ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies. A
proposal for classifying translational phenomena between
source text and target text
*
SANTIAGO DEL REY QUESADA
sdelrey@us.es
Universidad de Sevilla
Fecha de recepción: 13 de diciembre de 2019
Fecha de aceptación: 26 de febrero de 2020
Abstract: This paper addresses the study of variation in translated texts from
a theoretical-methodological perspective. The first section focuses on the
determining factors affecting diasystematic variation in the variational space
of languages, a concept emerging from the field of German variational
linguistics, where I refer to the domains of communicative immediacy and
communicative distance, two concepts essential for understanding the
classification proposed in the following pages. The second section is devoted
to the type that I have called contact-based variation, defining language
variants attributable to the situation of contact in which all translations are
produced. The third section briefly covers what I have termed gradational
variation, i.e. the existence of forms that are intensified or attenuated with
respect to others. The fourth section describes how the three types of variation
interrelate in target texts and establishes a typology of phenomena aimed at
explaining variants in translated texts, revolving around the concept of
interference. Lastly, the viability of this proposal for analysing variants in the
field of descriptive, historical, and applied linguistics is discussed.
Resumen: En este artículo me intereso por el estudio de la variación en los
textos traducidos desde una perspectiva teórico-metodológica. En un primer
epígrafe, discuto los condicionantes que afectan a la variación diasistemática
en el espacio variacional de las lenguas, concepto surgido en el ámbito de la
lingüística de variedades alemana, y me refiero a los conceptos de ‘ámbito de
la inmediatez’ y ‘ámbito de la distancia’ comunicativas, fundamentales para
comprender la clasificación que propongo a lo largo de las siguientes páginas.
En el segundo epígrafe, me centro en la variación basada en el contacto, es
decir, la que explica las variantes de lengua atribuibles a la situación de
*
This paper has been written within the context of the project “Tradicionalidad discursiva e
idiomática, sintaxis del discurso, traducción y cambio lingüístico en la historia del español
moderno: prosa (pre-)periodística/ensayística y literaria (PGC2018-097823-B-I00)” founded by
the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities of the Spanish Government.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 210
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
contacto en que se desenvuelve toda traducción. En el tercer apartado, me
refiero brevemente a la variación que denomino gradativa, que explica la
existencia de formas intensificadas o atenuadas respecto de otras. En la
cuarta sección, se verá cómo se interrelacionan los tres tipos de variación en
los textos meta y se ofrece una tipología de fenómenos tendentes a explicar
las variantes en textos traducidos, con foco en el concepto de interferencia.
Por último, se discute la rentabilidad de esta propuesta para el análisis de
variantes en el ámbito de la lingüística descriptiva, incluyendo la lingüística
histórica, y de la lingüística aplicada.
Keywords: Diasystematic variation, Contact-based variation, Linguistic
interference, Translation
Palabras clave: Variación diasistemática, variación basada en el contacto,
interferencia lingüística, traducción
1. L
INGUISTIC VARIATION (1): THE DIASYSTEM
That language is variation has been a theme closely related to
contemporary linguistics since the advent of the sociolinguistic approaches
proposed by Bernstein and Labov in the 1960s. From a more demanding
theoretical perspective, it should be noted that language is a set of varieties,
that only speech is variation, for the heterogeneous whole making up variation
can only be identified with the phenomenal reality from which the linguist
departs to construct objects of study—to wit, varieties—in order to theorize (to
do science) on the nature of (historical) languages.
1
Variation takes many
shapes in a language. Of course, one of the most blatant indications of
variation is linguistic change considered from a diachronic perspective:
languages change over time. But the historical functioning of languages is not
only apparent in diachrony, for in synchrony these also change in accordance
with certain geographical, sociocultural, and situational parameters.
Taking into consideration these parameters, and departing from the
idea of the architecture de langue put forward by Flydal (1951), Coseriu
([1957] 1988, 1980) designed the theoretical structure of the diasystem,
2
distinguishing differentiated functional languages identified with diatopic,
diastratic, and diaphasic varieties. Even though it is true that, beside theorizing
in this respect, specific studies on variation, specifically those preformed in
the field of sociolinguistics since its Labovian beginnings, have put the accent
1 On the difference between the subject of study and doing science on such a subject, cf. López
Serena (2019: 13-17]).
2 The initial formulation of this concept is Weinreich’s ([1953] 1967).
211 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
on spoken language, in the past decades research on language variation has
also been fruitful in those studies employing written texts as a corpus. This
has been particularly the case with the German Romanists who have given
this new approach to variation analysis a warmer welcome, above all on the
basis of the chain of varieties model
3
proposed by Peter Koch and Wulf
Oesterreicher ([1990] 2007), reworking, in point of fact, the ideas of Coseriu,
a model in which the continuum between communicative immediacy and
communicative distance forms the backbone of the variational space of
historical languages. The distinction that these authors draw between
conceptual orality and conceptual scripturality has had a meliorative impact
on the consideration of (medially) written texts as a legitimate source for
studying language variation in diverse sychronies of international European
languages.
The analysis of variation poses a real challenge in translation studies.
In translation practice per se, the consideration of variational aspects is a
complex task, since, as Brumme and Espunya (2011: 11) note, “it seems
probable that the historical-idiomatic
4
characteristics belonging to only one
language do not have a direct correlation in the target text”, whereby the
correspondences between the levels of variation described in this section are
not always easy to pinpoint. But, moreover, the study of variation in translated
texts should be addressed according to well-defined theoretical premises that
underscore the difference between a marked variant and a non-marked one
in a given historical language.
I have recently pondered on the problem of marking in the chain of
varieties described by Koch and Oesterreicher ([1990] 2007: 37–40), in whose
context I would also like to consider diasystematic phenomena in translated
texts. The chain of varieties’ aim is to describe how the variational space of
languages is shaped, this being understood as the set of diatopically,
diastratically, diaphasically, and conceptually
5
determined varieties that
3 Cf. López Serena (2007); Del Rey (2020).
4 By “historical-idiomatic” the authoresses are referring to phenomena that, according to the chain
of varieties model, pertain to the diasystematic and conceptual levels inherent to each particular
historical language, that is, not to the universal phenomena determined by the variation between
communicative immediacy and communicative distance (cf. Koch and Oesterreicher [1990] 2007,
37‒38).
5 According to Koch and Oesterreicher ([1990] 2007, 38]), the conceptual dimension is “la
expresión directa [en una lengua histórica determinada] del continuo universal entre inmediatez
y distancia comunicativa” [the direct expression [in a specific historical language] of the universal
continuum between communicative immediacy and communicative distance]. For these authors,
it is the most relevant dimension of the chain of varieties, insofar as it “comprende todos los
hechos lingüísticos histórico-idiomáticos que resultan de las condiciones comunicativas y
estrategias de verbalización” (ibid.) [it comprises all the historical-idiomatic linguistic events
resulting from the communicative conditions and strategies of verbalization], which makes it
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 212
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
explain their historical functioning. This space is hierarchical, for which reason
the authors speak of a chain: at the diasystematic level, diatopic features can
function as diastratic ones and the latter as diaphasic ones, though not vice
versa.
6
Figure 1. New proposal for the chain of varieties
Source: Del Rey (2020)
According to the new chain of varieties proposed in Figure 1, which
modifies substantially the original model devised by Koch and Oesterreicher,
I have insisted on the need to consider as being marked in a language not
only those phenomena that fit into the left side of the schema, viz. phenomena
which are diatopically marked
7
and/or diastratically and/or diaphasically
marked as low, but also those appearing on the right side, namely,
phenomena which are diastratically and/or diaphasically marked as high. It is
precisely these phenomena that, from the perspective of Koch and
possible to distinguish the communicative constellations inherent to immediacy and distance,
alike.
6 This idea goes back to Coseriu (1980, 112). The chain of varieties model allows us to explain
why educated speakers are able to move in the variational space of their mother tongue with
greater ease than those with little or no education.
7 One of the modifications that I propose with respect to the model developed by Koch and
Oesterreicher ([1990] 2007, 36–40) is that the diatopical level is not conceived, as the German
authors do, as a continuum between diatopically strong and diatopically weak variants, but as a
dichotomy between diatopically marked and diatopically unmarked phenomena (for the rationale
behind this change, cf. Del Rey 2020).
DIASYSTEM-
ATIC MARKING
/ NO MARKING
APPLIABLE
STATUS
universal-
essential
idiomatic-
contingent
(historical)
diatopically
diastratically
diaphasically
immediacy distance
1
2
3
4
marked
unmarked
unmarked
marked (as low)
unmarked marked (as high)
domain of communicative
distance
domain of communicative
immediacy
DIASYSTEM-
ATIC MARKING
/ NO MARKING
NOT APPLIABLE
conceptually
marked as pertaining to the domain
of communicative immediacy
marked as pertaining to the domain
of communicative distance
unmarked
STANDARD VARIETY
STANDARD VARIETY
marked (as low) unmarked
marked (as high)
STANDARD VARIETY
STANDARD VARIETY
213 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Oesterreicher and many other researchers,
8
are identified with standard
language, this being understood as the benchmark variety (due to its prestige)
of a historical language. To my mind, however, the chain of varieties model
can be exploited to shift the standard variety towards the centre of the model,
thus allowing it to be identified with diatopically, diastratically, and
diaphasically unmarked phenomena in a particular historical language. As
unmarked phenomena, linguistic variants pertaining to the standard variety
could be used in both communicative immediacy—which, in my reformulation
of the model, corresponds to diatopically marked phenomena and/or to those
diastratically and/or diaphasically marked as low—and communicative
distance—which, as before, and according to my proposal, includes those
phenomena that are diatopically unmarked and/or diastratically and/or
diaphasically marked as high.
9
In order to understand the classification of the types of variational
phenomena identified in §3, it was first essential, as I have pretended in this
section, to distinguish between marked and unmarked—or standard—variants
in the diasystem of a language.
2. L
INGUISTIC VARIATION (2): CONTACT AND INTERFERENCE
The phonetic, morphosyntactic, and lexical-semantic variants in a
specific historical language are due to the diatopical, diastratic, diaphasic—
i.e. diasystematic—conceptual and diachronic constraints to which I have
referred in the previous section. These variants would exist even if a language
were isolated from the rest, provided that it were spoken by a sufficiently large
and heterogeneous linguistic community. Nonetheless, there are other
variants that can be explained as a result of the contact between languages,
which produces anomalous, unusual, or new forms and structures in them or
leads to the preferential use of a form or structure over other available ones
as a result of such contact. This type, which I will call ‘contact-based variation’
is also essential for explaining linguistic change. Contact-based variation does
8 For a more detailed explanation in this respect, cf. Del Rey (2020).
9 Another substantial modification resulting from my proposal is to understand what Koch and
Oesterreicher ([1990] 2007, 37–40) have termed “conceptual variation”, the central level of the
chain according to these authors, as being diasystematic. In my opinion (cf. also Selig 2011), as
a type of variety integrating the rest—diatopical, diastratic, and diaphasic—it seems inappropriate
to claim that a particular unit cannot be conceptually marked in communicative immediacy or
distance. At an idiomatic-contingent level, this implies, in turn, that in my proposal the conceptual
dimension does not represent a level overlapping the diaphasic one in the chain (as indeed occurs
in the original model), but a level integrating the other varieties, also on a continuum, as indicated
by the broad arrows to the left and right of the model in Figure 1.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 214
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
not oppose the diasystematic kind, but interacts with it.
10
As a result of contact,
therefore, a variant diaphasically marked as low in Language A can produce,
for instance, an anomalous (or, in principle, asystematic) structure in
Language B, which, in any case, will continue to be a diaphasically marked
variant in the latter.
Although language contact studies have traditionally focused on oral
interactions, this work is based on the conviction that in written texts
translation can be regarded as a specific form of language contact, as
scholars such as House (2009) or Malamatidou (2016), amongst others,
11
have put forward. From the perspective proposed here, the label “language
contact”, which is being increasingly more postulated as a specific research
sub-discipline (cf. Hickey ed. 2013), would serve as a hyperonym of
“translation”, as could related sub-disciplines like comparative linguistics,
contrastive grammar, and any other whose interest lies in the linguistic
analysis of the processes and products originating from the mutual or one-
way influence of one language on another. Some authors, including Haßler
(2001: 154‒158), have stressed certain differences between translation and
the language contact phenomenon. Among them, this authoress highlights
that in translation there is an awareness of contact production, which is not
the case in prototypical language contact phenomena. In this connection,
translators can reflect on what they produce and thus avoid possible
interferences.
The concept of ‘interference’ is central to language contact and
especially to translation studies (cf. Del Rey 2018a). This normally refers to
the incorporation of abnormal or even asystematic units or constructions in
the target text (TT), deriving from the influence of the source text (ST). It is
this unflattering vision of the concept that used to predominate in research
12
.
Newmark (1991: 78) proposes a less prescriptive definition for “interference”,
precisely using the term translationese to indicate the types of interference
that, generated in the field of translation by an excessive literality on the part
of the interpreter, lead to the distortion of meanings in the ST or to a
contravention of the original use for no apparent reason.
10
Some interesting remarks on the contact between language varieties can be found in Mattheier
(1996).
11
Cf. also Haßler (2001); Albrecht (2017); Del Rey, Del Barrio, and González (2018).
12
Scholars studying the relationships between translation and cognition often rely on this negative
conception of interference. The interest of “avoid[ing] interference” (Martín de León 2017, 122),
in connection with the warning about the “danger” (Göpferig 2017, 409, 416) that it poses, bears
out this general view of the phenomenon. Cf. a historiographical discussion of the problem in
Kupsch-Losereit 2004).
215 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Following the approach employed by Weinreich ([1953] 1967) to the
study of interference and relying on the ideas and concepts developed by
Coseriu (1977), Kabatek (1997, [1996] 2000) postulates a typology of
interference
13
conceived as the consequence of language contact which has
nothing to do with the unflattering vision of the concept held by many
translatologists. According to this author, in contact situations it would be
necessary to differentiate between two types of interference principles:
positive interference and negative interference. The former gives rise to types
of interference with directly verifiable results in the discourses produced.
Namely, phenomena relating to positive interference produce elements
positively present in texts. According to the typology of variants in translated
texts that I will present in §4, these elements would involve marked variants,
regardless of whether this marking is understood as a result of diasystematic,
contact-based, or gradational variation (cf. §3). Negative interference does not
produce elements positively present in a discourse, to wit, according to my
terminology applied to the field of translatology, it refers to the presence of
unmarked elements in TTs. This signifies that, with respect to contact-based
variation, the interference of the ST in the TT does not produce abnormal or
asystematic results as a consequence of contact and/or, with regard to
diasystematic variation, the resulting variants in the TT represent unmarked
elements from a diasystematic perspective, that is, they represent standard
units. With regard to gradational variation, unmarked elements correspond to
neutral linguistic values in TTs (cf. §3). The negative character of the second
type of interference has by no means derogatory connotations
14
, but has to
do with the absence of certain variants in the TT as a consequence of
interference, in such a way that the results in this TT are neither discernible
for the receiver of the message nor for the analyst, unless the ST used by the
translator is available.
While positive interference satisfies the defining characteristics of the
prototypical processes of interference, since it is apparent in the results
positively present in texts (as already noted), the linguistic manifestations of
negative interference, insofar as they correspond to the results not positively
present in texts, tend to be discarded by researchers as products of
interference. What I am trying to say is that it is not uncommon for scholars to
hold that negative interference is not interference at all (cf. Del Rey 2018a: 54
n. 9).
13
I have attempted to apply this typology to the analysis of texts translated in different periods,
with essential adaptations (cf. Del Rey 2016b, 2017).
