The Use of Italian and French Oppositional Connectors and their Translation to Lithuanian in the Opinions of the Advocate General in EUR-Lex
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Use of Italian and French
Oppositional Connectors and their
Translation to Lithuanian in the Opinions
of the Advocate General in EUR-Lex
Prof. Dr Aurelija Leonavičienė
Dr Jurgita Macijauskaitė-Bonda
UCCTS 2021 | Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation
Studies (6th edition)
Bertinoro, 9-11 September 2021Introduction The present paper analyses a specially compiled corpus of the Opinions of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU written in Italian and French and translated into Lithuanian in the years 2018-2020 available in the EUR-Lex database. This comparative corpus covers more than 700 000 items of textual material of legal discourse in Italian, French and Lithuanian. The aim of the research is to analyze oppositional connectors common to French and Italian legal texts and their translation to Lithuanian. The data was converted into the textual format (.txt) and further processed by text analysis software AntConc 3.5.7 (Anthony 2018) which helped to extract word frequency lists and concordances, providing useful information on the contextual use of oppositional connectors and their translation. The total number of oppositional connectors found is 1238 (639 Italian and 599 French).
Comparative data on the use of connectors A comparative analysis on the percentage of oppositional connectors in French and Italian Opinions of Advocate General indicates that 4 oppositional connectors (ma, tuttavia, invece, e (non) are the most frequent in the texts written in Italian, each of them recurring with the frequency of 10% or more. In French texts, 5 connectors (mais, or, toutefois, en revanche, cependant) are equally frequent. To illustrate, IT.: Nel caso di misure eseguite, ma non notificate, si potrebbe tener conto del modo in cui il regime funziona in pratica. (Causa C-362/19 P) FR.:Le sampling sert non pas à produire un phonogramme qui se substitue au phonogramme original, mais à créer une œuvre nouvelle et indépendante de ce phonogramme. (Affaire C-476/17) In translated Lithuanian texts 5 connectors prevail (o (ne), tačiau, vis dėlto, nors, bet). Prevalent translation techniques used to translate Italian and French oppositional connectors to Lithuanian are: 1) direct translation, 2) selecting contextual synonyms, and 3) omission.
No. Italian connectors Frequency Percent
The use of connectors 1.
2.
Ma
Tuttavia
139
138
21,8%
21,6%
No. French connectors Frequency Percent 3. Invece 73 11,4%
4. E (non) 57 8,9%
1. Mais 134 22,3% 5. Pure (pur) 32 5%
2. Or 85 14,2% 6. Mentre 31 4,8%
3. Toutefois 78 13% 7. Sebbene 20 3,1%
4. En revanche 69 11,5% 8. Al contrario 19 2,9%
5. Cependant 57 9,5% 9. (Anche) se 19 2,9%
6. Néanmoins 41 6,8% 10. Però 14 2,2%
7. D’une part ... d’autre part 27 4,5% 11. Contrariamente a 14 2,2%
8. Bien que 20 3,3% 12. Benché 14 2,2%
9. Contrairement à… 18 3% 13. Nonostante 10 1,6%
10. Nonobstant 8 1,3% 14. Da un lato…dall’altro [lato] 10 1,6%
11. Et (non) 8 1,3% 15. A meno che... 6 0,9%
12. Malgré (tout) 7 1,2% 16. Malgrado 6 0,9%
13. Au contraire 7 1,2% 17. Per contro 5 0,8%
14. Quand même 6 1% 18. In caso contrario 4 0,6%
15. Alors que 5 0,8% 19. Peraltro 4 0,6%
16. Quoique 5 0,8% 20. Comunque 3 0,5%
17. Alors même que … 4 0,7% 21. Altronde 3 0,5%
18. Sans que … 4 0,7% 22. Anzi 3 0,5%
19. En dépit de … 4 0,7% 23. Seppure (seppur) 3 0,5%
20. À moins que 3 0,5% 24. Di contro 2 0,3%
21. Par opposition 2 0,3% 25. Pertanto 2 0,3%
22. Par contre 1 0,2% 26. Nondimeno 2 0,3%
23. Inversement 1 0,2% 27. Laddove 2 0,3%
24. À l’inverse 1 0,2% 28. D’altra parte 1 0,2%
25. À l’exclusion 1 0,2% 29. Da una parte…dall’altra parte 1 0,2%
26. En sens contraire 1 0,2% 30. Diversamente da 1 0,2%
27. Pourtant 1 0,2% 31. Bensì 1 0,2%
28. Tandis que 1 0,2% Total number 639 100%
