CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95 (2013) 325 - 335
5th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2013)
Translating the Language of Tourism. A Corpus Based Study on the Translational Tourism English Corpus (T-TourEC)
Stefania Gandin*
Department of Humanities and Social Studies, University of Sassari, Via Roma 151, Sassari 07100, Italy
Abstract
This paper will present the preliminary results of an ongoing research project concerning corpora-based studies on the translated language of tourism. By employing a specifically designed corpus of translated tourist texts from a variety of languages into English and comparing it with a larger corpus of travel articles originally written in English, the analysis aims to identify potential differences in the discursive patterns and stylistic features characterising the translated language of tourism with respect to tourist texts originally written in English. By applying a comparable corpus methodology, the purpose of the work will be that of understanding the extent to which the discursive patterns of translated texts might affect or not the communicative functions, linguistic properties and persuasive effects typically employed in English tourist texts, in order to provide an interpretation of the functions and features (including universals of translation) characterising the translational practices of tourism discourse into English.
© 2013TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd. Selectionand peer-reviewunder responsibilityofCILC2013.
Keywords: corpus linguistics; translation studies; comparable corpus methodology; language of tourism.
Nomenclature
SL/TL source language/ target language ST/TT source text/target text TTR type/token ratio
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 - 079229691 E-mail address: sgandin@uniss.it
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of CILC2013. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.654
1. Corpus linguistics, translation universals and tourism discourse: a general introduction
The application of corpus linguistics methodologies [Sinclair (1991); Stubbs (1996); Tognini-Bonelli (2001)] to the study of translation started in the early 1990s with the projects carried out by the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at the University of Manchester, aimed at the construction of the Translational English Corpus, the first and largest collection of contemporary translational English. The application of corpus analysis to the study of translated texts is carried out with the intention of discovering the features of translation as a linguistic phenomenon per se, characterized by its own linguistic patterns, practices, models and communicative aims, including specific stylistic features of individual translators and, at a higher level of analysis, the discovery of the so-called 'universals of translation'. The study of 'translation universals' through corpus linguistics methodologies developed from the need to define with empirical data the blurred concept of 'translationese', a term used to indicate (often in pejorative sense) how "the language of translated texts may differ from that of other texts produced in the same language" (Zanettin, 2012: 12).
The first investigations into universals of translation resulted in the determination of four typical linguistic phenomena [Baker (1993, 1996 and 2000); Bowker and Pearson (2002); Johansson (2003); Kenny (2001); Laviosa (1998 and 2002); Mauranen & Kuyamaki (2007); Olohan (2004); Olohan & Baker (2000); Tymoczko (1998) and Zanettin (2000)]:
• the phenomenon of explicitation, represented by all those devices used to "spell things out rather than leave them implicit in translation' (Baker 1996:180), including for instance "the use or overuse of explanatory vocabulary and conjunctions, or any supplementary information added to the text (e.g. the translator's forewords at the beginning of a text)", (Ibid.), the higher presence of the reporting that, and the additions of grammatical and/or lexical items in the specification of terms;
• the phenomenon of simplification, expressed through the use of simplified language resulting in a lower degree of lexical density and a narrower range of type-token ratios, or by means of shorter sentences, alteration of the punctuation from weaker to stronger marks, omission of redundant or repeated information and shortening of complex collocations;
• the phenomenon of normalization represented by "the tendency to exaggerate the features of the target language and to conform to its grammatical and collocational patterns" (Ibid.: 183), through the normalization of grammatical structures, punctuation collocational patterns and lexical creativity in terms of suffixes and ST unique words;
• the phenomenon of levelling out, which "concerns the tendency of translated texts to gravitate towards a centre of a continuum (...)" (Baker 1996: 184), so that the text moves away from any extreme of oral or literate markedness involved both in the source and target language.