14
Toury’s (1995, 288) distinction between positive and negative transfer is based on the degree
of interference acceptability in the TL. Thus, his terminology maintains the most general
connotations of these adjectives, in contrast to Coseriu’s and Kabatek’s proposal.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 216
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
However, the theoretical premise that I am employing to justify the fact
that it is also possible to speak of interference in these cases, at least in the
translatological context that interests us here
15
, is that the ST always
conditions (that is, interferes with) the linguistic configuration of the TT when
what is involved are language variants.
16
This conditioning can involve the
conscious (evident in the case of difference—cf. §4—i.e. in the use of a unit
differing from that of the ST, despite the fact that the translator is aware that
the target language’s system possesses an identical or more similar variant
to the unit of the ST) or unconscious (in the case of identity, when the
translator does not review the paradigmatic possibilities of translation that the
target language’s system offers for a specific structure)
17
choice on the part of
the translator.
Of course, it is hard and, in the case of ancient translations, indeed
impossible, to know when this conditioning is conscious or unconscious.
Nowadays, professional translators have a perfect command of the language
from which and, especially, into which they translate, and in this respect they
are probably aware of all of the convergence and divergence phenomena (cf.
§4, Fig. 3) to be found in their translations.
15
In this sense, I fully agree with Toury (1995, 312), when he states, “as, psycholinguistically
speaking, there seems to be only one procedure which yields both [‘positive’ and ‘negative’
transfer], interference as such will always be present. It may just be more or less easy to discern.”
16
In principle, an invariant in the target language (TL) cannot be explained as a product of an
interference process. In other words, to be able to talk about interference it is necessary to
determine whether or not the phenomenon analysed in the TT corresponds to a paradigmatic
possibility among at least two in order to express the same or a similar function or meaning—
rather than entering into the argument about the possibility of translating exactly the same
meanings into other languages, I refer readers to Toury (1995) and his idea that translations are
facts that belong to target culture and which can even construct their own (sub-)systems. For
instance, in the syntagm “la maison” as the translation for “the house”, both the article (la) and
the noun (maison) are variants, as shown by the fact that they can be substituted by other
elements such as cette, celle, une, etc., and habitation, foyer, logis, etc., respectively.
Nevertheless, the syntactic form in which the function of determination is presented is an invariant,
since the French system only allows the determinant to precede the determined, that is, the only
possibility of expressing the function of determination is la maison, and not *maison la, for
example. So, the fact that, in this syntagm, the determinant precedes the determined cannot be
justified by the fact that it also appears in that order in the syntagm of the ST, but because it is
the only systematic possibility in the TL.
17
As will be seen further on (§4), in the case of positive interference its effect can also be
conscious or unconscious. About conscious vs. unconscious tasks in translation from a cognitive
perspective, cf. Jääskeläinen and Tirkkonen-Condit (1991).
217 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
3. LINGUISTIC VARIATION (3): GRADATION
There is a third type of variation that is of special interest in the field of
translatology: that referring to the gradation—for which reason I have chosen
to call it gradational variation—of units in a language pursuant to the
processes of intensification and attenuation to which different linguistic units
can be subjected. Intensification and attenuation can be semantic and/or
morphosyntactic. At both levels of analysis, it should be assumed, at least in
translational contexts, that there exist unmarked or neutral linguistic units on
the semantic or discursive-syntactic scale. Thus, at a semantic level, the term
“giant” is a semantic intensification of “big”. At a morphosyntactic level,
“bigger” or “biggest” are similarly an intensification of “big”. At a discursive-
syntactic level, it is also possible to observe processes of intensification
consisting in focusing on elements: for instance, the textual variant “John did
this job” is neutral with respect to the intensified “It was John who did this job”.
Regarding attenuation, at a semantic level the euphemism is a clear exponent
of this strategy. At a syntactic level, “not good” is an attenuated structure in
relation to “bad”.
All things considered, of the three types of variation analysed here
gradational marking is the most difficult to perceive positively in texts when
there is no adequate context of comparison, such as that which allows the ST
and the TT to be contrasted (cf. §4). Of all the types of variation addressed in
this paper, the contact-based type yields the largest number of results in texts
in relation to positive interference and can even be perceived in the absence
of the ST. Diasystematic marking is harder to verify without comparing the ST
with the TT, but, at any rate, it can usually be observed in a given text when a
variant is marked in the context of communicative immediacy or
communicative distance. Be that as it may, gradational marking can go
unnoticed if two variants are not contrasted. In English, for example, the
statement “he has a lot of money” does not necessarily have to be considered
as being (hyper-)gradated, unless it is compared with “he has money”. On the
other hand, while in the case of adjectives positive gradation is identified with
the unmarked gradational variant, the types of gradational relationships are
more often than not hard to determine, for it is not always easy to establish a
variant that is gradationally neutral versus another or others. Yet, at a
discursive-syntactic level, the use of marking elements, such as those that
Bolinger (1972: 17) calls “boosters”—for intensification, as in “he is a perfect
idiot”—and “diminishers” and “minimizers”—for attenuation, as in “he’s a bit of
an idiot”—make it possible to locate gradationally marked variants with
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 218
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
respect to statements lacking such elements, which may be considered
gradationally neutral.
18
After reviewing the different types of variation that can be found in
translated texts—i.e. diasystematic (§1) and those which I have termed
“contract-based” (§2) and “gradational” (summarized in this section)—in the
following section I will propose a classification of translation phenomena that,
to my mind, allows us to offer a full explanation for the causes—and
consequences—of variation in the field of translation studies.
4. A
COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE STUDY OF VARIATION IN TRANSLATED
TEXTS
In this section, my main aim is to propose a number of descriptive
categories for the processes of interference in the analysis of translated texts.
The purpose is none other than to gain a better understanding of the
translational aspects underlying their production.
19
Although it should be
stressed that this classification does not intend to be definitive, but will have
to be tested in specific analyses according to the idiomatic and discursive
20
18
Due to space limits, it is impossible to elaborate any further on this type of variation. The concept
of ‘gradation’, which has been a key problem in semantics since Lyons (1977), would require a
comprehensive review of related concepts such as ‘size’, ‘quantity’, ‘amplification’,
‘superlativeness’, etc. For a summary of these conceptual issues, cf. Bolinger (1972) and Albelda
(2005).
19
In this connection, I fully agree with López Serena (2019): “En términos epistemológicos, lo que
hacemos cuando proponemos determinados niveles y unidades de análisis para el estudio de
los fenómenos discursivos cuyo comportamiento nos interesa describir no es sino establecer
clases generales o categorías fenoménicas a partir de la diversidad de hechos que nos muestra
la realidad del discurso, algo inherente a toda actividad científica. [...] No hay ciencia sin
categorías o unidades de análisis, esto es, sin la estipulación de clases de individuos cuyas
propiedades y comportamiento sean susceptibles de describirse de acuerdo con unas mismas
regularidades. [...] Al científico no le interesan las clasificaciones conceptuales por sí mismas,
sino la obtención de leyes [...], o en el caso de las ciencias humanas, la detección de
regularidades interesantes a partir de las categorías de análisis con que se trabaje” [In
epistemological terms, when we propose specific levels and units of analysis for studying
discourse phenomena whose behaviour we are interested in describing, this is tantamount to
establishing general classes or phenomenal categories on the basis of the diversity of the facts
that the reality of the discourse shows us, something inherent to all scientific activity. [...] There is
no science without categories or units of analysis, namely, without stipulating the classes of
individuals whose attributes and behaviours are susceptible to being described according to the
same regularities. [...] Scientists have no interest in conceptual classifications per se, but in
obtaining laws [...], or in the case of human sciences, in detecting interesting regularities on the
basis of the categories of analysis employed].
20
By differentiating between idiomatic and discursive characteristics, I assume the dual specificity
of the historical level of language to which Koch (1997) refers, who at this level distinguishes
between language rules per se (those referring to phonetics and phonology, grammar,
vocabulary, etc. of each particular language) and discursive ones (determined by the discourse
219 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
idiosyncrasies of each language. For even though the phenomena that I will
describe below do not aspire to being universal, they do indeed possess a
supra-idiomatic character, i.e. they are understood as susceptible to being
applied, in principle, to the relationship between the ST and the TT in different
languages with their own literary tradition.
