A contrastive study of nominalization in the systemic

A contrastive study of nominalization in the systemic functional framework*

Tamara Mikolič Južnič University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)

The paper presents a contrastive analysis of nominalization in Italian and Slovene within the framework of systemic functional grammar as described by M. A. K. Halliday and his colleagues. Nominalization is viewed as a type of grammatical metaphor whereby processes which are congruently realized by verbs are metaphorically realized by nouns expressing the same process as those verbs. The frequency of nominalization varies greatly among languages as well as among genres within a language, and may cause problems when two languages interact, e.g. in translation, especially when one of the two languages seems less prone to use this kind of grammatical metaphor than the other. In the present study, an analysis is carried out of a 2.5 million token parallel corpus of Italian source texts and their Slovene translations, particularly with regard to the different translation equivalents that may appear in the translated texts, which is partly dependent of the type of process involved.

Keywords: systemic functional grammar, grammatical metaphor, nominalization, parallel corpus, Italian/Slovene

1.

Introduction

When a process is worded as a noun, i.e. a nominalization, this normally involves a particular arrangement of other elements in its vicinity, especially if we compare the given sentence structure with one where the process expressed by the nominalization would be expressed by a verb. Different languages tend to react to such rearrangements in different ways, some being more prone to accept the rearrangement (and consequent shifts on several other planes, such as the lexical density1 of the sentence, the overall register of the text and so on) and others resisting it quite strongly and privileging the verbal mode of expression to the nominal one. In this paper, two languages are confronted which appear to be quite different in this respect: Italian is believed to be quite prone to nominalization (cf. Bruni et al., 1997; Cortelazzo and Pellegrino, 2003; Cassese, 1993), while the situation is unclear for Slovene (Klinar, 1996, for instance,

Tamara Mikolič Južnič

claims that it is much more verbal in nature than English, while Plemenitaš (2007) practically claims the opposite with respect to the two particular genres she studied). The aim of the present study is to determine whether there are any differences between Italian and Slovene with respect to the use of nominalization and if there are, what is one likely to find in Slovene when Italian uses a nominalization. Following previous research, we can tentatively predict that there should be some difference between the two languages in the use of nominalization, as Italian is said to be prone to nominal wordings, while this is less true of Slovene. We also expect the Slovene translations of Italian nominalizations to make frequent use of verbs in place of the original nominalizations (as Klinar, 1996, has described for translations from English to Slovene). Another aim of the analysis is to determine whether the choice of translation equivalent in Slovene depends on the process types of the original Italian nominalization. In Italian, nominalization has been extensively researched with lexicographical and corpus-based methods at the level of both morphology and syntax, notably by Thornton (1997), Gaeta (2002, 2004), Gaeta and Ricca (2003, 2006). Slovene nominalization, on the other hand, is still a much underresearched phenomenon: apart from some comparisons with other languages – mostly English, as in the two works mentioned above (Klinar, 1996; Plemenitaš, 2007), but also German (Košak, 2007) – there are a few studies on Slovene nominalization such as Žele (1996), which presents a diachronic study of nominalization in newspaper texts between 1946 and 1995 and concludes that the number of nominalizations is constantly growing, Žele (1997), which explores the shifts in meaning of deverbal nouns, or Mikolič Južnič (2011), which compares the frequency of nominalizations in a number of genres and text types in Slovene, confirming Halliday’s (Halliday and Martin, 1993:15ff) view of the spread of nominalization from scientific texts to other domains, but these studies are all quite limited in scope. The first in-depth comparison of Italian and Slovene nominalizations was made in Mikolič Južnič (2007). For the purposes of this research, nominalization is set in the framework of systemic functional grammar (SFG; 2 Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004) and explained as a kind of grammatical metaphor. While the main object of the research is a contrastive study of nominalization in Italian and its equivalents in Slovene, the research method belongs to the field of corpus linguistics. A brief introduction on the key concepts of SFG in relation to nominalization will be followed by an overview of the historical development of nominalization in the two languages in order to shed light on the present-day systemic differences between them, and a brief summarization of process types (PT) according to Halliday (1994), as well as a description of the corpus and the analytical methods used. The statistical results will be explained in the discussion of the most relevant features.

