e-ISSN: 2695-8465
ISSN: 2255-3703
141
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
The effect of standardisation on collocations in
Colombian and European Spanish translations of the work
Rootless
María Victoria Valencia Giraldo
Universidad de Salamanca
victoriavalencia@usal.es
Recibido: 12.06. 2023
Revisado: 03.09. 2023
Aceptado: 24. 10. 2023
Abstract. The empirical study of syntactic, stylistic, and lexical patterns through
corpora has frequently revealed a tendency towards standardisation, as Toury
(1995/2012) defines it, in translated texts. In this vein, some studies have found that
diatopy tends to become blurred in translations, particularly into transnational
languages. In the case of Spanish, it has been stated that the enormous
geographical richness of the language is not really reflected in translated Spanish.
This paper argues that the translation of the work Rootless by Chris Howard into
Colombian Spanish exhibits traits more typical of the European Spanish than of the
Colombian Spanish variety. For this purpose, diatopic distribution of verb + noun
(object) collocations extracted from a parallel corpus and a monolingual corpus of
Rootless and its translations published in Colombian and European Spanish, is
examined in a reference Spanish corpus.
Keywords: parallel corpus; translated Spanish; Colombian Spanish; standardisation
in translation; diatopic variation
La estandarización de las colocaciones en las traducciones al
español de Colombia y de España de la obra Rootless
Resumen. El estudio empírico de patrones sintácticos, estilísticos y léxicos a través
de corpus ha revelado con frecuencia una tendencia a la estandarización (Toury
1995/2012) en los textos traducidos. En esta línea, algunos estudios han constatado
que la diatopía tiende a difuminarse en las traducciones, sobre todo hacia lenguas
transnacionales. En el caso del español, se afirma que la enorme riqueza geográfica
de la lengua no se refleja realmente en el español traducido. En este trabajo se
argumenta que la traducción de la obra Rootless de Chris Howard al español de
Colombia presenta rasgos más propios del español europeo que de la variedad del
español de Colombia. Para ello, se examina la distribución diatópica, por medio de
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
142
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
un corpus de referencia, de las colocaciones verbo-nominales con función de objeto
directo extraídas de un corpus paralelo y un corpus monolingüe de Rootless y sus
traducciones publicadas en Colombia y España.
Palabras clave: corpus paralelo; español traducido; español de Colombia;
estandarización en la traducción; variación diatópica.
Sumario: 1. Introduction. 2. On the concept of collocation. 3. Diatopic variation of Spanish
and translation of collocations. 4. Methods. 4.1. Corpora and procedure. 5. Searching for
collocations in the CORPES XXI. 5.1. Results and analysis of the Colombian Spanish target
text. 5.2. Results and analysis of the European Spanish target text. 6. Discussion.
Conclusions.
1. Introduction
The features or regularities that distinguish translated language from
non-translated language have been extensively investigated since the 1990s
within the framework of Corpus-Based Translation Studies. These features
were initially put forward by Baker (1993, 1995, 1996), under the umbrella
term of translation universals, and by Toury (1995/2012), who explains them
by means of translation laws. Among these recurrent features, it is claimed
that translated language exhibits a more conservative use of language and
textual conventions. Translated language tends to show a preference for the
use of constructions, orthography, and textual aspects that are more
frequent, and idiosyncratic of target language, and even more typical of the
formal register, and less creative, and experimental than non-translated
texts. Baker (1996: 183) considers this feature a translation universal and
terms it normalisation/conservatism, and defines it as “a tendency to
exaggerate features of the target language and to conform to its typical
patterns”; while Toury (1995/2012: 303) develops it into his law of growing
standardisation, and explains it as follows: “in translation, source-text
textemes tend to be converted into target-language (or target-culture)
repertoremes.”
1
Standardisation of geographical or diatopic variation has been
investigated as part of this general trend of translation in different languages
and cultures (e.g., Englund-Dimitrova 1997; Leppihalme 2000; Ramos Pinto
2009, 2016; Zamora Muñoz 2018; Díaz Martínez 2020). In the specific case
of translated Spanish compared to texts originally written in Spanish, some
corpus-based studies (e.g., Corpas Pastor 2015a, 2015b, 2018; Valencia
1
In addition to standardization, Baker (1996) also proposes simplification, explicitation and levelling-
out. Toury (1995/2012) adds the law of interference to his proposal.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
143
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Giraldo & Corpas Pastor 2019) have shown that the richness of
transnational varieties of Spanish is not reflected in translated texts nor in
existing bilingual dictionaries, and that, on the contrary, there is a tendency
to favour the variety of European Spanish (Corpas Pastor 2017), as opposed
to other varieties of Spanish. The standardisation of diatopy, that will be
discussed in this paper, is investigated from the perspective of the target
language (T-standardisation) (Chesterman, 2010:40), that is, from the
comparison of the translated texts with texts originally written in Spanish
language.
Some studies have dealt with standardisation in the translation of
concrete constructions such as collocations (e.g., Bernardini 2007; Corpas
Pastor 2015b; Kenny 2001; Øverås 1998; Valencia Giraldo & Corpas Pastor
2019; Valencia Giraldo 2020). To the best of our knowledge, this is one of
the first corpus-based studies that focuses on the analysis of collocation to
determine whether the translation of collocations in a contemporary literary
work reflects a specific Spanish variety or whether it is closer to European
Spanish.
The present study analyses the translation of verb + noun (object)
collocations from the work Rootless (Howard 2012) into Colombian Spanish
(Howard 2012/2016) and European Spanish (Howard 2012/2013). The
starting hypothesis is that the translation of Rootless by the Colombian
publisher reflects European Spanish to a greater extent than the Spanish
variety used in Colombia. In order to verify this hypothesis, the diatopic
distribution of the translated collocations, extracted from a parallel corpus
and a monolingual corpus of Rootless, is examined by means of a reference
corpus of synchronic Spanish for establishing whether or not there are
features of standardisation in the translated texts compared to non-
translated texts. Since this study analyses only two translated texts, it is not
intended to provide claims and conclusions concerning translated Spanish in
general.