21
So, in Graph 2, I have attempted to summarize, with the help of a
number of elements, how the study of variation can be addressed in the field
of linguistic-translational research. The rectangular elements outlined in blue
represent specific linguistic units chosen from among the paradigmatic
possibilities of the source language (SL) in the ST. Any linguistic expression
in the ST involves a sequence of elements that are verbalized after the author
of the original text has reviewed the different possibilities offered by the
system. On the basis of the different interference processes (cf. §2), the
linguistic units of the ST are introduced into the target text or texts (TT
1
, TT
2
,
TT
3
...) by means of diverse outputs or variants—the rectangles with green,
orange, and red borders in Figure 2—chosen from among the paradigmatic
possibilities existing in the target language (TL) or languages (TL
1
, TL
2
, TL
3
...)
into which the ST is rendered.
traditions guiding the production of discourses in each one of those languages) (cf. also López
Serena 2011).
21
However much the examples provided here refer to languages that are, to a greater or lesser
extent, related (i.e. they are all Indo-European languages).
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 220
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Figure 2. Interference phenomena and types of contact-based, diasystematic,
and gradational variants in translated texts
22
The different variants of the TT that reproduce content units of the ST
can be marked or unmarked, according to the typology proposed here. As to
the marked variants, I have drawn a distinction between the phenomena of
transfer and hyper-characterization. Both explain the use of units or features
that are positively present in the TT, and it is precisely because of this that
they are manifestations of the “positive interference” that I have defined in the
previous section. Transfer can be considered from the three perspectives of
variation described above: contact-based, diasystematic, and gradational.
With regard to the first of these,
23
within the phenomenon of transfer I call
trans-position the appearance of a specific phenomenon in the TT which,
calqued from the ST, produces an asystematic or abnormal—in the Coserian
22
In the figure, the categories represented in rectangles on a yellow background refer to
phenomena inherent to contact-based variation, those in rectangles on a light green background
to those inherent to diasystematic variation (except for the diachronic kind to which I will refer in
n. 44) and those in rectangles with a clear blue background to gradational variation.
23
In the typology proposed here, transfer is not totally identified with the concept of ‘transferring’
applied by Weinreich ([1953] 1967) to the field of language contact. For him, transferring
phenomena, basically relating to the lexicon, contribute to increase the inventory of forms in the
language or variety affected by interference, while modelling phenomena are those that involve
some type of alteration in already existing forms, whether this be at a semantic or syntactic level
(in the case of compound words and phraseological units). According to my proposal, transfer
would encompass both types of interference.
Concretelinguisticunitschosenfromamongtheparadigmatic
possibilitiesofthesourcelanguage(SL)system
Sourcetext(ST)‐
concretelinguistic
expression
Various manifestations (= variants)
inthetargettext(TT)chosenfrom
among the paradigmatic possibilities
of the target language (TL) system
markedvariants
unmarkedvariants
Interferenceprocesses
...
TT
1
TT
2
TT
3
transfer
hyper‐
characterization
trans‐position
trans‐marking
• diatopic
•
diastratic
• diaphasic
• (diachronic)
hyper‐position
hyper‐marking
• diatopic
•
diastratic
• diaphasic
• (diachronic)
identity
difference
ofform/offunction
ofmarking
• diatopic
•
diastratic
• diaphasic
• (diachronic)
• diatopic
•
diastratic
• diaphasic
• (diachronic)
(hetero‐marking)
(hetero‐
characterization)
ofunneutral gradation
ofneutralgradation
trans‐gradation
hyper‐gradation / hypo-gradation
of form / of function
of no marking
221 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
sense
24
—result in the TT, as can be seen in the example
25
provided below in
(1):
(1) The Italian (I) sentence credo che Laura abbia due sorelle [I think
that Laura has (subjunctive) two sisters] translated into Spanish (S)
as creo que Laura tenga dos hermanas [I think that Laura has
(subjunctive) two sisters] can be explained as the result of a trans-
position in the TT affecting the use of the subjunctive in the
subordinate clause. At a lexical level, trans-position would be, for
example, the translation into Spanish of the English (E) sentence
Peter left the keys on the table as Pedro dejó las llaves sobre la
tabla, a common type of transfer in the case of the so-called “false
friends” in the field of foreign language and L2 teaching (in this case,
tabla [board] instead of mesa [table] in the Spanish TT).
In line with the second perspective of variation defined above, in the
context of transfer I call trans-marking the transfer of a diasystematic mark
26
from the ST to the TT. In translation, this transfer from the SL to the TL is not
so difficult at a lexical level as it is at a syntactic one—above all in the case of
unrelated historical languages—but naturally always poses a challenge even
for the seasoned translator:
(2) An example of trans-marking is the expression palmarla (S) as
the translation of the verb crepare (I) or the compound verb to snuff
it (E), since it incorporates a low diaphasic mark from the ST to the
TT.
In accordance with the perspective of variation described in §3, in this
case the transfer phenomenon is called trans-gradation, perceptible when a
24
Cf. Coseriu ([1952] 1973); Del Rey (2020).
25
The examples given to illustrate the different types of variation that I propose here are not
extracted from any corpus but based on intuition, a hermeneutic tool which is not only valid but
also necessary in linguistic inquiry (cf. Itkonen 2003 [2008]: 47; López Serena 2019: 30–31). This
paper entails a theoretical proposal aimed to be tested in empirical works on translated texts, but
it is not my objective in this paper to empirically demonstrate the validity of my proposal. It has
already partially been tested in previous works on the history of Romance languages where I have
dealt with ancient translations from Latin (cf. Del Rey 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2019).
26
According to the conception of the variational space of any synchronically considered language,
which I have put forward in Del Rey (2020), diasystematically marked variants can exist, as noted
in §1, in communicative immediacy (for example, the term palmarla (S) [to snuff it] in the sense
of morir [die], i.e. [to reach the end of one’s life], cf. RAE 2018, s. v. morir) and in communicative
distance (expirar (S) [expire], in the same sense), alike. That is to say, marked variants, at either
end of the continuum between conceptual orality and conceptual scripturality, oppose, according
to my proposal, unmarked or standard variants (cf. Fig. 1) that can be employed at any point of
the variational space of a language (returning to the example provided above in this note, it would
be precisely the term morir (S) [die] which would lack diasystematic marking as an expression of
the meaning that has been defined).
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 222
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
superlative, intensified, or attenuated element in the ST is transferred to the
TT:
(3) For instance, the adjective buenísimo (S) [very good] translated
as ottimo (I) [very good] would be a good example of trans-
gradation. At a discursive-syntactic level, the translation of the
sentence It’s John who did this job as Fue Juan quien hizo este
trabajo (S) also represents a trans-gradational shift.
The other set of marked variants is formed by hyper-characterization
phenomena, as I have called them. Here, it is also possible to distinguish
variants in the TT in terms of the three perspectives of variation under
consideration here. As regards contact-based variation, I use the term hyper-
position to refer to those cases in which an asystematic or abnormal variant—
as before, in the Coserian sense—arises in the TT from the application of a
mechanism of analogy, based on rules erroneously induced from limited use
contexts, as occurs in the examples shown below in (4). This cognitive
procedure is typical of hypercorrection phenomena (cf. Kabatek [1996] 2000),
but I consciously avoid this term because it conveys prescriptive implications
that do not agree with the descriptive nature of my typology:
(4) A sentence in the ST such as non credo che Laura abbia due
sorelle (I) [I don’t think that Laura has (subjunctive) two sisters] can
produce the syntactically marked sentence no creo que Laura tiene
dos hermanas (S) [I don’t think that Laura has (indicative) two
sisters], in accordance with the analogy, which ignores the context,
credere che + subjuntive (I) = creer que + indicative (S) > non
credere che + subjuntive (I) = *no creer que + indicative (S).
