The Translator
ISSN: 1355-6509 (Print) 1757-0409 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20
Corpus triangulation: combining data and methods in corpus-based translation studies Chonglong Gu To cite this article: Chonglong Gu (2017): Corpus triangulation: combining data and methods in corpus-based translation studies, The Translator, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2018.1411639 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2018.1411639
Published online: 06 Dec 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 43
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrn20 Download by: [95.150.147.171]
Date: 15 December 2017, At: 06:37
THE TRANSLATOR, 2018
BOOK REVIEW
Downloaded by [95.150.147.171] at 06:37 15 December 2017
Corpus triangulation: combining data and methods in corpus-based translation studies, by Sofia Malamatidou, London and New York, Routledge, 2018, 190 pp., £105.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-138-94850-1 The technological affordances of corpus tools and techniques have revolutionised the way we approach a range of translational phenomena, enabling us to challenge some of the long held beliefs within the field. Having weathered its initial teething years and ‘teenage angst’ (Olohan 2004, 1), corpus-based translation studies (CTS) has gradually entered into adulthood and is now at a stage of consolidation. Sofia Malamatidou’s Corpus Triangulation: Combining Data and Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies is undoubtedly, as she describes, part of this ‘coming of age’ (3). The book is organised into two parts: theoretical and methodological discussions of the proposed corpus triangulation approach (chapters 1–4) followed by empirical applications of the approach in two case studies (chapters 5–8). In the introductory chapter 1, Malamatidou starts by providing an overview of how ‘triangulation’ is generally understood within translation studies before critically reviewing the application of triangulation within corpus-based translation studies thus far. She argues that, despite the acknowledgement that corpus-based translation studies has much to gain from the idea, the use of triangulation in previous studies within the field has been largely restricted and ad hoc. As such, previous attempts have not been conducted in the ‘genuine spirit of triangulation’ and are thus not ‘real’ (5) or ‘successful’ (19) triangulation. This, therefore, highlights the need to achieve ‘corpus triangulation’ in a more principled and integrated manner, which involves combining different data sources and different methods. This idea is extended in chapter 2, which engages with the concept of triangulation and, more importantly, corpus triangulation. Originally a concept in mathematics and first used in land surveying and navigation, triangulation is increasingly applied in disciplines, including the social sciences, in order to reduce researcher bias and yield more objective results. Beginning from Denzin’s (1989) general definition of triangulation as ‘the combination of multiple (two or more) theories, data sources, methods, or investigators in one study of a single phenomenon’ (25), Malamatidou proffers a definition of corpus triangulation as ‘the combination, in an integrated manner, of multiple (two or more) corpus values and/or attributes from one or more corpus variables and/or the use of (two or more) corpus analysis techniques in one study of a single phenomenon’ (34). Put simply, the corpus triangulation approach at the very core of her book consists of 1) corpus data triangulation and 2) corpus method triangulation. Such a comprehensive definition permits an application of the approach in corpus-based translation studies in a systematic manner. In chapter 3, attention is focused specifically on corpus data triangulation. Given the previous ambiguous and sometimes confusing use of key concepts in corpus-based translation studies, Malamatidou firstly provides a definition for ‘corpus’ as used in the book (43). This is followed by a critical review of the respective merits and demerits of Laviosa’s and Zanettin’s typologies. Malamatidou argues that the first typology is detailed but intricate and repetitive and the second is economical yet too restricted; consequently, she introduces a novel VVA (Variables, Values, and Attributes) typology. This is at the heart of the proposed corpus triangulation framework and promises to be a ‘golden mean’ (45) between Laviosa’s and Zanettin’s typologies. The variables in this typology include ‘type’ (e.g. parallel, comparable or reference corpora), ‘languages’ (e.g.
Downloaded by [95.150.147.171] at 06:37 15 December 2017
2
BOOK REVIEW
monolingual, bilingual or multilingual corpora), ‘time’ (e.g. synchronic or diachronic corpora) and ‘texts’ (e.g. translated, non-translated corpora). The variables can then be assigned different values, which in turn can be further defined based on specific attributes if deemed necessary by the researcher (e.g. the specific languages for the ‘languages’ variable). As such, Malamatidou’s proposed triangulation of corpus data is both ‘comprehensive and flexible’ (55), featuring a range of different combinations (e.g. the possibility of combining values from the same or different variables or combining attributes from the same or different values). Drawing on this new VVA typology, corpus data triangulation makes it possible for researchers to investigate the same translational phenomenon from different aspects, thus leading to more rigorous and objective research within CTS. This is of particular significance considering that traditionally different corpora (e.g. parallel and comparable corpora) have been viewed as separate entities, rather than data that can be profitably used in a complementary manner. Chapter 4 discusses the second core component of the proposed corpus triangulation approach, that is, corpus method triangulation, defined as the employment ‘of (two or more) corpus analysis techniques in one study of a single phenomenon’ (60). Corpus method triangulation can be broadly categorised into two subtypes: between-method corpus triangulation (the combined use of methods from different paradigms involving, for example, qualitative and quantitative techniques) and within-method corpus triangulation (the combined use of methods from the same research paradigm, for instance, quantitative). Since the combined use of qualitative and quantitative analyses (between-method) is not unusual in corpus-based translation studies, more emphasis in this chapter is placed on within-method triangulation featuring the combined use of various quantitative methods. According to Malamatidou, within-method corpus triangulation happens when one or more descriptive statistical analyses (e.g. type-token ratios, raw frequency and normalised frequency of certain items) are combined with one or more inferential statistical analyses (e.g. Log Likelihood and MI statistical tests). For Malamatidou, corpus method triangulation is ‘most successful when different types of triangulation are used complementarily’ (67). As such, the very advantage of such corpus method triangulation