2. On the concept of collocation
According to Corpas Pastor (1996:66), collocations are phraseological
units consisting of two lexical units in syntactic relation, which do not
constitute, by themselves, speech acts or utterances. Due to their
institutionalization in language, collocations present combinatory restrictions
established by usage (Corpas Pastor 1996:66). Since a detailed discussion
on the concept of collocation is beyond the scope of this paper, only the
main features that were considered to carry out this study will be presented.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
144
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Collocations can be considered bipartite structures in which both
collocates have a different semantic status (Hausmann 1989). For instance,
in to pay homage, and its Spanish equivalent rendir homenaje, nouns are
the autosemantic bases, whereas the verbs to pay and rendir are collocates
(Corpas Pastor 2015b). While bases retain their meaning, the collocates
acquire a special meaning, usually of an abstract or figurative nature, in the
company of the base (Alonso Ramos 1994:24; Corpas Pastor 1996:66).
That is, the meanings of collocates depend entirely on their respective
bases. The collocates that compose a collocation may appear adjacent or
non-adjacent: one or more lexical items may appear between the base and
the collocate. Jones and Sinclair (1974) proposed the concept of
‘collocational span’, which they set at four words before and after the node
(base).
The frequency of co-occurrence of a collocation is of great relevance
because it can be indicative of conventionalization and institutionalization in
the language through reiterative use. This demonstrates the fact that
collocation is a psycholinguistic phenomenon, as Hoey (2005:5) and Corpas
Pastor (2001) point out. In this sense, it is possible to determine whether a
certain string of words is sufficiently frequent or salient to be considered
conventionalized, habitual or typical, by counting its occurrences in a corpus,
as suggested by Manning and Schütze (1999), and Corpas Pastor (2015b).
However, a collocation can be considered typical and cognitively salient
(entrenched), even if it is not very frequent (Corpas Pastor 2015:6).
Verb + noun (object) collocations constitute the most common type of
collocations in language. According to Corpas Pastor (1996:68), verbs
comprising this type of collocations have collocational extensions of variable
proportions, which is why the author places them in a continuum formed by
two opposite categories: the practically unlimited and the practically fixed,
with intermediate categories. Among the nearly unlimited verbs, collocations
that share a collocate and a base of the same semantic field are included;
examples of these are desempeñar un cargo, una función or un papel (“to
perform a job position/a function/a role”). Following Corpas Pastor (1996:69),
intermediate cases are represented by a very homogenous group of
collocations consisting of a delexical verb, almost grammaticalised, and a
(generally) deverbal noun which provides the main semantic load, for
example: asumir una responsabilidad (“assume responsibility”), entablar una
amistad (“form a friendship”). Specifically, reference is made to verbs such
as dar, tomar, hacer or poner (“to give, to take, to do, or to put”), whose
semantic load only adds certain verbal aspects. At the other extreme of the
continuum, among the practically fixed collocates, restricted collocations are
found (Aisenstadt 1979). The bases of restricted collocations exhibit a high
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
145
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
degree of combinatorial restrictions, such as conciliar el sueño (not *atraer el
sueño) (“to fall asleep”, not *“to attract sleep”), and acariciar una idea (not
*tocar una idea) (“to nurture an idea”, not *“to touch an idea”).
Due to usage restrictions and preferences of collocations, inherent to
each language, the translation of collocations into target language is often
affected by the anisomorphism of languages when it comes to selecting
collocates, as Corpas Pastor (2015b:230) points out. The base is usually
translated literally, but the translation equivalent of the semantically
dependent element (the collocate) is completely contingent on the target
language (Corpas Pastor 2017b:191). Thus, the collocate can vary greatly
across languages, for example, to pay attention, which should be translated
into Spanish as poner/prestar atención and into French as faire attention. In
the three examples above, as can be observed, collocates change in each
language, while bases are translated literally.
3. Diatopic variation of Spanish and translation of collocations
Spanish is a transnational language spoken in more than twenty
countries. This means that there is a great richness in terms of diasystematic
differences (diatopic, diaphasic and diastratic variation). Diatopic or
geographic variation in Spanish (as well as all types of variation) can be
characterised by collocations through combinatorial restrictions, usage or
distribution preferences (Corpas Pastor 2018). Transnational varieties show
a clear tendency towards the use of specific collocations: in Mexican
Spanish, the act of postponing a decision is more frequently expressed
through the collocation posponer una decisión, while postergar una decisión
is more usual in Argentinian Spanish, and aplazar una decisón is the
preferred option in European Spanish (Corpas Pastor 2015b). The latter is
also the most used in Spanish translations (Corpas Pastor 2015b).
Despite the variational richness of Spanish, it has been claimed, and
proven in many cases, that translated Spanish exhibits traits of
standardisation in relation to idiomaticity (Corpas Pastor 2018), as
evidenced in Corpas Pastor’s studies (2015b 2018). In Corpas Pastor’s
2015b study, a tendency towards the use of European Spanish variety, as
well as a reluctance to include diatopically restricted collocations, are
revealed through the analysis of a series of translation equivalences found in
Linguee.
2
Similar conclusions are drawn from the case study conducted by
Valencia Giraldo and Corpas Pastor (2019) regarding the translation of verb
+ noun (object) collocations in two transnational varieties analysed
2
Linguee is available at: https://www.linguee.com.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
146
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
(Colombian and European varieties) of the work The Picture of Dorian Gray
(Wilde 1890) by using a Spanish diachronic corpus. The translation into
Colombian Spanish reflects, to a greater extent, European Spanish than the
Spanish variety used in Colombia.
