UCCTS 2010,

The dilemma between corpus statistics and reception of a text: An analysis of foreignising and domesticating elements of translations Hannu Kemppanen, Jukka Mäkisalo & Grigory Gurin University of Eastern Finland

Venuti (1995) criticism (Tymoczko 2000, Boyden 2006) - obscurity of the notions - dichotomy Attempts to concretise the concepts - e.g. Pedersen 2005

keyword studies - comparing translated and non-translated texts - keywords as untypical, foreign elements (Kemppanen 2004, 2008) study where statistical features of translated texts were compared with the results of an evaluation test (Kemppanen and Mäkisalo 2010) - no correlation between the statistical features and the results of the test - subjectivity in ranking translations - individual words/phrases and foreign elements draw subjects attention

possible correlation between statistical features of the texts and the results of the evaluation test a corpus-based analysis of non-fiction translations (Russian-Finnish) and non-translations - foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts an evaluation test - foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts (cf. the former study: different subjects, different reference corpus) foreignising/domesticating features of translated vs. non-translated texts *

Keywords: - number of keywords - keyness maximum value - keyness mean value Other features: - type/token ratio - mean length of sentences k

RESULTS: STATISTICAL FEATURES There are only weak statistical correlations between some of the features. On one hand, type/token ratio correlates to some extent reversely with mean keyness value (Pearson p = 0,62). On the other hand, weak correlation between a high number of keywords and high keyness maximum value (p = 0,51). However, overall, when history texts are compared to newspaper texts, various statistical features do not correlate with each other.

A questionnaire for ranking the texts according to (subjective) impression of domestication/ foreignisation. Evaluating extracts (1000 words) of four Russian– Finnish translations and two non-translations on Finnish political history on a scale 1–5 (domestic– foreign). In addition, naming at least one foreignising or domesticating feature in each text Pilot: five subjects, translation students (earlier six translation trainers)

Four Russian-Finnish translations and two non- translated Finnish history texts were ranked according to the median of evaluations The ranges of evaluations between the texts varied a lot, highlighting the difference between translations and non-translations.

EvalMedRangeTr/Non-tr Tarkka21 – 32/3 Apunen31 – 31/4 Bartenjev32 – 53/2 Holodkovskij43 – 44/1 Komissarov44 – 55/0 Baryshnikov44 – 55/0

Results: statistical features and the evaluation test The ranking of evaluation correlates only weakly with sentence length (p = 0,59). With various keyness values or TTR, the evaluation test has no correlation.

Sentence structure foreign (10) Word order foreign (2) Phrases/Collocations foreign (4) Phrases/Collocations domestic (colourful expressions) (3) Individual words foreign (4) (adjectives)

Attitudinal features foreign (10) (NB: foreign point of view in a fluent text, one comment) Attitudinal features domestic (2) (point of view, neutrality) Fluency/style domestic (7) (fluent/good Finnish) Non-fluency/style foreign (1) Orthography foreign (1) Explanations foreign (translation) (1)

results of the study support the earlier empirical findings - for the most part, statistical features of the texts do not correlate with the results of the evaluation test - various statistical features retrieved from the corpus analysis are not in line with each other new findings - the evaluation test differentiates non-translated texts from translated texts, and furthermore, more detailed sub-groups of translations

Can a translation be recognised on the grounds of the analysed features? - on the grounds of statistical features – NO - on the grounds of the evaluation test – YES Categorisation of texts into translated and non- translated texts, and naming of text features in a qualitative study suggest that foreigness of a text is a marked feature

Thank you! Questions? Comments?