More recently other perspectives and notions have been added to the study of translation universals, such as:
• the notion of unique items, which entails the investigation of unusual TL specific lexical items which are not common in the standard TL and may turn out to be even less frequent in translated texts
• untypical collocations, which are those word combinations that although possible in the TL, are rare or absent in standard TL texts.
• and the concept of interference which refers to "features of the SL that get transferred in target texts during the process of translation" (Zanettin 2012: 20-22).
In this specific study, we applied a comparable corpus methodology to investigate whether and to what extent universals of translation affect the communicative functions, linguistic properties and persuasive effects typically featured in a specific language for special purposes, namely the language of tourism. Before proceeding with a detailed illustration of the corpora and relating results of this study, a brief account must be provided of the main features of the language of tourism and its main theoretical frameworks.
The language of tourism represents a peculiar type of specialised language made up of a wider range of stylistic, pragmatic and lexical features intertwined with and influenced by different registers and different specialised languages. Its characteristics have been studied both at the linguistic and socio-linguistic level by a variety of scholars [Dann and Parrinello (2009); Francesconi (2007); Nigro (2006); Palusci and De Stasio (2007), Pierini (2007)] and in particular by Graham Dann (1996), who identified a series of properties and techniques that are typical of the language of tourism and which represent the main theoretical framework of this research. As shown in
Table 1 below, Dann classifies the features of tourism discourse into convergent properties, which are the ones that the language of tourism shares with other specialised languages, and divergent properties, those that differentiate the language of tourism from other types of discourses. Moreover, the scholar identified a series of verbal and visual techniques that can also be used in combined forms.
Table 1: Dann's model (adapted): properties and techniques of the language of tourism
CONVERGENT PROPERTIES DIVERGENT PROPERTIES
Functions (Jacobsonian classification) Lack of sender identification
Structure: combination of text/image or textual functions in order for the product to be purchased binary language of opposites Monologue
Tense: binary opposition btw present and future Euphoria: use of hyperbolic language
Magic: misrepresenting time and nature through language and images. Tautology: stereotypes, pre-packaged expectations about the destination
VERBAL TECHNIQUES VISUAL TECHNIQUES
comparison humour colour visual cliché
key words and keying languaging format connotation procedures
testimony ego-targeting
VERBAL AND VISUAL TECHNIQUES COMBINED
puzzles ousting the competition
temporal contrast infraction of taboo
collage significant omission
Such a multileveled characterization of tourism discourse implies that its translational practices must take into account the complex lexical and pragmatic features of this language, by following two main priorities aimed at rendering the TT adequate and effective:
• the cultural load implied in the language of tourism;
• the promotional goals of tourist texts.
To verify these assumptions, our analysis focused on two monolingual corpora of English translated and non-translated texts dedicated to the language of tourism in order to understand the features and constraints of translated tourist discourse and to identify potential aspects and practices to be improved in the translation of tourist texts.
2. The Tour-EC and the T-TourEC corpora: comparative PoS analysis and translation universals
The first monolingual corpus employed in the analysis, namely the TourEC (Tourism English Corpus) was compiled between 2011 and 2012 as part of a multilingual research project carried out at the Department of Humanities and Social Studies of the University of Sassari (Italy), focussing on the concept of authentic communication in tourism. It comprises a large number of travel articles download from the web (BBC travel web site) originally written in English by a variety of authors, describing a vast array of typical tourist topics and locations worldwide. More specifically the TourEC includes over 500 articles dealing with a variety of topics, describing the main and most popular tourist cities, countries and large geographical regions, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: TourEC topics and locations
TourEC TOPICS
Adventure
Food & Drink
Nature & Outdoors
TourEC TOPICS
Arts & Architecture Health Road Trips
Beaches Hiking Romance
Budget History Shopping
Business Holidays Snow and skiing
Cruises Hotels Sports
Cultural Activities Living in... Tours & Classes
Eco-tourism Luxury Travel Tips
Family Music Weekends
TourEC LOCATIONS
Abu Dhabi Costa Rica Istanbul Rio de Janeiro
Alaska Croatia Italy San Francisco
Amsterdam Dubai Japan Seattle
Argentina Ecuador Kenia Seoul
Australia Egypt Las Vegas Singapore
Barcelona Finland Los Angeles South Africa
Beijing France Malaysia Spain
Berlin Germany Mexico Tahiti
Brazil Great Britain Miami Thailand
Buenos Aires Greece Morocco Tokyo
Cambodia Hawaii Moscow Turkey
Canada Hong Kong New York City Ukraine
Caribbean India New Zealand USA
Chicago Indonesia Poland Vietnam
China Ireland Prague Washington DC
The corpus comprises 468,254 tokens and 36,498 types (TTR: 7.79) and was analysed by means of Wordsmith (Wordlist and Concord) and PoS-tagging procedures, using the CLAWS part-of-speech tagger (tagset: C5; output: vertical) and a specifically designed perl script in order to quantify the exact number of tokens and types for each part-of-speech.
