so an AdjP seems an accurate resource from a cognitive point of view. The example pair 20a-b illustrates this interpretation. (20) a. …whenever we claim that those who are being unrealistic are “in denial” b. …al decir que una persona poco realista es “negativa”

3. Iteration. There are 165 realizations of this function. 151 of them convey duration, whereas the other 14 imply subjectivity. No instances of approximation have been observed in this sample. Irrespective of the semantic connotation, three recurrent options have been used: VP, Estar + G and Periphrases. The majority of VPs are perfective, either past perfect or present perfect. These tenses codify an action that stretches over a certain period of time, which conveys a durative sense to the action. The same happens with 53.6% of the instances of


Estar + G, as seen in example 21. The usage of Estar + G as a translational option is correct if contrasted with its spontaneous usage in the CFA. Not only does it usually convey this meaning, but it does so in an appropriate co-text, which is also triggered in the TT. (21) a. “You’ve been preparing forty years for that presentation,” someone said to the Dalai Lama… b. Usted ha estado preparándose durante cuarenta años para esa presentación — dijo entonces alguien al Dalai Lama-.

A recurrent periphrasis is Llevar + G, which is a central Spanish resource for realizing iteration-duration (Izquierdo, 2008). In all the occurrences found, there is a clear interplay between the periphrasis and co-text, which example 22 shows. (22) a. Meanwhile, you’ve been working for about ten minutes on plugging the final figures into the budget, and you need about another twenty minutes to finish the task. b. Mientras tanto, lleva usted unos diez minutos tratando de encajar las últimas cifras en el presupuesto y sabe que necesita otros veinte minutos para acabar la tarea.

There are other periphrases which occur only once each and, as observed, introduce a semantic shift with regard to the OT as happens in example 23. (23) a. We’d just been looking for our friend, Mr. Officer, whom we last saw enter this store yesterday b. Acabábamos de venir en busca de un amigo nuestro, señor agente, al que vimos entrar en esta tienda ayer

4. Future Intention. The VP is by far the most frequently used option with a 71.8% share of usage. Most of the VPs are conjugated in futuro simple and a significantly high group of them (11.4%) in a conditional tense, which along with the subjective connotation of probability refers to a future time as well. The second most recurrent option is the periphastic combination Ir a + Inf., (24.5%), which is the Spanish referential equivalent of ‘be going to + Inf.’, which is common English to refer to future predictions (cf. example 24). The remaining options occur 3 or fewer times, which represents less than 3% share of usage. (24) a. They’re not throwing me out after that. b. No me van a expulsar después de eso.

5. Temporary Habit. 3 options have been found as translation of English progressive constructions which express temporary habit, namely VP (67.85%), Estar + G (30.95%) and one instance of the periphrasis Ir a + Inf. (1.2%).


(25) a. Harkness asked, “Your son was training for the ministry?” b. “¿Su hijo estudiaba para ser sacerdote?” — preguntó Harkness

As happens with temporary state, this function might be considered a sub-function of progression, which would explain the high frequency of usage of Estar + G as a TT. My interpretation is that the idea of habit, as well as of state, derives mainly from the lexical nature of the G and surrounding co-textual information. The fact that the combination in a progressive construction is more frequent in English than in Spanish accounts for their status as an independent semantic function. Therefore, I would claim that the parallel-corpus-based study reveals a functionally and communicatively acceptable option where the degree of functional equivalence is not as high as that of other options. (26) a. How long were you going out? b. ¿Cuánto tiempo estuvisteis saliendo?

6. Inchoation. This is one of the functions for which the first translational option in terms of frequency is the periphrasis, which takes up 42.9% of all the translated sample. It follows the VP with 31.4% and Estar + G with 21.4%. The remaining options are either an instance of omission, for there is no real translation (2.9%), or a NP (1.4%). The periphrases used for translating English inchoative progressives are Empezar a + Inf. and Comenzar a + Inf., together with the combination Estar Empezando a + Inf. All these periphrases convey inchoation lexically by means of the main verb comenzar and empezar (English ‘begin’ and ‘start’). It does not seem so easy to observe the inchoative meaning in the VPs alone, unless they resort to adverbial support to mark the beginning of the action, or there is a lexical elaboration into Spanish. Compare examples 27–29 for an illustration of this. (27) a. Soon local businesses are hanging “no colours” signs in the windows, and rednecks are roaming the streets… b. Al poco tiempo los comercios locales empiezan a poner en los escaparates carteles de “no se admiten gentes de color” y los matones se lanzan a la calle… (28) a. I pulled on my mask and saw that the rest of them were already going down b. Me puse las gafas y vi que los demás buceadores descendían (29) a. Justin was speaking at last. b. Justin se decidió por fin a hablar.


Something similar happens with the instances of Estar + G. The CFA revealed a frequent use of the Spanish progressive to convey inchoation, as long as there was co-textual information which contributed to its realization. Only a couple of occurrences contain adverbials like ya (‘already’), which makes it easier to interpret the inchoative meaning (cf. example 30), but there are other types of information, such as the lexical nature of certain VPs. (30) a. She was already holding the vase over the basin b. Ella estaba ya sosteniendo el jarrón encima de la pileta

7. Gradual Progression. The analysis reveals 4 translational options, namely, the VP (47.4%), Estar + G (21%), Periphrases (8%) and one Infinitive (1.8%). As observed, there are 3 recurrent options whose frequency of usage is quite even, which makes the fourth option rather peripheral. Co-text contributes to the idea of gradual progression when the English OT is translated into Spanish by means of a VP. (31) a. The sea is eating away the sandy cliffs year by year b. Cada año, el mar erosiona un poco más las arenosas paredes de los acantilados

With regard to Estar + G, it is more common to find adverbials which add gradation to the action referred to by the periphrasis as illustrated in example 32. (32) a. But now, across Africa, these voices are vanishing one by one. b. Pero ahora estos sonidos están desapareciendo uno por uno de África.

Likewise, the meaning is realized through the lexical nature of the gerund form, which frequently derives from merging the original ‘getting + adjective’ pattern, as observed in example 33. (33) a. Bill went on: “I’m getting way better. (EGM1E.s117) You’ve got to admit it.” b. Bill continuaba: “Estoy mejorando mucho, tienes que admitirlo…”

The most frequently used periphrasis is Ir + G, which frequently conveys this meaning in Spanish (Izquierdo, 2008). 8. General Validity. 5 options have been found, although just 2 could be considered strong equivalent resources due to their high frequency and syntagmatic nature. These options are the VP and Estar + G. However, the Spanish progressive does not realize this function according to the insights gained in the CFA (cf. Table 2). Therefore, its high frequency in translations is a result of an overuse of the Spanish progressive, which I believe to be due to the formal re-


semblance between progressives in the two languages, on the basis of which their correspondence has long been maintained. Applying the same criteria for deciding on the degree of equivalence, this is rather low with the marginal equivalents such as G Adjunct, Infinitive and one periphrasis. As such, the VP seems to be the most acceptable option as can be seen in example 34. (34) a. …the longer the forms of the gene a person is carrying, the higher will be their score… b. …cuanto más largas sean las formas de los genes que porta una persona, mayor será su puntuación…

9. Continuation. This is another semantic function for which the periphrasis seems the closest equivalent, as there are 18 combinations whose main verb conveys the idea of continuation inherently, namely Seguir + G and Continuar + G, the former being the preferred one. (35) a. …and PCBs are still pouring into the world’s waters from industrializing nations. b. …y los PCB siguen cayendo a las aguas del mundo, procedentes de las naciones industrializadas.

Most of the cases of Estar + G are surrounded by an adverbial that contributes directly to the function of continuation, such as todavía and aun. (36) a. We’re still tracking the money. b. Aún estamos tratando de localizar el origen del dinero.

In relation to the VP, co-text plays an important role in all the instances found as shown by example 37. (37) a. I must have still been wearing beer goggles. b. Probablemente todavía llevaba mis gafas de cerveza.