Total number 599 100%Conclusions 1. The quantitative analysis of the use of opposition and concession connectors in a specially compiled corpus of the Opinions of the Advocate General in Italian and French and their Lithuanian translations revealed that the texts of this genre are rich in oppositional connectors: 31 different connectors were found in texts written in Italian and 28 different connectors in French texts. This indicates frequent use, synonymy and lexical competition of connectors in the texts in both analytical Romance languages. 2. 4 most frequently used Italian connectors (which account for 63,7% of all connectors found) and 5 French connectors (which account for 70,5% of all connectors found) may be considered a differential feature of the lexis of the Opinions of the Advocate General written in Italian and French. 3. The comparative analysis of translations from the two Romance languages into Lithuanian shows that connectors o (ne), tačiau, vis dėlto, nors, bet should be considered a differential feature of the lexis of translated texts. They account for 79,3% of the total amount of all cases in the translations from Italian and 69,1% in the translations from French. This indicates that the use of connectors is a common genre feature or a lexical standard. 4. The analysis of the paralleled French-Italian-Lithuanian data (AntPConc, Anthony 2018 a) concordance lines indicated that the use (position in a sentence) of Lithuanian connectors (for example, tačiau) not always conforms to the norms of standard Lithuanian. It provides data on the confrontation between language norm and language reality and probably suggests the necessity to revise the norm.
Bibliography Adam, J. M. (2005). Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Une introduction méthodique à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Nathan. Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (3.5.17) [Windows]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software. Anthony, L. (2018 a). AntConc (1.2.1) [Windows]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software. Bertels, A., De Hertog, D., Haylen, K. Étude sémantique des mots-clés et des marqueurs lexicaux stables dans un corpus technique. Actes de la conférence conjointe JEP-TALN-RECITAL 2012, volume 2: TALN, pages 239–252, Grenoble, 4 au 8 juin 2012. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263806866_Etude_semantique_des_mots- cles_et_des_marqueurs_lexicaux_stables_dans_un_corpus_technique Bolzoni, L. (2008). Elementi pragmatici nel testo scientifico: un’analisi contrastiva fra connettivi italiani e francesi. In: Ursula Reutner, Schwarze Sabine (ed.). Le style, c’est l’homme: Unité et pluralité du discours scientifique dans les langues romanes, p. 227–248. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Dardano, M, Trifone, P. (2009). Grammatica italiana. Con nozioni di linguistica. Bologna: Zanichelli. Terza edizione. Frœliger, N. (2013). Les noces de l'analogique et du numérique. De la traduction pragmatique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Habert, B, Nazarenko, A, Salem, A. (1997). Les linguistiques de corpus. Paris: Armand Colin/Masson. Author 1, Rečiūnaitė, J. (2013). Prancūzų administracinio ir publicistinio stiliaus konektorių vartojimas ir vertimas į lietuvių kalbą. Kalbų studijos / Studies about languages, 22, p. 48–54. Marchand, P. (1998). L’analyse du discours assistée par ordinateur. Paris: S.E.S.J.M./ Armand Colin. Reboul, A., Moeschler, J. (1998). Pragmatique du discours. De l’interprétation de l’énoncé à l’interprétation du discours. Paris: Armand Colin. Roulet, E. (1999). La description de l'organisation du discours. Du dialogue au texte. Paris: Didier. Visconti, J. (2011).Tradurre i connettivi. Trattati e testi normativi. CDCT Working Paper n.2 / 2011 - 15 Novembre Cc, p. 2-12. http://www.cdct.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/116_1.pdf Visconti, J. (2017). Riflessioni linguistiche sulla traduzione: il connettivo 'o' nelle sentenze della Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea, CERTEM, Publifarum, n. 27. http://publifarum.farum.it/ezine_pdf.php?id=389 Visconti, J. (2000). I connettivi condizionai complessi in italiano e in inglese. Uno studio contrastivo. Torino: Edizioni dell’Orso. Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998–2019.
You can also read
