Exploring the Potential of Corpus Use in Translation Training: New Approaches for Incorporating Software in Danish Translation Course Design

  • Anne Lise LaursenEmail author
  • Ismael Arinas Pellón
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 19)


This chapter describes the corpus analysis strategies used with the translation master’s students at the Department of Business Communication at the Faculty of Business and Social Sciences (formerly Aarhus School of Business or ASB). Corpus analysis is both coherent with the methodological and theoretical approaches followed within this master program. The short time available for the training of specialized translators only allows for teaching the students methods that they can apply systematically to several professional tasks. The theoretical contents of the syllabus are based on two complementary approaches to applied linguistics: (a) Vermeer and Nord (SKOPOS), Bhatia and Trosborg (genre analysis), and Vinay, Darbelnet, and Korzen et al. (contrastive stylistics); (b) theories of specialized lexicography (Tarp), which have been developed within the former ASB. We illustrate here how the traditional translation training strategies can be combined with the use of concordancing software to cope with translations.


Regular Expression Contrastive Feature International Account Standard Language Pair Translation Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alcaraz Varó, Enrique, and Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal translation explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  2. Beeby, Allison, Patricia Rodríguez Inés, and Pilar Sanchez Gijon (eds.). 2009. Introduction to: Corpus use and translating. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, B.V.Google Scholar
  3. Bernardini, Silvia, and Sara Castagnoli. 2008. Corpora for translator education and translation practice. In Topics in language resources for translation and localisation, ed. Elia Yuste Rodrigo, 39–55. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Biber, Douglas. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about registers and genres. In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, 241–254. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, Lynne, and Elizabeth Marshman. 2011. Better integration for better preparation: Bringing terminology and technology more fully into translator training using the CERTT approach. In Teaching and learning terminology, ed. Amparo Alcina, 61–88. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.Google Scholar
  7. Bowker, Lynne, and Jennifer Pearson. 2002. Working with specialized language. A practical guide to using corpora. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ditlevsen, Marianne G., and Peter Kastberg. 2009. Personal knowledge management. Knowledge mapping techniques in the training of LSP translators. Intralinea, Special Issue: Specialised Translation. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  9. Handford, Michael. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about specialist genres? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, 255–269. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hunston, Susan. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johansson, Stig. 2003. Contrastive linguistics and corpora. In Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies, ed. Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 31–44. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.Google Scholar
  12. Kastberg, Peter. 2002. Information and documentation management in the training of technical translators – as opposed to teaching technical science. LSP & Professional Communication 2: 57–65.Google Scholar
  13. Kenny, Dorothy. 2007. Translation memories and parallel corpora: Challenges for the translation trainer. In Across boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies, ed. Dorothy Kenny and Kyonjoo Ryou, 192–208. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Kiraly, Don. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Korzen, Iorn. 2005. Endocentric and exocentroc languages in translation. Translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 13: 21–37. doi: 10.1080/09076760508668961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Korzen, Iorn, and Lita Lundquist. 2003. Sprogtypologi og oversættelse: Endocentriske og exocentriske sprog. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  17. Laursen, Anne Lise. 2010. Explanatory notes in LSP dictionaries. Reconceptualizing LSP. Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium 2009. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  18. Laursen, Anne Lise, and Grete Duvå. 2005. Cyberlexicography in LSP: New aspects of components and structures in the dictionary. In Symposium on lexicography XI, ed. Henrik Gottlieb et al., 337–350. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Laviosa, Sara. 2003. Corpora and translation studies. In Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies, ed. Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, 45–54. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, David, and John Swales. 2006. A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes 25: 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López Ciruela, Andrés. 2003. Una Defensa Crítica de las Memorias de Traducción. Panace@ Vol. IV, nº. 12: 180–182. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  22. Nelson, Mike. 2010. Building a written corpus: What are the basics? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, 53–65. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Rayson, Paul, and Roger Garside. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. WCC’00 proceedings of the workshop on comparing corpora – Volume 9. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  24. Rayson, Paul, Damon Berridge, and Brian Francis. 2004. Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies. JADT 2004: 7es Journées Internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  25. Reppen, Randi. 2010. Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, ed. Anne O’Keeffe and Michael McCarthy, 31–37. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Schjoldager, Anne. 2008. Understanding translation. Aarhus: Academica.Google Scholar
  27. Schreiber, Trine, Karen Harbo, Marianne G. Ditlevsen, and Peter Kastberg. 2004. Personal knowledge management eller personlig videnstyring – en metode til at udvikle og understøtte den enkeltes informationskompetence. Århus: Nyhedsbrev Fra Handelshøjskolens Bibliotek I Århus.Google Scholar
  28. Sinclair, John. 2005. Corpus and text – Basic principles. In Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice, ed. Martin Wynne, 1–16. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  29. Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tarp, Sven. 2004. How can dictionaries assist translators? In Translation and bilingual dictionaries, ed. Chan Sin-wai, 23–38. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  31. Temmerman, Rita. 2000. Towards new ways of terminology description: The sociocognitive approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Teubert, Wolfgang. 1996. Comparable or parallel corpora? International Journal of Lexicography 9: 238–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trosborg, Anna (ed.). 1997. Text typology and translation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Trosborg, Anna (ed.). 2000. Analysing professional genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business CommunicationAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y a la TecnologíaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations