Academic literature on the topic 'The Linnaeus University English–German–Swedish Corpus (LEGS)'

This paper presents findings on the use of brackets in original texts and translations based on the Linnaeus University English-German-Swedish corpus (LEGS). The results show that in originals, brackets are the most frequent in English and the least in Swedish. Translations usually contain more brackets than originals. There are two reasons for this. First, most brackets are retained, and secondly, many are added. Added brackets mostly contain short synonyms facilitating target-reader comprehension. English translators introduce the most changes (additions, omissions, downgrades and upgrades), and Swedish ones the least. Brackets tend to fulfil content-oriented rather than interpersonal functions. When brackets are replaced by other punctuations marks in translations, these tend to be commas or no punctuation marks at all. German originals have a stronger preference for bracketing phrases than clauses compared to English and Swedish. These German phrasal brackets are often expanded into clauses in translations.

This article concerns English proper noun modifiers denoting organizations, people and places and their German and Swedish correspondences. It supplements previous studies touching upon contrastive comparisons by providing large-scale systematic findings on the translation correspondences of the three aforementioned semantic types. The data are drawn from the Linnaeus University English–German–Swedish Corpus (LEGS), which contains popular non-fiction, a genre previously not studied in connection with proper noun modifiers. The results show that organization-based modifiers are the most common and person-based ones the rarest in English originals. Compounds are the most frequent correspondences in German and Swedish translations and originals with genitives and prepositional phrases as other common options. The preference for compounds is stronger in German, while it is stronger for prepositional phrases in Swedish translations, reflecting earlier findings on language-specific tendencies. Organization-based modifiers tend to be translated into compounds, and place-based modifiers into prepositional phrases. German and Swedish translators relatively often opt for similar target-language structures. Two important target-language differences emerge: (i) compounds with complex heads are dispreferred in Swedish (US news show > *USA-nyhetsprogram) but unproblematic in German (US-Nachrichtensendung), and (ii) compounds with acronyms (WTO ruling > WTO-Entscheidung) are more frequent in German.

This study investigates acronyms in English originals and their translations into German and Swedish, comparing forms, functions and distributions across the languages. The material was collected from the Linnaeus English-German-Swedish corpus (LEGS) consisting of original and translated popular non-fiction. From a structural point of view, acronyms most often occur as independent noun heads (When IBM introduced […]) or as premodifiers in a noun phrase (PGP encryption). Due to morphosyntactic differences, English acronym premodifiers often merge into hyphenated compounds in German translations (UN-Klimakonvention), but less frequently so in Swedish. The study also discusses explicitation practices when introducing source-culture specific acronyms in the translations. German translators explain and elaborate more than Swedish translators and they do so in the German language. Swedish translators, however, use English to a greater extent, suggesting that Swedish readers are expected to have better knowledge of English than German readers.

This paper investigates English supplementive ing-clauses (e.g., Hitler exploded, demanding examples.) in German and Swedish contrast. The material consists of popular non-fiction originals and their translations from the Linnaeus University English-German-Swedish corpus (LEGS) (version 0.1). The results show that coordination is the most frequent correspondence of supplementive ing-clauses in German and Swedish translations and originals. Like the supplementive ing-clause, a coordination is a compressed and semantically indeterminate structure. The other major correspondences include subordination, main clause and prepositional phrase. German translators more often use main clauses than Swedish translators, which seems to be related to an increasing German tendency for parataxis rather than hypotaxis. A number of German and Swedish instances involve different kinds of explicitation, including conjunctions and German pronominal adverbs.

This thesis aims to compare the English metaphorical expressions up and down in relation to Swedish. For this purpose, English original texts with Swedish translations and Swedish original texts and English translations were analyzed by using the Linnaeus English-German-Swedish corpus. Thus, the study will show that the metaphorical expressions up and down are used more often in English translated texts as well as what the most common Swedish translation or original of the metaphorical expressions are. Furthermore, the paper will sort the metaphorical expressions based on target domains and compare this with the Swedish translations.

This study investigates how the semi-modal need to is translated into German/Swedish and which German/Swedish correspondences are translated into need to. To this end, the Linnaeus University English–German–Swedish Corpus (LEGS) is used. Nida’s (1964: 159-162) concept of formal and dynamic equivalence is used to perform the qualitative analysis and to discuss the results from the quantitative part of the study. The use of semi-modals such as be going to, have to and want to have increased during the second half of the 20th century (Leech et al.: 2009: 99). need to represents the obligation as being in the best interest of the subject and is associated with objectivity (Kastrone 2008: 829; Aijmer 2017: 28) Thus, need to is used to distance the speaker to avoid an authoritarian stance. This trend is a sign of an ongoing democratization (Leech et al. 2009: 270). The results showed that the preferred German translation is müssen (‘must’) (55%) and  the preferred Swedish translation is behöva (‘need’) (47%). ‘Other’ is the second preferred German translation and the third preferred Swedish translation. These results are reflected in the structures translated from German and Swedish. The results indicate that the semantic category of the co-occurring main verb and the co-occurring subject affect translation. Based on these results, it could be said that English, followed by Swedish, is leading the process of democratization. However, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.