The second corpus — the T-TourEC (Translational Tourism English Corpus) — was created in 2012 and comprises a set of four sub-corpora exclusively dedicated to travel texts translated into English from a variety of languages (i.e. Italian, Norwegian and Japanese) coming from very different language families in order to avoid biased data deriving from the potential repetition of linguistic and translational patterns implied in SLs with similar origins. The data were analysed once again by means of Wordsmith and PoS-tagging procedures, using the same CLAWS part-of-speech tagger and perl script tools used for the analysis of the TourEC, in order to retrieve comparable data and employ similar analytical parameters. On the whole the T-TourEC comprises 361,198 tokens and 23,144 types (TTR: 6.41), with over 800 texts translated into English and downloaded from the institutional web sites of the national Japanese, Italian and Norwegian tourist boards, which describe the typical tourist topics and attractions of the countries taken into consideration, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 1 reported below.
Table 3: T-TourEC topics
T-TourEC TOPICS
action and adventure lakes & mountains sightseeing areas
active holidays leisure and cultural activities sports and adventure
art and history attractions and culture culture and entertainment
eating and drinking family and fun
T-TourEC TOPICS nature and wildlife recreation and sports religion and spirituality
sea and beaches shopping
tourist facilities
tours and safaris
UNESCO World Heritage Sites
well-being and health where to go
Figure 1: T-TourEC text % divided by country
The comparison between the T-TourEC and the TourEC allowed the identification of a series of differences characterising the translated language of tourism with respect to tourist texts originally written in English and determined by specific phenomena of translation universals.
First of all, by comparing the respective type/token ratios, the T-TourEC figure is lower than the TourEC one, even in terms of the standardised type/tokens ratio (see Table 4). This proportion indicates a lower lexical variability in the T-TourEC, thus suggesting phenomena of simplification.
Table 4: Tour-EC and T-TourEC : type/token ratio statistics
TourEC Tokens : 468,254 Types: 36,498 Type/Token Ratio: 7.79 Standardised Type/Token ratio : 51.07
T-TourEC Tokens : 361,198 Types: 23,144 Type/Token Ratio: 6.41 Standardised Type/Token ratio: 41.72
By analysing more specifically the percentages of PoS-types across the T-TourEC and the TourEC, the presence of phenomena of simplification in the translated English for tourism seems to be confirmed, as well as the presence of other universals of translation. In fact, while the TourEC PoS percentages in terms of types (with a minimum range of 0.1%) is higher for lexical words such as singular common nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, plural common nouns, and common nouns neutral for number (see Table 5), the T-TourEC has a similar PoS order up to the fourth position (see Table 6). However, its percentages differ greatly from those of the Tour-EC and can be associated with universals of interference (see the higher percentages of singular and plural nouns in the T-TourEC, most likely due to a partial transfer of the features characterizing the various SL nominal number systems into the English target texts during the process of translation) and normalization (resulting in the lower percentage of unmarked adjectives that could represent a translational strategy to conform to the standard grammatical and collocational patterns of the English language).