Among the multifarious translation pitfalls posed by collocations, diatopy
is undoubtedly of great relevance when it comes to choosing collocates in
Spanish or in other transnational languages. Unfortunately, English-Spanish
bilingual dictionaries are not of great use for translators in this regard, since,
as far as we are aware, there is no currently comprehensive English-
Spanish bilingual dictionary of collocations, and general bilingual dictionaries
that incorporate collocational equivalents have many limitations (Corpas
Pastor 2017b; Torner & Bernal 2017; Lorente et al. 2017). In particular, the
studies conducted by Corpas Pastor (2015b), and Valencia Giraldo and
Corpas Pastor (2019) conclude that some of the most popular and
prestigious English-Spanish bilingual dictionaries favour European Spanish
and General or Standard Spanish, as opposed to diatopically marked
Spanish.
4. Methods
This case study is focused on the translation of collocations into
Colombian and European Spanish of the work Rootless by Chris Howard
(2012). In order to undertake this study, a parallel corpus, two monolingual
corpora and a Spanish reference corpus are analysed by means of
qualitative and quantitative methods. Unlike the case study by Valencia
Giraldo and Corpas Pastor (2019), in which standardisation of the diatopy in
two chapters of The Picture of Dorian Gray (Wilde 1890) was analysed using
a diachronic corpus of Spanish (due to the nature of the source text), the
present study analyses a contemporary novel, and therefore uses a
reference corpus of contemporary Spanish. In addition, a parallel corpus is
built for greater systematicity and efficiency in the detection of collocations.
4.1 Corpora and procedure
As mentioned above, three types of corpora are used in this study.
Details on each of these are presented in this Section.
The parallel corpus created for this study contains an English source
text, namely, Chris Howard’s Rootless, and two translations, one into
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
147
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Colombian Spanish and the other one into European Spanish.
3
Furthermore,
both translated texts are analysed as separate monolingual corpora.
The Reference Corpus of 21st Century Spanish (CORPES XXI) is a
reference corpus created by the Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal
Academy). By the time the queries from this case study were made in this
corpus, the current version (0.94, published in July, 2021) contained 350
million orthographic forms in its more than 327,000 documents (written and
oral) representative of all the geographical varieties of Spanish.
4
The number
of forms produced in texts classified as belonging to the varieties of
American Spanish accounts for 70% of the total corpus (more than 250
million forms), while the remaining 30% of the corpus represents the
European Spanish variety.
The CORPES XXI was chosen because it offers the following
functionalities of great importance for the objectives set out in this study: the
possibility of filtering the results by geographic variety, medium (oral or
written), genre and topic; the fact that it is a lemmatized, annotated corpus,
and contains a significant number of forms. Since this study focuses on the
translations of a literary work (novel), the queries in the CORPES XXI were
limited to written works of fiction (novel, short story, theatre, and screenplay)
to achieve, to the greatest extent possible, a point of comparison between
the literary language translated into Spanish and the literary language
originally written in Spanish.
Initially, all syntagms corresponding to the syntactic pattern verb +
noun were automatically extracted from the parallel corpus using the CQL
function in Sketch Engine. Specifically, the query used was ‘[ws(".*-v",".*",".*-
n")]’ from ST, which yielded 9,332 lines of parallel concordances. Each
concordance line was examined for selecting those word combinations that
corresponded to the type of collocations under study in the ST and both TT.
Subsequently, collocations were extracted from the target texts perspective
only, that is from the monolingual corpora.
3
The following link provides access to the data retrieved from the CORPES XXI for all the collocations
extracted from both target texts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TXhsGOVzplR8kez3mkSclnw_oNefQzD7/view?usp=share_link.
4
The information presented here was extracted from the CORPES XXI website:
https://www.rae.es/banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
148
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
5. Searching for collocations in the CORPES XXI
Collocations extracted from both TT were queried in the CORPES
XXI. The analysis of diatopic distribution, based on raw and relative
frequency measures, of all the collocations retrieved made it possible to
determine whether the target texts indeed reflected the transnational variety
of the countries where they were published, as will be discussed in the
following Sections. It is important to point out that in this paper reference is
made to General Spanish (hereafter GEN_SP) as the generic Spanish,
without specific diatopic restrictions, that is, the Spanish that encompasses
all the diatopic varieties of Spanish (Corpas Pastor 2015b, 2018), as will be
verified by means of the reference corpus. Similarly, the transnational
varieties of Colombia (hereafter CO_SP) and Spain (hereafter EU_SP) are
defined, as far as collocations are concerned, based on usage restrictions
and preferences that are found in the CORPES XXI. In this paper, the term
‘European Spanish’ (Spanish variety from Spain) is understood as
peninsular and insular Spanish.
5.1 Results and analysis of the Colombian Spanish target text
First, the data retrieved from the CORPES XXI regarding the diatopic
distribution of collocations in the Colombian Spanish target text (hereafter
CO_SP_TT) are presented and analysed. 30 translated collocations were
identified in the CO_SP_TT, out of which 16 were also used in the European
Spanish target text (hereafter EU_SP_TT) (53.33%). This fact indicates that
both TTs share more than half of the collocations, from the source text
perspective. After establishing the relative frequency measures, looking
closely, and comparing those collocations in the CO_SP and the EU_SP, it
quickly becomes clear that 12 out of those shared collocations are used
more frequently in Spain than in Colombia.
Interestingly, 16 collocations (53.33%) among those found in the
CO_SP_TT are more frequent in EU_SP than in CO_SP, and GEN_SP (see
Fig. 1), according to the data obtained in the CORPES XXI.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
149
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Figure 1: Percentage of collocations of the CO_SP_TT exhibiting a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in the Spanish varieties of the CORPES XXI
Some of the collocations of the CO_SP_TT that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in EU_SP of the CORPES XXI are the following
(see Table 1):
Table 1: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in EU_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(1)
estrechar (una) mano
(“to shake someone’s
hand”)
670
12.62
90
11.83
532
15.40
(2)
guiñar (un) ojo
(“to give (a) wink”)
583
10.98
55
7.23
601
17.40
(3)
apretar (el) gatillo
(“to pull (the) trigger”)
160
3.01
25
3.29
172
4.98
According to the findings in the CORPES XXI, the concept conveyed
in the CO_SP_TT through the collocation estrechar (una) mano (1) is
expressed with a higher frequency in Colombian Spanish by the collocation
apretar (una) mano. The former is used most frequently in Spain and in 12
transnational varieties of Spanish (e.g., Peru, Spain, and Mexico), while
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
150
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
apretar (una) mano is used only in 3 more geographical varieties (Ecuador,
Dominican Republic, and Panama), in addition to Colombia.
