SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 2019 - Sayı: 170/1

LEXICAL COLLOCATION ERRORS IN LITERARY TRANSLATION

Özgür Şen BARTAN
Pages
73–88
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, authentic materials are essential to introduce collocations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to explore lexical collocation errors in Turkish-English translations of literary texts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To identify, describe and explain the errors (Ellis, 1985), a written corpus of Turkish literary texts and their English translation texts (ETT) was compiled from students of the Department of English Translation and Interpretation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, authentic materials are essential to introduce collocations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Lexical Collocation Translation · L1 Influence · Restriction On Collocability

Abstract

This study aims to explore lexical collocation errors in Turkish-English translations of literary texts. To identify, describe and explain the errors (Ellis, 1985), a written corpus of Turkish literary texts and their English translation texts (ETT) was compiled from students of the Department of English Translation and Interpretation. Benson et al.’s (1997) classifications for lexical collocations have been used in order to analyse lexical collocation errors for this study. Also, the most common lexical collocation errors (verb+noun) were examined in terms of restriction on collocability and the L1 influence. The amounts of errors per lexical collocation type in the ETT indicate that the most common type is that of verb + noun, followed by adjective + noun. Moreover, in terms of EFL/ESL learners and translator education, this study suggests that more restrictions of collocation cause poorer collocation production, and L1 influence plays an important role in translators’ erroneous collocations. The findings of this study have a number of important implications for future practice of foreign/second language learning and translation education. It’s extremely important for foreign language learners to have English-Turkish and Turkish-English bilingual dictionaries of lexical collocations, as searching for the right collocation they spend a lot of time and energy. Also, authentic materials are essential to introduce collocations.

Özet

This study aims to explore lexical collocation errors in Turkish-English translations of literary texts. To identify, describe and explain the errors (Ellis, 1985), a written corpus of Turkish literary texts and their English translation texts (ETT) was compiled from students of the Department of English Translation and Interpretation. Benson et al.’s (1997) classifications for lexical collocations have been used in order to analyse lexical collocation errors for this study. Also, the most common lexical collocation errors (verb+noun) were examined in terms of restriction on collocability and the L1 influence. The amounts of errors per lexical collocation type in the ETT indicate that the most common type is that of verb + noun, followed by adjective + noun. Moreover, in terms of EFL/ESL learners and translator education, this study suggests that more restrictions of collocation cause poorer collocation production, and L1 influence plays an important role in translators’ erroneous collocations. The findings of this study have a number of important implications for future practice of foreign/second language learning and translation education. It’s extremely important for foreign language learners to have English-Turkish and Turkish-English bilingual dictionaries of lexical collocations, as searching for the right collocation they spend a lot of time and energy. Also, authentic materials are essential to introduce collocations.

🔖

Cite This Article

BARTAN, Ö. Ş. (2022). LEXICAL COLLOCATION ERRORS IN LITERARY TRANSLATION. Dil Dergisi, Cilt: 2019 - Sayı: 170/1, 73–88. https://ajindex.com/articles/488443

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aksan, Y. Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., Yıldız, Y., ve Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC).In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012).İstanbul. Türkiye. Available online at http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers.html
  2. Aksu Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2016). A Theoretical View to Collocations with an Argument of Integrant Approach in Teaching Level, Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, MEUDED, 13 (1), 39-70.
  3. Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1999). “Should we teach EFL students collocations? System,21, 101–114.
  4. Benson, M. (1997). Collocations and General-purpose Dictionaries, International Journal of Lexicography, 3 (1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/3.1.23
  5. Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson, R. F. (1997). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/z.bbi1(2nd).
  6. Benson, M. & Benson, E. (1993). Russian-English Dictionary of Verbal Collocations Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bıldırcın, Y. U. (2014). A corpus-based analysis of the morpho-syntactic errors in the written productions of Turkish learners of English as a foreign language: Mersin University sample, Doctoral Thesis, Mersin Üniversitesi,
  7. Turkey. Bonelli, E. T. (2000). Corpus Classroom Currency. DarbaiirDienos, 205-243.
  8. CDTT (2011). Collocation Dictionary of Turkey Turkish, National Research Project, Mersin University, Available online at http://turkcederlem.mersin.edu.tr/esdizim/
  9. Cowie, A. P. (1978). The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design of a learner’s dictionary. In: Strevens, P. (ed.) Honour of A.S. Hornby, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 127–139.
  10. Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  11. Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing, Routledge, New York Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Eren, N. T. (2016). Eşdizimlerin saptanmasına ve betimlenmesine yönelik kuram ve yaklaşımlar”, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13 (33), p. 28-47.
  13. Erman, B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1), 29–62.
  14. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction i