Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studiesen_US
dc.contributor.advisorLi, Dechao (CBS)en_US
dc.creatorLiu, Yi-
dc.publisherHong Kong Polytechnic Universityen_US
dc.rightsAll rights reserveden_US
dc.titleAn investigation of lexical bundles in L1 speeches and L2 interpreted languages : a corpus-based studyen_US
dcterms.abstractIn recent years, there has been increasing interest in formulaic language across a variety of linguistic disciplines from the fields of discourse analysis, language acquisition, language pathology, language pedagogy, and applied linguistics (Lu et al., 2018; Wray, 2002). Formulaic language is a long-recognized phenomenon and previous studies have identified its prevalent use in first language discourse (Erman & Warren, 2000; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Pawley & Syder, 1983). For example, Altenberg (1998) claimed that over 80 percent of words in the London Lund corpus are in formulaic sequences. Erman and Warren (2000) considered that over 50 percent of language could be formulaic. Formulaicity in the current study is operationalized via the concept of lexical bundles (LBs), first put forward by Biber et al. (1999b) who defined LBs as “bundles of words that show a statistical tendency to co-occur (1999b, p. 989)” and as “simply sequences of word forms that commonly go together in natural discourse” (1999b, p. 990). The present study attempts to extend earlier research on formulaic sequences in political speech by exploring use of lexical bundles used by L2 interpreters compared with L1 speakers and source text (ST) speeches.en_US
dcterms.abstractSpecifically, three issues are investigated. 1) The general distribution patterns of the use of LBs in L2 interpreted texts and L1 speeches in terms of their frequency. 2) The general distribution patterns of the use of LBs between L2 interpreting and L1 original speech in terms of their syntactic structures and discoursal functions. 3) The impact of source texts on L2 simultaneous interpreting (SI) regarding the use of LBs in interpreted texts.en_US
dcterms.abstractA comparable and parallel interpreting corpus based on the United Nations Security Council Meetings (UNSCCP corpus) is constructed. The comparable corpus includes two English components of L2 interpreted texts (abbreviated as L2I) and L1 original speech (abbreviated as L1O). The parallel corpus features one English component of target texts, which is half size of L2I, abbreviated as L2I (partial) and one Chinese component of source texts (abbreviated as STC).en_US
dcterms.abstractFour-word lexical bundles are first retrieved and identified in L2I and L1O. These two groups of LBs are compared in terms of their frequency, syntactic structure, and discourse functions. The second section compares the relationship (including general patterns of equivalence, addition, and shifts) of LBs between ST and target texts (TT) in the parallel corpus. This step aims to investigate the link between source texts and target texts, which acts as a triangulation for studying ST interference, or the amount to which interpreters' use of lexical bundles is influenced by source texts.en_US
dcterms.abstractResults from the comparable corpus indicate three points: 1) In terms of the general frequency L2 interpreters use LBs significantly more frequently than L1 English speakers, suggesting that L2 interpreters in political contexts depend more heavily on the idiom principle. Moreover, the distribution of functional bundles in L2I and L1O reveals divergent patterns, indicating that these two groups of speakers may apply distinct mechanisms in producing their speech. 2) In terms of the syntactic structure taxonomy, L2I contained most noun phrase (NP) / prepositional phrases (PP) and L1O comprised most verb phrases (VP), suggesting that L2I seems to feature more written language reflecting the formal speech style of political discourse in interpreting, while L1O is closer to spoken language. 3) In terms of discoursal function taxonomy, L2 interpreters used a greater number of different four-word bundle types across the three main functional categories than L1 speakers, according to the type counts of these bundles. In each subcategory the results suggest that with the exception of ability bundles in the stance bundle group and introduction/transitional bundles in the discourse-organising bundle group, the type counts of L2I were mostly higher than those of L1O.en_US
dcterms.abstractRegarding frequency counts, both L2I and L1O showed a similar pattern in the distribution of functional bundles. The majority of stance bundles used by L2 interpreters and L1 speakers, respectively, are used to express desire, obligation, intention, and epistemic stance. Therefore, it makes sense to surmise that lexical bundles of high frequency are to some extent pre-fabricated. Even though lexical bundles are not usually idiomatic, the fact that they are always useful suggests that they may be retained in memory unaltered and used for textual or interpersonal discourse functions.en_US
dcterms.abstractThe second part of the analysis examines the three types of translation relationships in which LBs are used in accordance with their distribution of discourse functions. The results showed that equivalence pattern accounts for 63% of all occurrences, followed by addition (29%) and shift (7%). Within the three major functional groups, stance bundles and referential bundles are mostly used as equivalent cases, while most discourse-organising bundles are used as addition in comparison to ST. The additional cases are mostly grammatical supplements when rendering Chinese ST into English TT. It is reasonable to infer that most bundles used by L2 interpreters correspond to the ST expressions. The addition and shift of LBs are used by interpreters to cope with the grammatical distinctions between Chinese and English.en_US
dcterms.abstractThe current research is the first attempt to carry out the exploration of the use of LBs between L2 interpreting and L1 speakers as well as source texts and target texts. The emphasis on L2 interpreted texts contributes to the understanding of this underexplored field as most studies in corpus-based interpreting studies have focused on interpreting into L1. The current research adds to research on interpretese by presenting supportive evidence of normalisation, contributing to the knowledge on corpus-based interpreting studies. It also enhances knowledge of SI output by illustrating how L2 interpreters use LBs to form their speech.en_US
dcterms.extentxvi, 266 pages : color illustrationsen_US
dcterms.isPartOfPolyU Electronic Thesesen_US
dcterms.educationalLevelAll Doctorateen_US
dcterms.LCSHLinguistic analysis (Linguistics)en_US
dcterms.LCSHDiscourse analysisen_US
dcterms.LCSHTranslating and interpretingen_US
dcterms.LCSHHong Kong Polytechnic University -- Dissertationsen_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
6988.pdfFor All Users2.16 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Copyright Undertaking

As a bona fide Library user, I declare that:

  1. I will abide by the rules and legal ordinances governing copyright regarding the use of the Database.
  2. I will use the Database for the purpose of my research or private study only and not for circulation or further reproduction or any other purpose.
  3. I agree to indemnify and hold the University harmless from and against any loss, damage, cost, liability or expenses arising from copyright infringement or unauthorized usage.

By downloading any item(s) listed above, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the copyright undertaking as stated above, and agree to be bound by all of its terms.

Show simple item record

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/12545