Chapter Eighteen
390
Examples of this kind of communication and cluster equivalence of
parallel aligned type are not uncommon as is exemplified in a paper by
Koen Kerremans (2016), in which the author presents a comparative study
between a parallel corpus of English IATE (http://iate.europa.eu) source
texts and their translations into French and Dutch, and terminological
records from the European Union terminological database, possessing a
largely normative function. One of the claims defended in the present
study refers to the presence of similar cluster equivalence patterns in
general and specialist languages, although there may be frequency
differences involved, with smaller numbers of cluster equivalents in LSP.
Materials and methods
The data used in this study come from monolingual corpora (the British
National Corpus and the National Corpus of Polish) and parallel corpora,
collected by the PELCRA team of the University of Lodz, mainly
representing English-to-Polish translations. The materials are searched
with the corpus tools involving collocation generator (pelcra.pl/hask_pl,
PĊzik 2014) and the aligned web-based concordancer Paralela (http://para
lela.clarin-pl.eu), which can search for single words, phrases and lexical-
grammatical patterns. The translation corpus includes 260 million word
segments and for the present purposes there are used 9,189 segments for
English-to-Polish equivalent examples containing the English form motor
and examined for their Polish correspondences. The typological and
bibliographic filters are available with the concordancer, which makes the
tool particularly useful for studies of translational equivalence. An
additional search tool used in the present study is http://www.linguee.pl, which
offers a richer range of Polish-to-English parallel texts, however it does
not provide statistics associated with the frequencies.
It is argued in the present paper that cross-language communication in
the form of translation takes place in terms of what can be called meaning
cluster-for-cluster equivalence exemplified in the texts which represent
two types. As a contrastive set, domain-specific uses are analysed, i.e.,
those which belong to a restricted domain in the terminological sense on
the one hand and on the other, other corpus data are juxtaposed, which
contain the same language form, but represent different styles, modes or
genres as e.g., the spoken mode, journalistic prose and the language of
literature. This process can be observed in the analysis of relevant SL and
TL texts, which manifest distinct domain categorisations of the same
language forms.