Similarly, the demonym estonio (S) can be translated into English
due to hyper-position as Stonian, pursuant to the analogy: estar,
estable, estilo (S) = stay, stable, stile (E) > *estonio (S) = Stonian
(E).
A fairly peculiar type of hyper-position, very infrequent in modern
language translations,
27
but not so in Latin ones,
28
is hetero-characterization,
which describes a marked variant in the TT, due to the influence of the SL on
the TL, albeit not directly from the ST, in contexts in which there might have
been a trans-position or direct calque from the original. The marked variant is
explained by the contact influence of one language on another, which is not
direct but indirect.
(5) For instance, the expression to contact somebody is frequently
reproduced in Spanish as a trans-position—primarily in America, but
27
Hence, in Figure 2, it is represented in brackets as an addendum to the hyper-position
phenomenon.
28
Cf. Del Rey (2018b).
223 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
also increasingly more often in Spain—i.e. contactar a alguien,
instead of the traditionally more normal variant—in the Coserian
sense— contactar con alguien [to contact with somebody]. If the
sentence I’ll contact you soon were freely translated as te llamaré
para atrás pronto (S) [I’ll call you back soon] or te llamaré de vuelta
pronto (S) [I’ll call you back soon], this would give rise to an
interference through hetero-characterization, owing to the fact that
instead of the potential trans-position te contactaré pronto (S) [I’ll
contact you soon], another construction has been used, which in turn
is explained by the influence (indirect, to wit, beyond this specific
translation context) of the English language (SL) on the Spanish
language (TL)—in America—in accordance with the pattern to call
back > llamar para atrás/llamar de vuelta (S).
29
The other type of hyper-characterization has to do with diasystematic
variation. I am referring here to hyper-marking when an unmarked variant of
the ST is translated as a diatopically, diastratically, or diaphasically marked
variant in the TT. It is also possible to speak of hyper-marking in the fairly
infrequent case that a marked unit in the domain of communicative immediacy
becomes marked in the domain of communicative distance in the TT, or vice
versa.
(6) For instance, the term crepare (I) [to snuff it], diaphasically
marked as low, would correspond to a process of hyper-marking in
the TT if the verb morir (S) [die], an unmarked or standard word in
this language, or expirar (S) [expire], a marked term in the opposing
variational domain, i.e. that of communicative distance, were to be
found in the ST. At a syntactic level, a diatopically unmarked
sentence, such as he asked her to marry him, can give rise to a
diatopical hyper-marking in the Spanish TT la pidió que se casara
con él, consisting in the use of the pronoun la as an indirect object—
typical of central-northern Iberian peninsula varieties—instead of the
pronoun le—an unmarked or standard form.
It would also be conceivable to talk about hetero-marking if it were
possible to confirm the translation of one type of diasystematic mark as
another type.
30
(7) For example, there would be hyper-marking if the phrase
abuffarsi di dolci (I) [to stuff oneself with candy], geographically
limited to the central-south of the Italian-speaking area, were
29
Regarding this construction in American Spanish, cf. Otheguy (1993).
30
Insofar as it is a less frequent type of hyper-characterization, in Figure 2 this phenomenon is
represented in brackets as an addendum to the phenomenon of hyper-marking.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 224
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
translated as hincharse a/de pasteles (S), a diaphasically, but non-
diatopically, marked expression.
31
As to the third perspective of variation defined here, what I call hyper-
gradation is a type of hyper-characterization involving the use of a linguistic
unit of the TT representing a (greater) degree of intensification with respect to
the original structure, and hypo-gradation, the opposite phenomenon, viz. a
kind of hyper-characterization consisting in the use of a linguistic unit of the
TT representing a (greater) degree of attenuation with respect to the ST:
(8) For example, if bueno (S) [good] were translated as ottimo (I)
[very good], this would be a case of hyper-gradation. At a discursive-
syntactic level, if John is silly were translated as Juan es
probablemente tonto (S) [John is probably silly], in which an
attenuating modal particle has been introduced, modifying the
illocutionary strength and, therefore, the degree of commitment of
the original statement, this would be a case of hypo-gradation.
Before commenting on the phenomena involving unmarked variants, I
would first like to make three important observations. The first has to do with
the conscious or unconscious character of these positive interference
phenomena (cf. Jakobsen 2017). Trans-position can be the result of a
conscious translation practice, above all when the translator considers that
the SL is more prestigious or culturally prevalent than the TL,
32
although also
unconscious, which by and large leads to the traditionally considered—from a
prescriptive perspective—‘translation errors’, frequent in texts produced by
translators who do not have a perfect command of the TL. Hyper-position,
however, is always unconscious,
33
for, as already noted, it is based on an
erroneous analogy which, as a rule, also gives rise to such translation errors.
As regards diasystematically marked variants, trans-marking is necessarily
conscious, except perhaps when marked units coincide formally in related
31
At any rate, according to the chain of varieties model (cf. Koch and Oesterreicher [1990] 2007:
37–40; Del Rey 2020), insofar as diatopic variants can function as diastratic ones and the latter
as diaphasic ones, distinguishing between them at each one of these levels is not, in the main, a
simple task.
32
Which is a matter of course in the processes of elaboration (cf. Kloss [1952] 1978) that allow
languages with a scant or non-existent literary tradition access to communicative distance, as has
been demonstrated in the case of primitive Romance languages (cf. Raible 1996; Frank-Job and
Selig 2016; Del Rey 2016b). Toury (1995, 315) also points in this direction: “On occasion, this
would even make it possible to deliberately adopt interference as a strategy, e.g., in an attempt
to enrich the target culture/language, in domains regarded as needing such enrichment, in an act
of cultural planning.”
33
Hetero-characterization, however, is a mostly conscious phenomenon of hyper-
characterization.
225 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
languages.
34
Hyper-marking is, generally speaking, a conscious translation
process,
35
guided by some or other specific purpose intentionally sought by
the translator in the TT, except perhaps when it is concomitant with a trans-
position (cf. infra Example 10). Concerning gradational variation, trans-
gradation normally involves an unconscious translation process, but the
semantic, morphosyntactic, or discursive-syntactic modification implied by
hyper-gradation requires the translator to take a conscious stance.
In relation to the foregoing, the second observation involves the
conceptual profile
36
of translations in which the contact-based variation
phenomena that I have called trans-position and hyper-position usually occur.
While the phenomenon of trans-position is possible, although not that
frequent, even in translations relating to communicative distance (technical,
literary, administrative, etc.), as before, especially when the language of the
ST is socially held in high esteem by a linguistic community into which it is
translated, the phenomenon of hyper-position only appears in translation
contexts pertaining to communicative immediacy (social networks, poorly
elaborated comments in chats or on blogs and websites, etc.) and eventually
also in automatic translations. Translation, inasmuch as it involves a process
of written fixation, allows translators to ponder on the texts that they produce—
at least when the lack of time does not lead to instantaneously produced texts.
The mere fact of departing from a ST requires metalinguistic attention. The
processes of hyper-position are more typical of contexts of interference in
which such reflection does not occur, i.e. in spontaneous discourses, although
not necessarily inherent to communicative immediacy. In a discussion after a
conference, speakers can produce hyper-position solutions if they do not have
34
Thus, a French word diaphasically marked as high, like relevant [relevant], can be translated
into Spanish as relevante, also a term diaphasically marked as high, without the translator
reflecting on the diasystematic status of this adjective.
35
Unlike hetero-marking, which can often occur unconsciously, in the sense that a translator who
is perfectly familiar with both the SL and the TL can perceive a diasystematically marked variant
in the ST, but be unfamiliar with the domain of variation affected by the said variant and, therefore,
can choose a variant in the TL that is marked but not at the same level of variation as the variant
in the ST—for instance, a diatopically marked variant in the TT can be chosen as the translation
of a variant diaphasically marked as low in the ST. Conscious hetero-marking would be, of course,
the substitution of a variant marked in the ST, in the domain of communicative immediacy, by a
variant marked in the TT, in the domain of communicative distance—or vice versa—which would
seem rather odd.