Table 5: TourEC PoS percentages (3= 0.1%)
UCREL CLAWS5 Tagset TourEC PoS Types 0.1 %
1 singular noun NN1 22.4517206
2 proper noun NP0 20.6670601
3 adjective (unmarked) AJ0 16.5157404
4 plural noun NN2 11.2533322
5 noun (neutral for number) NN0 6.13540628
6 base form of lexical verb (imperatives and
present subjunctive forms. except the VVB 3.72804786
infinitive)
7 -ing form of lexical verb VVG 3.0646507
8 past participle form of lex. Verb VVN 2.9873222
9 adverb (unmarked) AV0 2.52335117
10 infinitive of lexical verb VVI 2.49689669
11 "unclassified" items which are not words of the English lexicon UNC 2.45619747
12 past tense form of lexical verb VVD 2.07362488
13 -s form of lexical verb VVZ 2.06141511
14 comparative adjective AJC 0.3072705
15 superlative adjective AJS 0.30524409
16 preposition (except for OF) PRP 0.18925134
17 ordinal ORD 0.15465701
Even other T-TourEC PoS percentages reported in Table 6 can be associated with phenomena of translation universals. For instance, past tense forms of lexical verbs are present at lower percentages in the T-TourEC corpus, most likely indicating phenomena of simplification involving simpler past tense constructions, or even phenomena of interference based on the partial transfer of past tense syntactical structures of the SLs involved in the process of translation. Also the higher percentage of foreign lexicon seems to signal phenomena of interference deriving from the specific contents of the STs translated through calque and borrowing techniques, as well as the lower percentage of common nouns neutral for number (one of the most striking differences in comparison to the TourEC), related to the different lexical division of neutral versus singular and plural nouns across the SLs involved in the T-TourEC and English. The slightly higher percentages of adverbs and prepositions (excluding of) relate most probably to explicitation strategies, while the lower proportion of the -ing form of lexical verbs could be interpreted as a preference for the employment of less complex processes of nominalization in translated English, thus indicating phenomena of normalization and simplification of grammatical and syntactical structures. Finally the higher percentages of -s forms of lexical verbs, which indicate a more frequent use of third person singular subjects in translated tourism discourse, may also signal a preference for the employment of impersonal constructions, thus indicating phenomena of levelling out by moving the text away from any extreme of oral or literate markedness.
Other PoS categories with percentages lower than 0.1% reported in Table 7, in particular grammatical ones such as conjunctions, pronouns, determiners, the negative particle not, the possessive or genitive morpheme and prepositions, report significantly higher values when compared to those of the TourEC, therefore indicating universals of explicitation and simplification. Other elements such as alphabetical symbols and articles with higher percentages in the T-TourEC can be associated with phenomena of interference linked to the SLs involved in the process of translation. Finally even the different percentage values between the TourEC and the T-TourEC in elements such as punctuation markers (higher in the T-TourEC) and interjections (much lower in the T-TourEC) can indicate phenomena of normalization and levelling out.
Stefania Gandin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95 (2013) 325 - 335 Table 6: T-TourEc PoS percentages (> 0.1%)
T-TOUREC PoS +
UCREL CLAWS5 Tagset [translation universals] Types >0.1 %
1 singular noun NN1 [interference] 25.65723
2 proper noun NP0 (similar %) 20.62733
3 adjective (unmarked) AJ0 [normalization] 13.78766
4 plural noun NN2 [interference] 12.59619
5 past participle form of lexical verb VVN [simplification+ interference] 3.784272
6 base form of lexical verb VVB [simplification] 3.531536
7 "unclassified" items which are not words of the English lexicon UNC [interference] 3.017037
8 adverb (unmarked) AV0 [explicitation] 2.960623
9 -ing form of lexical verb VVG [normalization+ simplification] 2.732709
10 infinitive of lexical verb VVI (similar %) 2.432585
11 -s form of lexical verb VVZ [levelling out] 2.166309
12 past tense form of lexical verb VVD [simplification] 1.773666
13 noun (neutral for number) NN0 [interference] 1.34266
14 preposition (except for OF) PRP [explicitation] 0.87555
15 ordinal ORD [simplification] 0.397157
16 superlative adjective AJS [normalization] 0.293354
17 comparative adjective AJC [normalization] 0.24371
18 general determiner DT0 [explicitation] 0.241453
19 subordinating conjunction CJS [explicitation + simplification] 0.241453
20 adverb particle AVP [explicitation] 0.124111
21 personal pronoun PNP [explicitation] 0.110572
Table 7: TourEC and T-TourEc PoS percentages (> 0.1%)
UCREL CLAWS5 TourEC Tagset POS
Types T-TOUREC PoS + ^ 0 1% [translation universals]
Types S 0.1%
alphabetical symbol ZZ0 article AT0
coordinating conjunction
indefinite pronoun PNI
interjection or other isolate
punctuation -general mark
punctuation - left bracket
punctuation -
0.05290898 ZZ0 [interference] 0.090263
0.01424472 AT0 [interference] 0.051901
0.02238457 CJC [explicitation] 0.036105
0.04273417 PNI [simplification] 0.090263
0.0773285 ITJ 0.027079
PUN 0.0020333 PUN [normalization] 0.076723
PUL 0.0015573 PUL [normalization] 0.013539 PUQ 0.0014632 PUQ [normalization] 0.013539
UCREL CLAWS5 TourEC Types T-TOUREC PoS + Types S
Tagset POS 5 0.1% [translation universals] 0.1%
quotation mark
punctuation - right bracket PUR 0.0015573 PUR [normalization] 0.013539
reflexive pronoun PNX 0.01424472 PNX [explicitation] 0.069954
the conjunction THAT CJT 0.00203496 CJT [simplification] 0.009026
the negative NOT or N'T XX0 0.0101748 XX0 [simplification] 0.024822
the possessive (or genitive morpheme) 'S or ' POS 0.00406992 POS [simplification + normalization] 0.009026
the preposition OF PRF 0.00406992 PRF [simplification + normalization] 0.009026
wh-adverb AVQ 0.01627968 AVQ [simplification+ explicitation] 0.063184
wh-determiner DTQ 0.0101748 DTQ [explicitation] 0.036105
wh-pronoun PNQ 0.00610488 PNQ [simplification] 0.018053
3. Translation universals and tourism discourse: TourEC and T-TourEC comparative results
In terms of the specific features characterizing the language of tourism, the translational strategies emerging from the T-TourEC data seem to signal a different employment of the previously mentioned properties and techniques of tourism discourse, which characterise as a matter of fact standard English for tourism represented in the TourEC. For instance, universals of normalization resulting from the lower percentages of superlative and comparative adjectives in the T-TourEC may potentially interfere with and/or limit:
• the property of euphoria, which indicates the tendency of the language of tourism "to speak only in positive and glowing terms of the service and attractions it seeks to promote" (Dann, 1996: 65) by means of superlatives, hyperbole and other linguistic devices able to emphasise the uniqueness of the attraction/place to be promoted;
• the technique of comparison, which entails the employment of "similes and metaphors" with the aim of reducing "the effects of strangeness which are associated with a vacation" and "manage the unfamiliarity of a destination for the tourist" both in terms of time and spatial and cultural distance (Ibid.:171-173);
• and, finally, the technique of ousting the competition, that is based on the creation of "expectations" by means of "adjectives" or even "covert derogatory comparison(s)" in which the advertised attraction/place is presented as being the best option to be chosen by the potential tourist (Ibid.: 204-205).