Regarding instance 2, guiñar (un) ojo, used in both TTs, it could be
verified in the CORPES that the variant picar (un) ojo expressing the same
meaning is diatopically marked, because it pertains exclusively to the
Colombian Spanish variety. However, in the CO_SP_TT the variant of
General or Standard Spanish, which is closer to EU_SP, is chosen.
It is worth pointing out that the word combination apretar (el) gatillo (3)
is the only collocation used in EU_SP to convey this concept, while in
CO_SP and GEN_SP the variants halar (el) gatillo and jalar (el) gatillo
(much more informal) are commonly used. Although they are not found in
the CO_SP_TT.
Among the collocations from the CO_SP_TT that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in GEN_SP (26.67%), according to the
CORPES XXI, the following are found (see Table 2):
Table 2: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in GEN_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel. Freq.
(4)
reproducir (un) disco
(“to play (a) disc”)
4
0.08
–
–
1
0.03
(5)
tomar (una) fotografía
(“to take (a) picture”)
349
6.57
33
4.34
116
3.36
(6)
romper (una) regla
(“to break (a) rule”)
90
1.70
1
0.13
20
0.58
In CO_SP, the collocate poner is more frequently used with the noun
base disco, poner (un) disco, instead of the variant reproducir (un) disco
which was used in the CO_SP_TT.
5
In addition, it is worth noting that, unlike
GEN_SP, Colombian Spanish uses the apocope foto, rather than fotografía,
much more frequently. However, the apocope was not used on any occasion
in the CO_SP_TT.
5
The variant poner (un) disco is the most usual in GEN_SP and EU_SP of the CORPES XXI as well,
instead of the variant with the collocate reproducir.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
151
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Only 20% of the collocations of the CO_SP_TT are indeed used more
frequently in CO_SP, according to the CORPES XXI data. Some of these
are (see Table 3):
Table 3: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in CO_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(7)
tomar (un) riesgo
(“to take (a) risk”)
79
1.49
13
1.71
19
0.55
(8)
dar (un) tiro
(“to fire (a) shot”)
114
2.15
19
2.50
31
0.90
(9)
apuntar (un) arma
(“to aim (a) gun”)
231
4.35
35
4.60
94
2.72
The collocation tomar (un) riesgo (7) is an anglicism that, although it is
used more frequently in Colombia and in General Spanish than in Spain, it is
not the most frequent variant to express this concept in the transnational
variety of Colombian Spanish. In contrast, results from the CORPES XXI
reveal that correr (un) riesgo is the most frequent variant in Colombia, by a
wide margin, as in GEN_SP. A closer look at the diatopic distribution of the
different transnational varieties in this case shows that tomar (un) riesgo has
a much higher relative frequency in Panama (7.25), Puerto Rico (4.76) and
several other varieties than in Colombia (1.70).
It should be noted that none of the translated collocations identified in
the CO_SP_TT is used exclusively in the Colombian Spanish variety, nor
are they used more frequently in Colombia, if the relative frequency of use in
each country is examined in detail, which supports the hypothesis posited in
this article.
In what follows, the results obtained from the search of the diatopic
distribution in the CORPES of the collocations identified exclusively from the
perspective of the CO_SP_TT are reported and analysed. In this target text,
24 collocations were identified. After searching for the diatopic distribution of
these collocations in the CORPES XXI, it was found that 15 (62.50%) out of
these are more frequent in EU_SP that in CO_SP and GEN_SP. Only 5
collocations (20.83%) are used more frequently in CO_SP; and 4 (16.67%)
of the 24 collocations have a higher relative frequency in GEN_SP (see Fig.
2) than in CO_SP and EU_SP, in particular.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
152
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Figure 2: Percentage of collocations from the CO_SP_TT alone with higher frequency in
CORPES varieties
Among those 15 collocations from the CO_SP_TT (62.50%) which
exhibit a higher frequency of co-occurrence in EU_SP than in CO_SP and
GEN_SP, the following are included (see Table 4):
Table 4: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in EU_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(10)
llevar gafas
(“to wear glasses”)
73
1.37
18
2.37
302
8.74
(11)
esbozar (una) sonrisa
(“to flash (a) grin”)
430
8,1
55
7,23
488
14,13
(12)
prestar atención
(“to pay attention”)
1693
31.89
157
20.64
1246
36.07
In the transnational Spanish variety of Colombia, the collocate usar
(“to wear”) is preferred in combination with the noun gafas (“glasses”) to
convey the concept expressed by the collocation llevar gafas (10) in the
CO_SP_TT. Usar gafas is more frequently used only in the USA than in the
Colombian Spanish variety with a raw frequency of only 1 and a relative
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
153
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
frequency of 9.19 in the USA, compared to 20 and 2.62, respectively, in
Colombia. Therefore, the variant usar gafas can be considered quite
representative of Colombian Spanish. However, in the CO_SP_TT, the most
common variant in European Spanish is chosen: llevar gafas.
As indicated above, only 5 collocations (20.83%) out of those found in
the CO_SP_TT are more frequent in CO_SP than in EU_SP and GEN_SP,
according to the CORPES (see Table 5):
Table 5: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in CO_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(13)
soltar (la) risa
(“to burst out laughing”)
276
5.19
54
7.10
150
4.34
(14)
tomar impulso
(“to take (a) leap”)
106
1.99
25
3.29
67
1.94
(15)
sacar provecho
(“to take advantage”)
186
3.5
36
4.73
107
3.10
However, none of these collocations is diatopically restricted to
Colombian Spanish. In fact, if one compares the frequency of co-occurrence
of these collocations with each of the diatopic varieties of GEN_SP of the
CORPES, one can verify that the vast majority of the collocations found in
the CO_SP_TT co-occur more frequently in several different transnational
varieties than in the Spanish variety of Colombia.
