Syntactic complexity of interpreted, L2 and L1 speech: A constrained language perspective

被引:20
作者
Liu, Yi [1 ]
Cheung, Andrew K. F. [1 ]
Liu, Kanglong [1 ]
机构
[1] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept Chinese & Bilingual Studies, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
Syntactic complexity; Constrained languages; Simplification; Interpreting; L2SCA; CORPUS; ENGLISH; ACCURACY; FLUENCY; SIMPLIFICATION; STRATEGIES; DISCOURSE; PATTERNS; CONTACT; WRITERS;
D O I
10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103509
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
This study investigates the differences in syntactic complexity among three language varieties: interpreted speech, nonnative English (L2) speech, and native English (L1) speech. The examination was conducted through the evaluation of 14 measures across five subconstructs: the length of the production unit, the amount of subordination, the amount of coordination, phrasal sophistication, and overall sentence complexity. We used a self-compiled comparable corpus of these three language varieties and tested the simplification hypothesis under the framework of constrained language. Our results showed that the two spoken constrained varieties, interpreted speech and L2 speech, had significantly lower scores on most of the syntactic complexity measures compared to non-constrained L1 speech. However, there was no consistent pattern between the two constrained varieties. Specifically, interpreted speech had longer language units and more coordination than L2 speech, which contained more subordination. Overall, this study provides new insights for simplification research by examining syntactic complexity measures from a constrained language perspective.(c) 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 89 条
[1]  
Al-Jabr A., 2006, Babel, V52, P203, DOI 10.1075/babel.52.3.01alj
[2]   Information processing during simultaneous interpretation: a three-tier approach [J].
Alonso Bacigalupe, Luis .
PERSPECTIVES-STUDIES IN TRANSLATION THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2010, 18 (01) :39-58
[3]  
Baker M., 1996, Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, P175
[4]  
Baker M., 1993, Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, P233, DOI 10.1075/z.64.15bak
[5]  
Bartlomiejczyk M., 2006, INTERPRETING, V8, P149, DOI [DOI 10.1075/INTP.8.2.03BAR, 10.1075/INTP.8.2.03BAR]
[6]   On cross-linguistic variation and measures of linguistic complexity in learner texts: Italian, French and English [J].
Bernardini, Petra ;
Granfeldt, Jonas .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, 2019, 29 (02) :211-232
[7]   From EPIC to EPTIC - Exploring simplification in interpreting and translation from an intermodal perspective [J].
Bernardini, Silvia ;
Ferraresi, Adriano ;
Milicevic, Maja .
TARGET-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION STUDIES, 2016, 28 (01) :61-86
[8]  
BIBER D, 2016, APPL LINGUIST, V37, P639, DOI DOI 10.1093/APPLIN/AMU059
[9]  
Biber D., 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
[10]   Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement [J].
Biber, Douglas ;
Gray, Bethany ;
Staples, Shelley ;
Egbert, Jesse .
JOURNAL OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES, 2020, 46