36
By “conceptual profile”, I am referring to the linguistic characteristics that determine as a whole
the place occupied by a particular text on the continuum between communicative immediacy and
communicative distance, in terms of the communicative conditions determined by the extra-
linguistic aspects of communication (cf. Koch and Oesterreicher [1990] 2007: 26–27).
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 226
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
a full command of the language being used, notwithstanding the fact that this
situation is prototypical of communicative distance.
37
And, lastly, a third observation vis-à-vis the set of phenomena that give
rise to marked variants in the TT: it should be stressed that contact-based,
diasystematic, and gradational marking can coexist in some solutions, without
there necessarily having to be incompatibilities between the different types
defined above (cf. §2). This is what happens with the phenomena of trans-
position and trans-marking, which are not exclusive, but, quite to the contrary,
often occur simultaneously.
(9) For example, the translation of the word decedere (I) [to pass
away], which belongs to a high register, as deceder (S) would be
both a trans-position and a trans-marking, since for it to occur
effectively, it could only function as a term diaphasically marked as
high.
38
Trans-position and hyper-marking can also occur together, this
phenomenon being an unintended and, therefore, unconscious result of the
first one, most probably also unconscious.
(10) For instance, an unmarked variant in Italian such as letto [bed]
can produce, through its trans-position into Spanish, the term lecho
which is diaphasically marked as high in this language and,
therefore, hyper-marked with respect to the original text.
Finally, gradational marking can occur in conjunction with the processes
of trans-position, trans-marking, hyper-position, and hyper-marking.
With respect to unmarked variants, I distinguish between the
phenomena of identity and difference. In line with the idea that I have assumed
as regards linguistic interference (§2), even when unmarked variants are
identified in the TT, it is indeed possible to talk about interference (of the
negative kind when it comes to identity and difference). Identity is produced
when a particular unit of the ST, which is not diasystematically marked in the
SL, is translated as an equivalent formal and/or functional unit in the TT, also
diasystematically unmarked (cf. Del Rey 2018a: 57–59).
39
So, from this
definition it can be deduced that the identity of form and/or function and that
relating to the absence of diasystematic marking—i.e. to its standard
37
We could even place the types of translated texts on a continuum according to their degree of
elaboration and, therefore, to the greater or lesser likelihood of discovering some type of hyper-
position in them.
38
The combination of trans-position and trans-marking is also the most frequent in the use of
Latinisms, as is the case in the stages of linguistic elaboration referred to in n. 32.
39
It should be noted that we can speak of interference in this case because translators at least
have the virtual opportunity to choose other paradigmatic possibilities that differ (more) from the
ST.
227 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
character in both the SL and the TL, cf. Fig. 1—coexist in translation variants
that are understood as having resulted from this phenomenon. Likewise, as
to gradational variation, the phenomenon of identity is evidenced by a non-
hyper-gradated or hypo-gradated use, that is, neutral, of the linguistic unit or
structure being translated.
(11) For instance, the translation of morire (I) [to die] as morir (S)
would represent a solution of identity. At a syntactic level, the
translation of the French sentence Si tu as faim, mange (F) [if you
are hungry, eat] as se hai fame, mangia (I) also represents a solution
of identity.
In relation to the phenomenon which I have called difference, the three
perspectives of variation described in this section should also be
characterized. With regard to contact-based variation, difference refers to the
selection of a normal or standard variant in the TT that corresponds to another
normal or standard one in the ST, but with which it does not coincide formally
and/or functionally.
40
(12) For example, the phrase la porta non è chiusa (I) [the door is
not closed] translated as la puerta está abierta (S) [the door is open]
evidences a solution deriving from difference. The effects of
difference are harder to perceive in the lexicon, although it is
relatively common in the use of parasynonymy for translating certain
words: for instance, the adjective afectuoso (S) [affectionate]
translated as tendre (F) [tender] evidences a process of difference
of form, since the variant affectueux exists in French.
With respect to diasystematic variants, the solution of difference is
apparent in the selection of diatopically, diastratically, and diaphasically
unmarked variants in the TT when marking does indeed exist in the ST.
(13) For instance, the translation of crepare (I) [to snuff it] as morir
(S) [die] reflects this process of difference. At a syntactic level, the
phenomenon that I call difference of marking always implies that of
difference of form and/or function. For example, the translation of
the sentence essendosi verificato l’errore, sono state effettuate due
prove (I) [the error having been verified, two tests were performed],
which evidences the use of syntactic structures diastratically and
diaphasically marked as high, as cuando se verificó el error, se
hicieron dos pruebas (S) [when the error was verified, two tests were
performed], where the syntactic structures are perfectly standard in
the TL, is also evidence of the phenomenon referred to here as
40
Here, it should be observed that, in contrast to the arguments set out in the previous note, we
can speak of interference in this case because the translator has at least the virtual opportunity
to choose other paradigmatic possibilities that are (more) similar or identical to the variant in the
ST.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 228
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
difference of marking with respect to the selection of syntactic
relations in the translation.
In the case of gradational variation, the difference would consist in the
conversion of an intensified or attenuated unit or structure of the ST into a
neutral unit or structure in the TT.
(14) For example, the translation of ottimo (I) [very good] as bueno
(S) [good] corresponds to a difference of gradation. At a discursive-
syntactic level, the translation of the sentence John is a bit odd as
Juan es raro (S) [John is odd] also involves a difference of gradation,
insofar as the attenuation strategy disappears in the TT, thus giving
rise to a more aseptic sentence.
From the explanation relating to Example (11) it can be deduced that
the difference of form and/or function and the difference of marking are totally
compatible, even when this involves variants inherent to communicative
immediacy:
(15) For instance, the translation of quiero vivir (S) [I want to live] as
non voglio crepare (I) [I don’t want to snuff it] combines the absence
of formal correspondence and that of diasystematic marking in the
MT.
Besides, the difference of gradation is also compatible with others types
of difference.
And, as has been seen in relation to the phenomena involving marked
variants, nor are those of identity and difference, which produce unmarked
elements in translations, incompatible.
(16) Indeed, the translation of lecho (S) [bed] as letto (I) not only
corresponds to a process of identity (and not of trans-position as we
have seen, since in the TL letto is an unmarked word), but also to a
difference of marking (as the diaphasically high mark of the noun in
the ST disappears in the Italian translation).
The phenomena of trans-marking, hyper-marking, hetero-
characterization, hetero-marking, hyper-gradation, and hypo-gradation
41
can
41
These last two phenomena, i.e. those involving positive interference due to gradational
variation, require a comparative context to be noticeable. Furthermore, gradational variation can
affect very different relationships between language variants, depending on the more or less all-
encompassing character that we want to give the concept of gradation. This means that, unlike
what occurs in other types of phenomena, on many occasions gradationally marked variants are
only considered as such by comparing them with the ST (cf. §3). For example, if we found in the
TT the word rey (S) [king] as a translation of prince (E) in the ST, we might be forgiven for thinking
that it is a hyper-gradation, provided that we accept that hierarchical scales can also be regarded
as a manifestation of semantic gradation.
229 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
only be determined if the ST is available, as is also the case with the
phenomena of negative interference, for which translation provides an ideal
context of analysis, unlike what occurs in prototypical oral situations of
language contact, where negative interference is very hard to recognize.
Those of trans-position and hyper-position represent a type of marking that is
evident as a fact of contact even outside the specific field of translation,
namely, such phenomena are identifiable within highly specific spatiotemporal
occurrences (for instance, in brief sentences as a fortuitous product of a
particular speaker). Of course, it is necessary—or at the very least
convenient—that the analyst knows which languages are involved in the
contact to explain different manifestations of interference.
There are another two concepts that are essential for understanding the
scope of this classification and the interrelation between the diverse types of
phenomena: convergence and divergence (cf. Del Rey 2018a: 57–59).