The four collocations (16.67%) that exhibit a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in GEN_SP than in CO_SP and EU_SP are the following (see
Table 6):
Table 6: Some collocations from the CO__SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in GEN_SP
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
154
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(16)
dar (una) golpiza
(“to beat someone up”)
29
0.54
4
0.53
–
–
(17)
dar (un) vistazo
(“to take (a) look”)
106
1.99
15
1.97
45
1.30
(18)
hacer (un) ruido
(“to make (a) noise”)
1606
30.25
226
29.71
1017
29.44
(19)
montar guardia
(“to stand guard”)
158
2.97
14
1.84
67
1.94
After studying the geographical distribution of the collocations
retrieved from the CO_SP_TT, first from the ST perspective and then from
that of the TT, it is worth summarising all the data in single figures (see Fig.
3). A total of 54 collocations were found in the CO_SP_TT, out of which 31,
the majority (57.41%), are most frequently used in European Spanish; 12
(22.22%) collocations appear more frequently in GEN_SP; and 11
collocations (20.37%) are used most used in Colombian Spanish. Clearly,
the CO_SP_TT is not consistent with Colombian Spanish; on the contrary, it
reflects European Spanish to a greater extent.
Figure 3: Total percentages of collocations of the CO_SP_TT with higher frequency in the
varieties of the CORPES
5.2. Results and analysis of the European Spanish target text
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
155
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Regarding the collocations extracted from the EU_SP_TT, 31
translated collocations were identified out of which 16 (51.61%) were also
used in the CO_SP_TT, as noted in the previous Section. It is worth noting
that 68.75% of these shared collocations are most frequently used in the
EU_SP of CORPES and the rest of them in the GEN_SP. When examining
and comparing the diatopic distribution of each of the collocations of the
EU_SP_TT, it was found that most of the collocations, namely 17 (54.84%),
co-occur most frequently in EU_SP of the CORPES XXI (see Fig. 4). For
instance (see Table 7):
Table 7: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-occurrence
in EU_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(20)
pasar (la) vida
(“to spend one's life”)
219
4.13
38
5.00
405
11.72
(21)
guiñar (un) ojo
(“to give (a) wink”)
583
10.98
55
7.23
601
17.40
(22)
prestar atención
(“to pay attention”)
1693
31.89
157
20.64
1246
36.07
(23)
esbozar (una) sonrisa
(“to flash (a) grin”)
430
8.10
55
7.23
488
14.13
In the case of guiñar (un) ojo (21), when breaking down the
frequencies of co-occurrence in the different diatopic varieties of Spanish, it
was found in the statistics of the fiction subcorpus of the CORPES that this
collocation has a higher relative frequency of co-occurrence in Guatemala
(19.32) followed by Spain (17.39), although the raw frequency is 29 versus
601, respectively. Therefore, this collocation is considered to be idiosyncratic
to the diatopic variety of European Spanish.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
156
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Figure 4: Percentage of collocations of the EU_SP_TT with higher frequency of co-occurrence
in the Spanish varieties of CORPES
It is important to highlight the fact that the collocations pasar (la) vida
(20) and guiñar (un) ojo (21), despite being used in both TTs, have a relative
frequency of co-occurrence in EU_SP that is more than twice as high as in
CO_SP. The relative frequency of co-occurrence of the translated
collocations prestar atención (22) and esbozar (una) sonrisa (23) in EU_SP,
used exclusively in this TT, almost doubles the respective frequencies in
ES_CO, as can be seen in Table 7.
Among the collocations from the EU_SP_TT that appear most
frequently in GEN_SP of the CORPES XXI, the following are found (see
Table 8):
Table 8: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-occurrence
in GEN_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(24)
aclararse (la) garganta
(“to clear one’s throat”)
140
2.64
20
2.63
66
1.91
(25)
pasar tiempo
(“to spend time”
2363
44.51
166
21.83
447
12.94
(26)
sacar (una) foto
(“to take (a) picture”)
623
11.74
39
5.13
247
7.15
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
157
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
The collocation sacar (una) foto (26) was used in one instance in the
EU_SP_TT. Although its usage in European Spanish is not so common. In
contrast, sacar (una) foto is the preferred variant to express this concept in
the Rio de la Plata area (Argentina and Uruguay) and Chile, according to the
CORPES data.
Based on the data extracted from the CORPES XXI, 5 collocations
(16.13%) from the EU_SP_TT are used more frequently in CO_SP than in
EU_SP and GEN_SP (see Table 9):
Table 9: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT that show a higher frequency of co-occurrence
in CO_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(27)
tomar (una) foto
(“to take (a) picture”)
995
18.74
163
21.43
149
4.31
(28)
correr (un) riesgo
(“to take (a) risk”)
752
14.17
147
19.33
438
12.68
(29)
dar muestra
(“to show sign”)
285
5.37
49
6.44
202
5.85
The collocation tomar (una) foto/fotografía (27) is more common in
American Spanish in general, and particularly in Colombian Spanish. In fact,
in European Spanish, the verb hacer is the preferred collocate to convey this
concept, as can be compared through the raw frequencies offered by the
CORPES XXI in the fiction subcorpus from Spain:
Foto
hacer
tomar
865
151
Tomar (una) foto is used three times in the EU_SP_TT due to
interference from the English collocation to take (a) picture, as was found in
the parallel corpus. In the remaining cases where this concept was
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
158
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
conveyed by a collocation in the EU_SP_TT, the variants hacer (una) foto
and sacar (una) foto were chosen.
In what follows, the results obtained from querying the frequency of
co-occurrence of collocations identified in the monolingual corpus of the
EU_SP_TT are examined. 37 collocations were extracted from the
EU_SP_TT, out of which 45.95% exhibit a higher frequency of co-
occurrence in EU_SP than in CO_SP and GEN_SP of the CORPES, as can
be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Collocations from the EU_SP_TT alone with higher frequency in the varieties of the
CORPES
Among the most frequent collocations in EU_SP are (see Table 10):
Table 10: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in EU_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(30)
dar (una) patada
(“to kick”)
403
7.59
92
12.10
454
13.14
(31)
hacer (una) foto
(“to take (a) picture”)
146
2.75
36
4.73
740
21.42
(32)
representar (un) papel
(“to play (a) role”)
103
1.94
15
1.97
113
3.27
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
159
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
By examining in detail the frequencies of co-occurrences in the
different diatopic varieties, it is found that the collocation dar (una) patada
(30) is used with higher (relative) frequency of co-occurrence only in one
diatopic variety other than European Spanish, according to the CORPES. In
particular, the use of this collocation is more frequent in Cuba than in Spain
(see Table 11). However, this indicates that it is quite typical of EU_SP.
Similarly, the collocations representar (un) papel (32) and hacer (una) foto
(31) co-occur to a greater extent in only one transnational variety besides
European Spanish, as shown in Table 11:
Table 11: Higher frequency measures in the European Spanish variety
Country
Rel. Freq.
Raw freq.
dar (una) patada
1 Cuba6
17.16
55
2 Spain7
13.14
454
representar (un)
papel
1 .............................................................................................................................................................. G
UINEA E.8
4.73
2
2 .............................................................................................................................................................. S
PAIN
3.37
113
hacer (una) foto
1 Cuba
24.65
79
2 Spain
21.42
740
The collocation hacer (una) foto is very typical of European Spanish.
To illustrate this, the relative frequency in EU_SP is nearly five times higher
than in CO_SP: 21.42 compared to 4.73, respectively. Hacer (una) foto was
found exclusively in the EU_SP_TT.
On the other hand, 9 collocations (24.32%) of the EU_SP_TT co-
occur with a higher frequency in the CO_SP of the CORPES (see Table 12).
Some of these are:
6
The size of the subcorpus of Cuba (written fiction) is 3,204,001.
7
The size of the subcorpus of Spain (written fiction) is 34,546,559.
8
The size of the subcorpus of Guinea Equatorial (written fiction) is 422,113.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
160
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Table 12: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in CO_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(33)
dar (una) tunda
(“to give (a) blow”)
18
0.34
11
1.45
2
0.06
(34)
soltar (una) risotada
(“to burst out laughing”)
77
1.45
14
1,84
45
1.30
(35)
lanzar (un) grito
(“to cry out”)
286
5.39
42
5.52
87
2.52
Finally, 24.32% of the collocations from the EU_SP_TT represents
GEN_SP to a greater extent in comparison with European Spanish and
Colombian Spanish. Some of these collocations are (see Table 13):
Table 13: Some collocations from the EU_SP_TT (monolingual corpus) that show a higher
frequency of co-occurrence in GEN_SP
No.
Collocation
GEN_SP
CO_SP
EU_SP
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq
Raw
freq.
Rel.
Freq.
(36)
correr peligro
(“to be at risk”)
457
8.61
52
6.84
286
8.28
(37)
tener (la) certeza
(“to be certain”)
766
14.43
83
10.91
364
10.54
(38)
despedir (un) olor
(“to give off (a) smell”)
213
4.01
28
3.68
56
1.62
Among the 37 collocations found in the EU_SP_TT, two of them have
no occurrences in the fiction subcorpus of the CORPES XXI, namely:
descargar (un) rodillazo (“to hit (a) knee strike”) and echar (un) sueñecito
(“to take (a) little nap”). The noun rodillazo appears 122 times in all
transnational varieties, with a higher relative frequency in several varieties
other than in European Spanish. The collocate echar is found in combination
with the lexeme sueño, although not in its diminutive form sueñecito, in the
CORPES.
To conclude this presentation of results, it is convenient to provide the
general figures of the geographical distribution of the collocations found in
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
161
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
the EU_SP_TT, both from the perspective of the ST and the TT (see Fig. 6).
In total 68 collocations were identified, out of which 34 (50%) are used more
frequently in European Spanish (EU_SP) than in CO_SP and GEN_SP; 18
collocations (26.47%) exhibit a higher frequency of co-occurrence in
GEN_SP; while 14 collocations (20.59%) in CO_SP of CORPES XXI; and 2
collocations (2.94%) have no occurrences in the subcorpora of the CORPES
queried.
9
Figure 6: Total percentage of collocations from the CO_SP_TT in the Spanish varieties of the
CORPES XXI
6. Discussion
In the light of the empirical data presented here, it can be stated that
the hypothesis that the translation of Rootless by the Colombian publisher
reflects European Spanish to a greater extent than the Spanish variety used
in Colombia is correct. The most significant findings that support this claim
are summarised below:
When analysing the translation of the collocations (source text
perspective), it was found that the Colombian Spanish target text and the
European Spanish target text share 53.33% of their collocations. If one
closely examines and compares the raw and relative frequency measures of
9
Both collocations (descargar un rodillazo and echar (un) sueñecito) were also searched in the
subcorpus of the Spanish varieties of Spain and Colombia of the esTenTen18 corpus (available at
https://www.sketchengine.eu, accessed on 25.01.23), but no results were obtained either.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
162
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
those collocations in the transnational varieties of Colombian Spanish and
European Spanish, it can be easily inferred that most of those shared
collocations are used more frequently in European Spanish than in
Colombian Spanish. This indicates that most of the collocations shared by
both TTs are more typical and idiosyncratic of European Spanish.
A total of 54 collocations were found in the CO_SP_TT, out of which
57.41% are more frequent in European Spanish; 22.22% of the collocations
co-occur more frequently in General Spanish, and only 11 (20.37%)
collocations are more idiosyncratic to Colombian Spanish.
In the CO_SP_TT, there is a conspicuous preference for the use of
collocations that are used more frequently in the European Spanish variety,
as opposed to the use of collocations more typical of Colombian Spanish
and less widespread in the (pan)Hispanic world: for example, estrechar
(una) mano, llevar gafas, echar (un) vistazo.