10. Result. Even though the realization of such a function is not proper of the Spanish progressive, 4 instances of Estar + G have been found amongst the translational options, along with other 4 instances of VP and 3 NPs. The translated usage of Estar + G is interpreted as a misuse on the part of the translator motivated by the close, formal resemblance between the English and Spanish progressive constructions. NPs are a result of a grammatical shift where the equivalence in meaning between OT and TT is kept through the lexical content of the NP, as observed in example 38.


(38) a. …, and all that’s happening is that the number of injuries to the arm is exploding. b. …, y el único resultado es la multiplicación del número de lesiones de brazo.

On its own, the DTS reveals patterns of translatability which would escape a contrastive analysis initiated on the principle of formal, assumed similarity, as is the case for the comparable-corpus-based contrast reported upon in Section 4. Moroever, the translational options observed enlarge the repertoire of functionally corresponding resources between the SL and the TL, consisting, at least, of the Spanish progressive. Nevertheless, their degree of equivalence might differ in terms of their functionality in non-translated contexts, which would trigger a (back) contrastive analysis between each of these resources and the English progressive. In this way, the relationship between CFA and DTS proves interdependent. Varying degrees of equivalence mirror a hierarchy of translational options whose usage would differ in terms of frequency and function similarity, which translators ought to keep in mind so as to resort to the option with highest acceptability. In other words, by analysing authentic translations and contrasting functional equivalents, it is possible to come up with a list of descriptively prescriptive guidelines for future translations. These guidelines reflect real translation behaviour so, by following them, translators might assure the acceptability and correctness of their choice. 6. Conclusions and applications The insights gained from this study are several and various, when considering the CFA and the DTS individually. However, it is from the combination of both analyses that the greatest benefits derive, both for research on language usage and for its applications. The following conclusions on English-Spanish translation have been reached: – English and Spanish progressives can be described in the same functional terms; their features can be juxtaposed and contrasted and the results obtained are representative of their native usage. In this way, it is easier to assure an acceptable translation. – After juxtaposing the functionality of each resource, it is obvious that the two cannot always be considered functional equivalents, hence their degree of translatability is already hinted at. – The CFA has revealed that the English progressive is functionally more complex, becoming a problem-trigger for translators.


– The CFA has also brought to light mismatches which must necessarily have another equivalent resource in Spanish. The identification of other equivalents is a task easily completed by analysing real translations, which justifies the suitability of a prallel-corpus-based DTS for complementing a comparablecorpus-based CFA. – Chesterman’s (1998) defense of initiating contrast on the assumption of formal similarities is reinforced and proves a correct path for observing language usage cross-linguistically. – Simultaneously, however, Sajavaara’s (1985) claim that formal resemblance is not always an advantage is empirically confirmed by contrasting the authentic usage of English and Spanish progressive constructions. The implications for translation include awareness of differences as well as of similarities. Both shape patterns of translatability: the former by motivating various translational options and the latter by establishing different degrees of equivalence. – There is a one-to-many repertoire of translational options for the English progressive construction. Each translational option is functionally motivated, which implies a hierarchical usage in terms of the meanings to be conveyed, under given circumstances. This repertoire is believed to be many-to-many if the various translational options observed in Spanish were contrasted with other counterparts in English.7 – The study highlights the need to analyse native texts and real translations, so as to extend applications within the field of DTS. – As expected, the usage of the most recurrent translational options varies according function. One example of such an extension is the elaboration — and application — of the descriptively prescriptive guidelines that were mentioned at the end of Section 5. Some guidelines concerning the progressives might be as follows: – The perceived similarity between the English and Spanish progressives refelcts a real cross-linguistic relationship. However, caution should be applied when using them as translation equivalents, as not always do they express the same meanings. – The difference in frequency of usage of the progressives in either language has to do with the meanings to be conveyed. This is also due to the possibility of using other verb patterns which exist in Spanish. Thus, translators ought to become familiar with as many options of translation as possible in the target language, so that their product is acceptable for the target audience. – The English progressive, when used to convey progression, without added connotations, is a strong equivalent of the Spanish progressive. The VP is an equally strong equivalent, so translators might choose either of them to realize