Indeed, from a comparative perspective that is of interest in translation
studies, what the phenomena of transfer (which produces marked variants in
the TT by means of positive interference) and identity (which gives rises to
unmarked ones due to negative interference) have in common is the fact that
they coincide with the ST, hence both processes represent convergence
phenomena. For their part, both hyper-characterization (the product of positive
interference) and difference (the result of negative interference) are
divergence phenomena, for in both cases the variants resulting from the
process of interference in the TT differ from those present in the ST (cf. Fig.
3). Thus, the quantity of marked and unmarked phenomena according to the
classification proposed here determines the convergent or divergent tendency
of the TT with respect to the ST
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 230
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Figure 3. Positive interference, negative interference, convergen
ce, and
divergence in translated texts
As noted in §2, the applicability of this classification needs to be tested
in specific and exhaustive analyses of texts translated from and into different
languages. Nonetheless, I am of the mind that this proposal for interference
categories, from the triple perspective of contact-based, gradational, and
diasystematic variation, is an important step forward in research on language
contact and its reflection in written texts
42
. In the last section, I will refer briefly
to the fields of linguistic and discourse research for which the typology put
forward here may be interesting.
5.
T
HE VIABILITY OF APPLYING THIS TAXONOMIC PROPOSAL
The
classification presented in §3 is pretended to be, as already noted,
supra-idiomatic, and I believe that it can yield satisfactory results in
interdisciplinary studies involving translatology and linguistics. In both
synchronic and diachronic linguistics, corpus linguistics has known how to
42
Besides, it must be stressed that with this classification my aim was to describe different types
of translational phenomena, not to explain the reasons underlying the preferential use of
convergence or divergence phenomena in translations, what is also very relevant for translation
theory (cf. Even-Zohar [1981] 1990, 77).
Convergence
Divergence
Transfer
Hyper‐characterization
Identity
Difference
Positive
Interference
Negative
Interference
Trans‐position
Trans‐marking
Hyper‐position
Hyper‐marking
Hetero‐characterization
Hetero‐marking
ofForm/Function
ofMarking
ofnoMarking
ofForm/Function
Trans‐gradation
ofneutralGradation
Hyper‐gradation/Hypo‐gradation
ofunneutral Gradation
231 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
exploit the viability of corpora of translations, especially in the case of parallel
corpora.
43
The classification proposed in §3 may be particularly useful in the
analysis of these corpora, since the comparison between the ST and several
translations allows us to establish the way in which transfer, hyper-
characterization, identity, and difference—i.e. convergence and divergence—
function in the production of target discourse. Sure enough, parallel corpora
provide a perfect comparable context of variation, in the sense that the
relationships between the linguistic elements of translations represent the
effective expression of a relatively broad paradigm of variation.
In the case of corpora of translations of the same ST, but without this
being present, although the available texts also provide an ideal context for
studying diasystematic variation, it is not now possible to analyse contact-
based variation easily. Indeed, a series of translations of the same unavailable
ST enables us to differentiate between more or less marked variants in the
context of communicative immediacy and communicative distance according
to the levels of diatopical, diastratic, and diaphasic variation, as occurs in the
case of parallel corpora, given the high level of comparability that they allow
for. This is also the case with gradational variation. Similarly, both parallel
corpora and those of translations without the ST in view allow for the study of
diachronic variation, inasmuch as it is possible to define a sufficiently broad
time frame based on the different dating of the versions.
44
However, nor can
the phenomena of negative interference (identity and difference in my
classification), which in themselves are difficult to verify in prototypical
language contact situations, be easily identified in corpora of translations of
the same ST, if this is not available. But when this and at least one TT—or
several TTs, as is the case in parallel corpora—are available, the study of
integral contact-based variation—which includes the phenomena of trans-
position, hyper-position, hetero-characterization, identity, and difference of
form and/or function—is indeed possible. In short, it is thanks to the
comparison between the ST and the TT(s) that we can perform a
comprehensive analysis on the convergence and divergence phenomena
guiding the translation process.
Parallel corpora can comprise texts with a very different conceptual
profile (cf. n. 36). As to historical linguistics, the diverse translations of a Latin
43
A parallel corpus consists in the original text or texts—in the SL or language A—and its versions
translated into Language B (cf. Baker 1995; Del Rey 2016a).
44
Coseriu does not include diachronic variation in his modelling of the diasystem. However, in
the context of translation studies it is indeed possible to talk about diachronically marked variants
susceptible to being involved in the phenomena that I have called here trans-marking, hyper-
marking, hetero-marking, and difference of marking. For instance, the deliberate use of archaisms
in Don Quijote, such as fermosa [beautiful], can be interpreted as a diachronic mark which can
be translated into Italian using the adjective formosa in a procedure of trans-marking.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 232
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
text performed at different times into the language(s) under study are very
useful. A corpus of this type offers researchers the “chimerical” opportunity to
discover how the same was said in the same language in different periods,
hence its enormous interest for the study of diachronic variation (cf. Castillo
2005: 232-233).
But corpora of translations cannot and should not only include texts that
we associate with the field of conceptual scripturality, but also those in which
translation does not imply a meditated or planned act of reflection, as is the
case with hasty translations of tourist information for hotels, the spontaneous
translation of ad hoc instructions for foreigners, the translation of texts with a
large media impact on social networking sites, etc. In these types of texts, the
categories of analysis proposed in §4 can be very helpful for explaining the
interference phenomena taking place between the ST and the TT, thus fully
explaining language variation in translated texts.
The typology proposed here can also provide an effective discovery-
based methodology in the field of foreign language and L2 teaching.
45
Undeniably, translation exercises are still a productive tool for learning foreign
languages. The level of competence of students in its use will determine the
types of interference reflected in their translations: for instance, as regards
contact-based variation, a greater number of trans-positions and hyper-
positions at the initial levels, as well as a greater reflective capacity as to
negative interference at higher levels. Also regarding diasystematic variation,
those students more competent
46
in the use of the TL will be able to discern
which of the paradigmatic possibilities offered by the TL reflect a process of
trans-marking, hyper-marking, hetero-marking, or difference of marking.
Naturally, despite the supra-idiomatic vocation of this typology, the
particularities of each language in translation contexts can recommend the
qualification or even the modification of the categories proposed here. For the
time being, suffice it to present this classification, aimed at explaining variation
phenomena in translated texts according to the clarifications and caveats
provided above, to the academic community. It is my hope that this proposal
will contribute to make further inroads into interdisciplinary research between
translatology, corpus linguistics, applied linguistics, and variational linguistics,
45
Interference processes in this field was already explored by Toury (1982).
46
According to Kabatek (2005, 160), “el saber que nos indica la selección de los elementos
gramaticales y variacionales y las TD [tradiciones discursivas] adecuadas es lo que puede
llamarse nuestra competencia comunicativa” [the knowledge that shows us the selection of
grammatical and variational elements and the adequate DTs (discourse traditions) is what could
be called our communicative competence]. In this respect, Toury (1982, 62) states that “[a]ny
translation [...] represents its producer’s competence in ‘communication in translated utterances’,
but cannot be taken as a direct evidence of his overall competence in the target language”.
233 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
despite the fact that there is still much work to be done to integrate
perspectives, models, and research interests.
R
EFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Albelda Marco, M. (2005). La intensificación en el español coloquial. PhD
dissertation. University of València, Spain.
Albrecht, J. (2017). Sprachkontakt – schriftlicher Sprachkontakt –
Übersetzung (lato sensu) – und Übersetzung (stricto sensu) als Fakten
der Sprachgeschichte und als Gegenstand der
Sprachgeschichtsschreibung. In S. Dessì Schmid and H. Aschenberg.
(Eds.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte und Übersetzung (pp. 41-52).
Heidelberg, Germany: Winter.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Some
Suggestions for Future Research. Target, 7(2), 223-243.
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. Den Haag, Holland: Mouton.
Brumme, J., and Espunya, A. (2011). Background and justification: research
into fictional orality and its translation. In J. Brumme and A. Espunya.
(Eds.), The translation of fictive dialogue (pp. 7-31). Amsterdam,
Holland: Rodopi.
Coseriu, E. ([1952] 1973). Sistema, norma y habla. In Teoría del lenguaje y
lingüística general (pp. 11-113). 3rd ed. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.