Some collocations used in the CO_SP_TT are actually more
commonly expressed by other variants in Colombian Spanish (see in square
brackets), however, the translator chose the most frequent variants in
European Spanish or in other transnational varieties: apretar (el) gatillo
[halar el gatillo], soltar (la) risa [soltar una carcajada], llevar gafas [usar
gafas], estrechar (una) mano [apretar una mano], tomar (una) fotografía
[tomar una foto].
In the Colombian Spanish target text, the use of diatopically marked
collocations was entirely avoided, for example, by using the collocation
guiñar (un) ojo, instead of the variant picar (un) ojo, restricted to Colombian
Spanish.
Concerning the European Spanish target text, the data revealed that
this translation indeed reflects the Spanish variety used in Spain. It is worth
recalling that 50% of the collocations identified in this text are more
frequently used in European Spanish; 18 collocations (26.47%) are more
frequent in General Spanish, while 14 collocations (20.59%) appear more
frequently in Colombian Spanish.
These findings are in line with those presented in Valencia Giraldo
(2020), Valencia Giraldo and Corpas Pastor (2019), and in Corpas Pastor’s
studies (2015a, 2015b, 2018), regarding the underrepresentation of the
different Spanish varieties in contrast with European Spanish.
The translation behaviour observed in the findings can be explained
by Toury’s (1995/2012) law of growing standardisation. Although, due to
space limitations, I will not delve deeper into the explanatory factors
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
163
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
underlying standardisation of this kind here, it is important to point out the
following two factors. A significant factor in explaining the standardisation of
diatopy in relation to the variety of Spanish into which it is translated is
related to the commercial interests of the translation industry. This industry
promotes the adoption of a Standard Spanish (Corpas Pastor 2018:35), and
discourage the use of diatopically marked Spanish in order to market
translations on both sides of the Atlantic or throughout the American
continent, as would be the case of the translation of the Colombian publisher
Panamericana.
Moreover, and related to abovementioned factor, risk aversion (Pym
2008, 2015) may be at play in the standardisation of translated Spanish.
Consciously or unconsciously, translators standardise, in part, because they
aim to reduce or mitigate the risk involved in using diatopically marked
elements that might seem strange, incorrect, and uneducated to the target
audience. Therefore, translators may prefer to select more frequent and
typical collocations that are recognised and accepted, in the case of
Spanish, by most of the Spanish-speaking community as the standard
variety.
Conclusions
In this corpus-based study I analysed the diatopic distribution of use of
the verb + noun (object) collocations extracted from the Colombian Spanish
translation and the European Spanish translation of the work Rootless
(Howard 2012). The data revealed a tendency to standardise Colombian
Spanish in as much as it reflects, to a greater extent, European Spanish, as
predicted in the hypothesis. This tendency can be explained by Toury’s law
of growing standardisation. In this study, standardisation could not have
been determined in the Spanish translations if the three types of corpora had
not been examined. Each type of corpus provided a different and
fundamental perspective on the analysis of the translation behaviour.
However, it should be highlighted that this study has some limitations,
which is why the results should be treated with caution. Firstly, the parallel
and monolingual corpora are composed of only one source text and two
Spanish translations, which undoubtedly prevents us from making
generalisations about translated Spanish. Secondly, CORPES XXI does not
offer the possibility of restricting the query of verb + noun collocations to
those in which the noun fulfils the syntactic function of object of the verb.
Since this was the specific syntactic function analysed, it was necessary to
review each of the results when it was considered necessary. Finally,
another drawback of the CORPES has to do with the fact that this is a
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
164
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
corpus under construction. The Royal Spanish Academy is constantly
releasing new versions of the corpus, therefore the results presented here
may vary in the next version of the corpus.
The main significance of this case study lies particularly on the
quantitative and qualitative evidence that it offers to support the tendency to
standardise the diatopic varieties of Spanish, namely the Colombian
Spanish, in the translation of a contemporary literary work. In this way, this
study contributes to move forward into the description of translated Spanish
by means of corpora, which besides allowing us to understand translation
behaviour and product, in the long run it could provide insights to make shifts
in translation behaviour, for example, to give more visibility to traditionally
underrepresented transnational varieties of Spanish in translation.
This contribution opens several future research avenues. First, the
parallel corpus created for this study could be expanded to incorporate more
literary works translated into Colombian Spanish or into other diatopic
varieties of this language, in order to examine, on the one hand, whether the
traits of standardisation of the Colombian Spanish translation are
maintained, and on the other hand, whether different types of
standardisation, which have been previously identified in research on other
languages, are observed. Another future line of study in the area concerns
research into the causes or factors that influence the recurrence of the
standardisation of translated Spanish, by using other types of empirical
methods (surveys, think-aloud protocols, etc.), besides corpora.
References
AISENSTADT, E. (1979): “Collocability Restrictions in Dictionaries.” ITL -
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 45/46 (January): 71–74.
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.45-46.10ais.
ALONSO RAMOS, M. (1994): “Hacia una definición del concepto de
colocación: De J. R. Firth a I. A. Mel’čuk.” Revista de Lexicografía 1:
9–28. https://doi.org/10.17979/rlex.1995.1.0.5693.
BAKER, M. (1993): “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications
and Applications.” In Baker, M; Francis, G. & Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.)
Text and Technology in Honour of John Sinclair, 233–50. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
———. (1995): “Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Some
Suggestions for Future Research.” Target International Journal of
Translation Studies 7 (2): 223–43.
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.03bak.
———. (1996): “Corpus-Based Translation Studies: The Challenges That
Lie Ahead.” In Somers, H. (Ed.) Terminology, LSP and Translation :
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
165
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, 175–
186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BERNARDINI, S. (2007): “Collocations in Translated Language : Combining
Parallel , Comparable and Reference Corpora.” In Proceedings of the
Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2007), 1–16. Birmingham:
University of Birmingham. Available through:
http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/15_Paper.pdf.
CORPAS PASTOR, G. (1996): Manual de Fraseología Española. Madrid:
Gredos.