lies in the fact that both within-method and betweenmethod triangulations can be combined. This promises to lead to even more in-depth and reliable research as the data is probed from a variety of different perspectives. From such theoretical and methodological underpinnings, the second part of the book seeks to operationalise the proposed corpus triangulation approach in two empirical case studies. Drawing on a 9-million-word corpus containing non-translated and translated Russian texts and their English source texts, the first case study (chapters 5 and 6) investigates the language of translation and, more specifically, the factors that might affect adversative connectives distribution (English-Russian). It is found that adversative connective use is affected by a complex interplay of various factors including genrespecific considerations, audience and influences from both the source and target language. Finally, the proposed corpus triangulation approach is again applied in chapters 7 and 8 to explore the (possible) link between language change and translation through focusing on cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions (English-Greek). The study is based on a corpus containing non-translated Greek and English popular science articles along with translated Greek articles of the same genre and their corresponding English source texts. Although the quantitative findings cannot pinpoint a change in the frequency of the constructions under investigation in Greek, qualitative analysis points to a possible hypothesis that, as a result of contact with English through translation, some changes might be found in their patterning in Greek. Given its theoretical and technical nature, this might be a potentially daunting book for readers unfamiliar with corpus-based translation studies. Nevertheless, it contributes greatly
Downloaded by [95.150.147.171] at 06:37 15 December 2017
THE TRANSLATOR
3
to CTS by integrating corpus data and corpus methods, and is highly thought-provoking in that it opens up a range of interesting methodological discussions for future researchers. For instance, the proposed framework is fruitfully applied to the two case studies focusing on pre-selected and (semi) fixed linguistic features, that is, adversative connectives and (pseudo)clefts, partially because they ‘lend themselves more easily to’ (78) and are ‘good candidates’ (123) for systematic corpus analysis. Since the proposed corpus triangulation approach is considered ‘a truly universal framework with wide applicability’ (165) within corpus-based translation studies, it would be interesting to see how this triangulation approach might be systematically applied in certain lines of inquiry exploring, for instance, translator agency and ideological mediation, by drawing on corpus linguistics. This is of particular interest given that ideology and power enacted in discourse are often inconspicuous, subtle and realised in multifarious ways and are sometimes difficult to reduce to one or two formally defined and (semi) fixed linguistic features. The book is also thought-provoking in terms of the potential of this proposed approach for systematic application in corpus-based interpreting studies, an emerging area of scholarly research that draws on corpus linguistic approaches to the investigation of phenomena relating to interpreting and interpreters. As an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies (Shlesinger 1998), corpus-based interpreting studies is beset by various intrinsic challenges from the outset: ‘like all speech, interpreting dies on the air’ (Cencini and Aston 2002, 47). The ‘intrinsic evanescence’ of interpreting data (Shlesinger 1998, 4) often renders interpreting corpora significantly more difficult to be made electronically available, even without taking into account the sheer amount of manual work involved in transcribing (the spoken and possibly the various paralinguistic and multimodal elements), checking and double-checking the transcribed data every step of the way. As such, considering the essentially timeconsuming and labour-intensive nature of the endeavour, establishing even one corpus is a daunting task, let alone the added practical difficulty of building numerous qualified corpora for triangulation purposes. I therefore hope to see more interpreting corpora established in the future – perhaps through collaborative team work – so as to better utilise the method proposed in this book. Finally, the book is to be commended for its various caveats. Since its introduction into the social sciences in the 1960s, ‘triangulation’ has been a popular and increasingly ‘attractive’ concept (Arksey and Knight 1999, 21). Thus, although future researchers in CTS might be tempted to strive for what is considered to be the real or perfect triangulation as a l’art pour l’art fascination or an end in itself, it is worth noting that the decision as to whether to even use triangulation should be a ‘logical conclusion’ of careful reflection on the specific purpose of a study (Ridenour and Newman 2008, 28) rather than a starting point. Just as Malamatidou argues (although in passing), questions as to whether to employ triangulation and to what extent very much hinge on the actual research questions (26), and ‘triangulation for triangulation’s sake’ must be avoided (24). For Malamatidou, the idea of triangulation is meant only to add confidence and credibility to individual projects. Yet, she also warns against this confidence, saying that, ‘although confidence is typically associated with triangulation, caution should be exerted, as increased confidence does not suggest that the data are unquestionable, but rather that triangulation results in rich data’ (36), and that the results ‘reached using a particular corpus are valid only for that corpus, and any generalisations still need to be made with caution’ (55). Clear, coherent and engaging at every turn, this superbly written and highly enlightening book not only reaches its aims but also provides practical and useful material relating to triangulation. It is surely a must-read for researchers and advanced students wishing to gain a more in-depth understanding of corpus-based translation and interpreting studies.
4
BOOK REVIEW
References
Downloaded by [95.150.147.171] at 06:37 15 December 2017
Arksey, H., and P. Knight. 1999. Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Cencini, M., and G. Aston. 2002. “Resurrecting the Corp(Us/Se): Towards an Encoding Standard for Interpreting Data.” In Interpreting in the 21st Century, edited by G. Garzone and M. Viezzi, 47–62. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denzin, N. K. 1989. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Ridenour, C., and I. Newman. 2008. Mixed Methods Research: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Shlesinger, M. 1998. “Corpus-Based Interpreting Studies as an Offshoot of Corpus-Based Translation Studies.” Meta 43 (4): 486–493. doi:10.7202/004136ar.
Chonglong Gu Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, The University of Manchester
[email protected] © 2017 Chonglong Gu https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2018.1411639