such a meaning. When the English progressive expresses ‘iteration’, its Spanish counterpart always needs co-textual elements which contribute to meaning making. – When the English progressive conveys future intention, the Spanish progressive is not an acceptable equivalent. Rather, the translator ought to use a VP in the future simple tense. – English ‘be + G-P’ is often used to convey meanings which are not typical of the Spanish progressive. The use of a VP is a safe translational option, not only in these contexts but also in others where estar + G works. These guidelines are conceived of as recommendations for translators to improve the quality of their translations on the basis of insights gained from corpus-based, contrastive and descriptive language usage.

Notes * Research for this article has been undertaken as part of the ACTRES program, funded by the regional government of Castilla y León, Spain [LE025A09], and by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [FFI 2009–08548]. I want to thank Prof. Dr. Roberts (UOttawa) for comments on the paper and Dr. Veronica Colwel (ULE) for language check. 1. Translatability is understood as the functional equivalence between linguistic resources belonging to different languages. 2 BoE stands for Bank of English, compiled by Cobuild and accessible online under subscription. CREA stands for Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual, which can be browsed free of charge on www.crea.es. 3. I aknowledge the difficulty in achieving absolute comparability, but for the purposes of the present piece of research, the degree attained is suitable. Furthermore, it is necessary to make do with whatever is possible, for total comparability is a remote possibility. 4. As an example, consider the combination of aun está haciendo as equivalent to the periphrasis sigue haciendo, where the main verb bears the content of continuation lexically. 5. There are three main patterns: llevar (‘take’), venir (‘come’) and andar (‘walk’), all followed by the Spanish G. 6. Part b of the examples refers to the Spanish translation. 7. This will be tested as soon as P-ACTRES contains Spanish texts and their translation into English.


References Alameda R. and Cuetos, F. 1995. Diccionario de frecuencia de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano. Oviedo: Universidad. Bondarko. A. 1991. Functional Grammar. A Field Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Izquierdo M. 2008. “Estudio contrastivo y de traducción de las construcciones de –ing inglesas y sus equivalentes en español”. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of León. Izquierdo, M., Hofland, K. and Reigem, Ø. 2008. “The ACTRES Parallel Corpus: An EnglishSpanish Translation Corpus”. Corpora 3(1):31–41. Labrador de la Cruz, B. 2005. Estudio contrastivo de la cuantifiación inglés-español. León: Universidad de León. Leech, G., Rayson, P. and Wilson, A. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman. Available online at http://www. comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/bncfreq [last accessed 20th May 2012]. Mauranen, A. 2002. “Will ‘translationese’ Ruin a Contrastive Study?” Languages in Contrast 2(2):161–185. Rabadán R. 2002. “Normativity and Functionality in Translation English-Spanish: Theory and Contrast”. Proceedings from the XXVI Aedean Conference, 725–733. Rabadán R. 2008. “Refining the Idea of ‘Applied Extensions’ ”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni (eds.), 103–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rabadán R. 2009. “The Present Tenses in English and in Spanish: A Corpus-Based Approach to Cross-linguistic Meaning and Grammatical Transfer”. In Cognitive Approaches to Language and Linguistic Data. Studies in Honour of Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, O. Wieslaw and P. Stalmaszczyk (eds.), 461–478. Frankfurt-Am-Main: Peter Lang. Ramón García, N. 2003. Estudio Contrastivo inglés-español de la caracterización de sustantivos. Léon: Universidad de León. Römer, U. 2005. Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy. A Corpus-driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sajavaara, K. 1985. “Language Processes in Contrast: Contrastive Analysis revisited.” In Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language. Festschrift for Robert Lado on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, 253–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Author’s address Marlén Izquierdo Departamento de Filología Moderna University of León Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Campus de Vegazana s/n 24171, León Spain [email protected]