Moreover, the explicitation patterns emerging from the higher percentage of personal pronouns in the T-TourEC seem to indicate an accentuation of the techniques of testimony and ego-targeting. In fact, testimony is a verbal technique represented by "positive reports' made by "recognisable spokespersons who can land support to the advertised images of the tourist destination' by means of a "testimonial rhetoric able to work as an authenticating device of a tourist site" (Ibid.: 176-178), while the technique of ego-targeting employs "lexical devices typical of a conversational style' (Ibid.: 185-188), such as the use of first and second person plural and singular pronouns (I, you, we) and interjections (hey, hello, wow etc.) through which readers of tourist texts can be directly addressed and be linguistically transposed in the tourist experience to be sold.
With regards to interjections, whose specific percentage was much lower in the T-Tour-EC mostly due to levelling out translational behaviours, the specific use of these linguistic devices can also lead to an alteration of the technique of humour (beside the technique of ego-targeting and, to a certain extent, that of testimony previously explained) defined as an "attention grabbing device to create an element of surprise in the reader" by means of wordplay, allusions, greeting formulae etc. (Ibid.:179-83).
Other levelling out tendencies found in the higher frequencies of -s forms of verbs (see previous Tables 5 and 6) can be associated with a limitation of ego-targeting and testimony techniques, since they most likely indicate a higher exploitation of impersonal constructions distancing the text from elements of oral or literate markedness. Furthermore, even the simplification resulting in the lower percentage of finite base forms of lexical verbs in terms of imperatives can be linked to an alteration of ego-targeting techniques (see previous Tables 5 and 6).
Other differences concerning the verbal PoS of translated tourism discourse in terms of past forms, -ing forms and modal verbs (the percentage of which differs largely between the T-TourEC and the TourEC as shown in Tables 8 and 9 below, due to simplification and/or interference translational phenomena) may also lead to a partially altered employment of the tense property that in tourism discourse refers to "a hyper-reverential attitude towards all that is old [...]", by means of "binary opposition [...] between the past and the future" or also through " a denial of time" (Ibid.: 49-53), and which verbally manifests itself through past tense verbal constructions, present and future tenses.
Table 8: TourEC and T-TourEC: past verbal forms — POS percentages
UCREL CLAWS5 Tagset TourEC POS Types % T-TourEC POS Types %
past form of the verb "BE" VBD 0,00406992 VBD 0,018053
past form of the verb "DO" VDD 0,00203496 VDD 0,009026
past tense form of the verb "HAVE" VHD 0,00406992 VHD 0,009026
past tense form of lexical verb VVD 2,07362488 VVD 1,773666
Table 9: TourEC and T-TourEC: - ing verbal forms and modal verbs — POS percentages
UCREL CLAWS5 Tagset
TourEC POS
Types %
T-TourEC „ POS
Types %
-ing form of the verb "BE" VBG 0,00203496 VBG 0,009026
-mg form offhe verb "DO" VDG 0,00203496 VDG 0,009026
-ing form of the verb "HAVE" VHG 0,00203496 VHG 0,009026
modal auxiliary verb (e.g. CAN, COULD, WILL) VM0 0,03459433 VM0 0,092519
-ing form of lexical verb VVG 3,0646507 VVG 2,732709
Finally, the higher percentages of foreign lexicon and alphabetical symbols in the T-TourEC with respect to the TourEC (see table 7), which is associated with phenomena of interference, could be the result of an overemployment of the verbal technique of languaging, defined by Dann (1996: 183-185) as "the use of real or fictitious foreign words" or "a manipulation of the vernacular" with the aim of providing "local colour" to the text.
4. Conclusions
From the data illustrated so far, which are merely preliminary results of an ongoing research project, it is already evident how the discursive patterns of translated texts might influence and even alter to a certain extent the communicative functions, linguistic properties and persuasive effects typically adopted in standard English tourist texts. The comparative PoS analysis carried out in this study has shown how the translational practices of tourist discourse into English reports universal strategies of simplification, explicitation, normalization, interference and even levelling out tendencies, which can largely differentiate the discursive patterns and stylistic features characterising the translated language of tourism with respect to tourist texts originally written in English, and may therefore lead to a different employment of the typical properties and verbal techniques of the standard language of tourism, in terms of their typical frequency and discursive patterns.