Coseriu, E. ([1957] 1988). Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del
cambio lingüístico. 3rd ed. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.
Coseriu, E. (1977). Sprachliche Interferenz bei Hochgebildeten. In H. Kolb and
H. Lauffer. (Eds.). Sprachliche Interferenz: Festschrift für Werner Betz
(pp. 77-100). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Coseriu, E. (1980). “Historische Sprache” und “Dialekt”. In J. Göschel et al.
(Eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie. Ergebnisse des internationalen
Symposions ‘Zur Theorie des Dialekts’. Marburg/Lahn, 5.-10.
September 1977 (pp. 106-122). Wiesbaden, Germany: Steiner.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2016a). Traducción y tradición en los corpus: nuevas
perspectivas para la lingüística histórica. In J. Kabatek. (Ed.),
Lingüística de corpus y lingüística histórica iberorrománica (pp. 40-56).
Berlin/Boston, Germany/England: De Gruyter.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 234
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2016b). Interferencia latín-romance en Alfonso X: la
traducción como pretexto de la elaboración sintáctica. La corónica,
44(2), 75-109.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2017). (Anti-)Latinate Syntax in Renaissance Dialogue:
Romance Translations of Erasmus’s Uxor Mempsigamos. Zeitschrift für
romanische Philologie, 133(3), 673-708.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2018a). El De senectute de Cicerón en romance (ss.
XIV-XVI): un estudio sintáctico contrastivo. Anuari de Filologia. Estudis
de Lingüística, 8, 21-56.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2018b). Latinismo, antilatinismo, hiperlatinismo y
heterolatinismo: la sintaxis de la prosa traducida erasmiana del Siglo
de Oro. In M. L. Arnal Purroy et al. (Eds.), Actas del X Congreso
Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (pp. 623-645).
Zaragoza, Spain: Institución Fernando el Católico.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2019). Participial and Gerundial Clauses in 16th
Century Spanish Prose: Latinate Syntax between Convergence and
Divergence in Translation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, within the
monographic issue coordinated by B. Cornillie and B. Drinka, Latin
influence on the syntax of the languages of Europe, 33, 43-80.
Del Rey Quesada, S. (2020). Lo marcado y lo no marcado en la cadena de
variedades: apuntes para una nueva propuesta. In K. Grübl et al.
(Eds.), Was bleibt von kommunikativer Nähe und Distanz?
Tübingen,Germany: Narr. (In press)
Del Rey Quesada, S., del Barrio de la Rosa, F. and González Gómez, J.
(2018). Introducción: lenguas en contacto, traducción y variación desde
una perspectiva filológica. In S. Del Rey Quesada et al. (Eds.), Lenguas
en contacto, ayer y hoy. Traducción y variación desde una perspectiva
filológica (pp. 9-24). Frankfurt a. M. et al., Germany et al.: Peter Lang.
Flydal, L. (1951). Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l’état de
langue. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, 16, 241-258.
Frank-Job, B., and Selig, M. (2016). Early evidence and sources. In A.
Ledgeway and M. Maiden. (Eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance
Languages (pp. 24-34). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Göpferig, S. (2017). Cognitive Functions of Translation in L2 Writing. In J. W.
Schwieter and A. Ferreira. (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and
Cognition (pp. 402-422). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell.
235 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Haßler, G. (2001). Übersetzung als Sprachkontakt, In G. Haßler. (Ed.),
Sprachkontakt und Sprachvergleich (pp. 153-171). Münster, Germany:
Nodus.
Hickey, R. (Ed.). (2013). The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Itkonen, E. ([2003] 2008). ¿Qué es el lenguaje? Introducción a la Filosofía de
la Lingüística. Introduction, Spanish version and Notes by A. López
Serena. Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.
Jääskeläinen, R., and Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1991). Automatised Processes in
Professional vs. Non-Professional Translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol
Study. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit. (Ed.), Empirical Research in Translation
and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANSIF Seminar,
Savonlinna 1988 (pp. 89-110). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
Jakobsen, A. L. (2017). Translation Process Research. In J. W. Schwieter and
A. Ferreira. (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 21-
49). Hoboken/Malden, USA: Willey-Blackwell.
Kabatek, J. (1997). Zur Typologie sprachlicher Interferenzen. In W. W.
Moelleken and P. J. Weber. (Eds.), Neue Forschungsarbeiten zur
Kontaktlinguistik (pp. 232-241). Bonn, Germany: Dümmler.
Kabatek, J. ([1996] 2000). Os falantes como lingüistas. Tradición, innovación
e interferencias no galego actual. Vigo, Spain: Xerais.
Kabatek, J. (2005). Tradiciones discursivas y cambio lingüístico, Lexis, 29(2),
151-177.
Kloss, H. ([1952] 1978). Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen
seit 1800. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf, Germany: Schwann (Sprache der
Gegenwart, 37).
Koch, P. (1997). Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und
ihrer Dynamik. In B. Frank et al. (Eds.), Gattungen mittelalterlicher
Schriftlichkeit (pp. 43-79). Tübingen, Germany: Narr (ScriptOralia, 99).
Koch, P., and Oesterreicher, W. (2007). Lengua hablada en la Romania:
español, francés e italiano. Spanish version by A. López Serena.
Madrid, Spain: Gredos.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (2004). Interferenz in der Übersetzung. In H. Kittel and P.
Frank. (Eds.), Übersetzung - Translation – Traduction (vol. 1, pp. 543-
549). Berlin et al., Germany et al.: De Gruyter.
The analysis of linguistic variation in Translation Studies… 236
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
López Serena, A. (2007). La importancia de la cadena variacional en la
superación de la concepción de la modalidad coloquial como registro
heterogéneo. Revista Española de Lingüística, 37, 371-398.
López Serena, A. (2011). La doble determinación del nivel histórico en el
saber expresivo. Hacia una nueva delimitación del concepto de
‘tradición discursiva’. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 62, 59-97.
López Serena, A. (2019). La lingüística como ciencia humana. Una incursión
desde la filosofía de la ciencia. Madrid, Spain: Arco/Libros.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Malamatidou, S. (2016). Understanding Translation as a Site of Language
Contact: The Potential of the Code-Copying Framework as a
Descriptive Mechanism in Translation Studies. Target, 28, 399-423.
Martín de León, C. (2017). Mental Representations. In J. W. Schwieter and A.
Ferreira. (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 402-
422). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell.
Mattheier, K. J. (1996). Varietätenkonvergenz: Überlegungen zu einem
Baustein einer Theorie der Sprachvariation. Sociolinguistica, 10, 31-52.
Newmark, P. (1991). The Virtues of Interference and the Vices of
Translationese. In About Translation (pp. 78-86). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Otheguy, R. (1993). A reconsideration of the notion of loan translation in the
analysis of U.S. Spanish. In A. Roca and J. M. Lipski. (Eds.), Spanish
in the United States (pp. 21-46). Berlin/Boston, Germany/England: De
Gruyter.
RAE (Real Academia Española). (2018). Diccionario de la lengua española.
From https://dle.rae.es/
Raible, W. (1996). Relatinisierungstendenzen. In G. Holtus et al. (Eds.),
Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL) Band II/1: Latein und
Romanisch. Historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen
Sprachen (pp. 120-134). Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Selig, M. (2011). Konzeptionelle und/oder diaphasische Variation? In S.
Dessì-Schmid et al. (eds.), Rahmen des Sprechens: Beiträge zu
Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kreolistik, Kognitiver und
Historischer Semantik. Peter Koch zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 111-126).
Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
237 Santiago del Rey Quesada
Hikma 19 (1) (2020), 209 -237
Toury, G. (1982). The Communication Situation and the Production of
Interference Forms by L2 Learners. RELC Journal, 13(2), 62-77.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translations Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam,
Holland: John Benjamins.
Weinreich, U. ([1953] 1967). Languages in contact. Findings and problems.
London/Den Haag/Paris, England/Holland/France: Mouton & Co.
