LEADER 03589nam 22004573a 450 001 9910433236603321 005 20211214195612.0 010 $a3-96110-072-1 024 8 $ahttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2573677 035 $a(CKB)5410000000003998 035 $a(ScCtBLL)30ec8384-0fea-4844-a31d-b96e9d565e2e 035 $a(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/30287 035 $a(EXLCZ)995410000000003998 100 $a20211214i20202020 uu 101 0 $aeng 135 $auru|||||||||| 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 00$aSemantic differences in translation : $eExploring the field of inchoativity /$fLore Vandevoorde 210 $cLanguage Science Press$d2020 210 1$a[s.l.] :$cLanguage Science Press,$d2020. 215 $a1 online resource (1 p.) 225 1 $aTranslation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 311 $a3-96110-073-X 330 $aAlthough the notion of meaning has always been at the core of translation, the invariance of meaning has, partly due to practical constraints, rarely been challenged in Corpus-based Translation Studies. In answer to this, the aim of this book is to question the invariance of meaning in translated texts: if translation scholars agree on the fact that translated language is different from non-translated language with respect to a number of grammatical and lexical aspects, would it be possible to identify differences between translated and non-translated language on the semantic level too? More specifically, this books tries to formulate an answer to the following three questions: (i) how can semantic differences in translated vs non-translated language be investigated in a corpus-based study?, (ii) are there any differences on the semantic level between translated and non-translated language? and (iii) if there are differences on the semantic level, can we ascribe them to any of the (universal) tendencies of translation? In this book, I establish a way to visually explore semantic similarity on the basis of representations of translated and non-translated semantic fields. A technique for the comparison of semantic fields of translated and non-translated language called SMM++ (based on Helge Dyvik's Semantic Mirrors method) is developed, yielding statistics-based visualizations of semantic fields. The SMM++ is presented via the case of inchoativity in Dutch (beginnen [to begin]). By comparing the visualizations of the semantic fields on different levels (translated Dutch with French as a source language, with English as a source language and non-translated Dutch) I further explore whether the differences between translated and non-translated fields of inchoativity in Dutch can be linked to any of the well-known universals of translation. The main results of this study are explained on the basis of two cognitively inspired frameworks: Halverson's Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and Paradis' neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. 410 $aTranslation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing 606 $aLanguage Arts & Disciplines / Linguistics$2bisacsh 606 $aLanguage arts 610 $aLanguage Arts & Disciplines 610 $aLinguistics 610 $aGeneral 615 7$aLanguage Arts & Disciplines / Linguistics 615 0$aLanguage arts 700 $aVandevoorde$b Lore$01070717 801 0$bScCtBLL 801 1$bScCtBLL 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910433236603321 996 $aSemantic differences in translation$92564845 997 $aUNINA