As previously stated, this research project is still in progress and the results obtained at this stage can only be considered a partial and limited representation of the features charactering translated tourism discourse into English. The future development of this study will include other important phases, starting with
• a comparative PoS analysis also in terms of tokens;
• an investigation of the specific concordances and collocations of the T-TourEC in order to observe the lexical and discursive patterns relating to other features charactering English tourism discourse;
• and specific analyses of other universals of translation, such as the translation of unique items, and untypical collocations, which could not be investigated through the PoS comparative approach employed on this occasion. It will also be necessary to consider wider comparative investigations employing larger monolingual and parallel
corpora dedicated to the language of tourism, in order to fully detect the specific features of the translated and non-translated tourism discourse with respect to the standard language, and supplement these findings by isolating translational phenomena deriving from source language bias or ascribable to specific translation practices. Finally, any future development of this research project will need to incorporate a stronger socio-pragmatic approach that could take into consideration "the social context(s) in which translations are produced and interpreted" (Bernardini and Zanettin, 2004: 60), by means of complementary analytical tools such as other paratextual elements or even questionnaires aimed at investigating the practical organization and management of the translation of tourist texts, in order to obtain a more complete view of the translational processes of tourist texts and a more complete "framework within which textual and linguistic features of translation can be evaluated" (Ibid.)
References
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli
(Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233-250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based Translation Studies. The Challenges that Lie Ahead. In H. Somers (Ed.), Terminology, LSP and Translation (pp.
175-86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baker, M. (2000). Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator. Target 12 (2), 241-266.
Bernardini, S. & Zanettin F. (2004). When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In A. Mauranen & P. Kuyamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals: Do they exist? (pp.51-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bowker, L. & Pearson J. (2002). Working with Specialized Languages: A practical guide to using corpora. London: Routledge. Dann, G. (1996). The Language of Tourism. A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Wallingford: CAB International.
Johansson, S. (2003). Reflection on Corpora and their Uses in Cross-linguistic Research. In F. Zanettin, S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora in Translator Education (pp. 135-144). Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2001) Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome
Laviosa, S. (1998). The English Comparable Corpus: A Resource and a Methodology. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.),
Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies (pp. 101-112) Manchester: St. Jerome. Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies. Theories, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Mauranen, A. & Kuyamaki P. (Eds.) (2004). Translation Universals: Do they e xist?. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nigro, M. G. (2006). Il Linguaggio Specialistico del Turismo. Aspetti storici, teorici e traduttivi. Roma: Aracne. Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Olohan, M. & M. Baker. (2000). Reporting that in Translated English: Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation?. Across Languages and Cultures 1, 141-72.
Palusci, O. & De Stasio, C. (Eds.) (2007). The Languages of Tourism: turismo e mediazione. Milano: Unicopli.
Pierini, P. (2007). Quality in Web Translation: An Investigation into UK and Italian Tourism Web Sites. The Journal of Specialised Translation 8, 85-103.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. London: Blackwell.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (1998). Computerized corpora and the future of translation studies. Meta 43, 652-659.
Zanettin, F. (2000). Parallel Corpora in Translation Studies: Issues in Corpus Design and Analysis. In M. Olohan (Ed.) Intercultural Faultlines.
Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 105-118). Manchester: St. Jerome. Zanettin, F. (2012). Translation-Driven Corpora Corpus Resources for Descriptive and Applied Translation Studies. Manchester: Saint Jerome.
Corpora references
CLAWS tagger web site: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws/ [last accessed: April 2013].
Italy national tourism board web site: http://www.italia.it/en/home.html [last accessed: April 2013]. Japan national tourism board web site: http://www.jnto.go.jp/eng/ [last accessed: April 2013]. Norway national tourism board web site: http://www.visitnorway.com/en/ [last accessed: April 2013].