———. (2001): “En Torno Al Concepto de Colocación.” Euskera, 1: 89–108.
———. (2015a): “Register-Specific Collocational Constructions in English
and Spanish: A Usage-Based Approach.” Journal of Social Sciences
11 (3): 139–51. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.139.151.
———. (2015b): “Translating English Verbal Collocations into Spanish: On
Distribution and Other Relevant Differences Related to Diatopic
Variation.” Lingvisticæ Investigationes 38 (2): 229–62.
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.38.2.03cor.
———. (2017): “Collocations in E-Bilingual Dictionaries: From Underlying
Theoretical Assumptions to Practical Lexicography and Translation
Issues.” In Torner, E. & Bernal, E. (Eds.) Collocations and Other
Lexical Combinations in Spanish. Theoretical and Applied Approaches,
139–60. London: Routledge.
———. (2018): “Laughing One’s Head off in Spanish Subtitles: A Corpus-
Based Study on Diatopic Variation and Its Consequences for
Translation.” In Mogorrón Huerta, P. & Albaladejo- Martínez, A. (Eds.)
Fraseología, Diatopía y Traducción/Phraseology, Diatopic Variation
and Translation, 32–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DÍAZ MARTÍNEZ, L. (2020): “Gabriel García Márquez Traducido:
Observaciones Sobre La Variación.” In Guerrero, G., Locane, J., Loy,
B., & Müller, G. (Eds.) Literatura Latinoamericana Mundial, 147–72.
Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673678-
009.
ENGLUND-DIMITROVA, B. (1997): “Translation of Dialect in Fictional Prose-
Vilhelm Moberg in Russian and English as a Case in Point.” Norm,
Variation and Change in Language (= Stockholm Studies in Modern
Philology 11: 49–65.
HAUSMANN, F. J. (1989): “Le Dictionnaire de Collocations.” In
Wörterbcher, Dictionaries, Dictionnaires. Ein Internationales
Handbuch Zur Lexicographie, Hausmann, F.J; Reichman, O.,
Wiegand, H. E., & Zgusta, L. (Eds.), 1010–19. Berlin/New York: De
Gruyter.
HOEY, M. (2005): Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language.
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
166
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
New York: Routledge.
HOWARD, C. (2012): Rootless. New York: Scholastic.
———. (2013): El Constructor de Árboles. Barcelona: Minotauro.
———. (2016): Las Ciudades de Acero. El Constructor de Árboles I. Bogotá:
Panamericana.
JONES, S., & Sinclair, J. (1974): “English Lexical Collocations. A Study in
Computational Linguistics.” Cahiers de Lexicologie 24 (24): 15–61.
KENNY, D. (2001): Lexis and Creativity in Translation. A Corpus-Based
Study. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759968.
LEPPIHALME, R. (2000): “The Two Faces of Standardization: On the
Translation of Regionalisms in Literary Dialogue.” Evaluation and
Translation 6 (2): 247–69.
LORENTE, M., MARTÍNEZ-SALOM, A. SANTAMARÍA, I., & VARGAS-
SIERRA, C. (2017): “Specialized Collocations in Specialized
Dictionaries.” In Torner, S. & Bernal, E. (Eds.) Collocations and Other
Lexical Combinations in Spanish. Theoretical, Lexicographical and
Applied Approaches, , 200–222. London/New York: Routledge.
MANNING, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999): Foundations of Statistical Natural
Language Processing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
ØVERÅS, L. (1998): “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms
in Literary Translation.” Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs 43 (4): 557–70.
https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar.
PYM, A. (2008): “On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate.” In Pym,
A., Shlesinger, M., & Simeoni, D. (Eds.) Beyond Descriptive
Translation Studies Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury, , 311–
328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. (2015): “Translating as Risk Management.” Journal of Pragmatics
85: 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010.
RAMOS PINTO, S. (2009): “How Important Is the Way You Say It?: A
Discussion on the Translation of Linguistic Varieties.” Target 21 (2):
289–307. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.2.04pin.
———. (2016): “Ya Care How Me Speaks, Do Ya? The Translation of
Linguistic Varieties and Their Reception.” INTRALINEA, no. Special
Issue, The Translation of Dialects in Multimedia III: 1–6.
TORNER, S., & BERNAL, E. (2017): “Collocations in Learner’s Dictionaries.”
In Torner, S. & Bernal, E. (Eds.) Collocations and Other Lexical
Combinations in Spanish. Theoretical, Lexicographical and Applied
Approaches, , 157–172. London/New York: Routledge.
TOURY, G. (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. 2nd editio.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
VALENCIA GIRALDO, M.a V. (2020): “Standardisation in Translated
Language: A Study of Collocations in Peninsular and Colombian
Mª Victoria Valencia Giraldo
167
Skopos 14 (2023), 141-167
Spanish Translations of The Picture of Dorian Gray.” MonTI :
Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, no. 6: 178–209.
https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2020.ne6.6.
_____. (2022). “Las colocaciones verbo-nominales en Rootles y The Picture
of Dorian Gray y su traducción a las variedades transnacionales de
Colombia y España: un estudio basado en corpus.” PhD dissertation,
University of Salamanca. https://doi.org/10.14201/gredos.152515.
VALENCIA GIRALDO, M.a V., & CORPAS PASTOR, G. (2019): “The Portrait
of Dorian Gray: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Translated Verb + Noun
(Object) Collocations in Peninsular and Colombian Spanish.” In Corpas
Pastor, G. & Mitkov, R. Computational and Corpus-Based
Phraseology. EUROPHRAS 2019, , 417–30. Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30135-4_30.
WILDE, O. (1890): The Picture of Dorian Gray. Londres: Penguin Classics.
ZAMORA MUÑOZ, P. (2018): “La traducción de minchia, término vulgar y
marcado en diatopía, en el doblaje del italiano al español.” In Mogorrón
Huerta, P. & Albaladejo-Martínez, A. Fraseología, Diatopía y
Traducción / Phraseology, Diatopic Variation and Translation, , Vol. 17,
155–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.17.08zam.