A contrastive study of nominalization

2.

Systemic functional grammar and nominalization as grammatical metaphor

In SFG, language is understood as a system of meanings accompanied by certain forms, with which those meanings can be realized (Halliday, 1994:xiv). From the point of view of the functions performed by a natural language, each utterance encompasses three different levels of meaning: the interpersonal, textual and ideational metafunctions (cf. Halliday, 1994, Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004, 1999). The object of the present contrastive study, i.e. nominalization, is primarily related to a shift on the ideational plane, although it should be noted, that a change on the level of one metafunction (discussed briefly below) necessarily involves changes on the other two planes. 3 The ideational metafunction is related to the concept of clause as representation and to the realization of transitivity structures, which express the ideational meaning, i.e. what the sentence is about, which typically involves a process and its participants (and circumstances). One of the key concepts of SFG is, as Ravelli (1988:133ff) puts it, the meaning potential: there are several elements which can carry meaning and we can choose between these meaning potentials when we want to communicate. The relationship between meaning potential and the chosen realization is not random: for each meaning we want to express, there are choices which are natural and such choices lead to realizations that are called ‘congruent’: there are what speakers recognize as typical patterns of wording, and it is these that we are calling 'congruent' forms. Since construing experience in the form of language is already inherently a metaphorical process, it is no surprise to find a further dimension of metaphor, present within language itself. So as well as recognizing what is congruent, we also recognize that there are other possibilities, where the typical pattern has not been used and the speaker or writer has chosen to say things differently. (Halliday, 1994:343)

Consequently, if a speaker wants to word some experience (e.g. an event), the congruent choice on the level of meaning would be to do so in the form of a process, and not, say, in that of a participant. But apart from such congruent realizations, as it was seen before, the language potentially also offers the possibility of alternative wordings. A process, for example, can be realized as a participant in another process: in example (1a) the process of ‘leaving’, i.e. ‘going out of the classroom’, is realized congruently by the Italian verb abbandonare (“to abandon, to leave”) and its participants, while in 1.b. the same process is realized as a participant in another process (stupire, “to stupefy, to surprise”). (1) a. L’insegnante ha abbandonato la classe nel bel mezzo della lezione. “The teacher abandoned the classroom in the middle of the lecture”4 b. L’abbandono della classe dell’insegnante nel bel mezzo della lezione ci ha stupiti non poco. “The teacher’s abandonment of the classroom in the middle of the lecture surprised us not a little.” Example (1b) shows an instance of ‘grammatical metaphor’, specifically ‘nominalization’. The link between form, meaning and experience in such


wordings is severed, so that marked combinations become possible between grammar and semantics. Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) classify grammatical metaphors according to the shift from one grammatical category to another and consider each such shift a separate type of metaphor, while the whole is called a syndrome (e.g. il governo ha deciso “the government decided”  la decisione del governo “the government’s decision” represents a syndrome which comprises two separate metaphors; one is the realization of the process decidere “to decide” as a nominalization, the other is the realization of the participant il governo “the government” in the form of a quality). An overview of the primary types of shifts from the congruent domain to the metaphorical one is given in Halliday and Matthiessen (1999:245), while a similar, though more complex model of categorization is found in Ravelli (1988:139). Grammatical metaphors are therefore alternative realizations in which certain meanings are expressed through other grammatical means rather than the ones that have developed especially for them. Nominalization is then defined as both the action and an instance of wording a process with a noun. Typically this noun is derived from the verb which would express the same process in a congruent version (e.g. abbandono < abbandonare seen above).5 According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:636), wording a process as a noun, i.e. nominalizing it, is a more sophisticated realization than the congruent one and is not part of every-day spontaneous speech. Nominalization is typical of texts from the fields of education, science, bureaucracy and law. Halliday and Matthiessen (ibid.) also state that there are noticeable differences among different registers at the level of types and frequency of grammatical metaphors, but none will be completely without it: each text that has minimal length will offer examples of some metaphorical elements (with the exception of children’s books and nursery rhymes) that will have to be taken into consideration.

3.

A few notes on the historical development of nominalization in Italian and Slovene

There are differences in the historical development of nominalization in Italian and Slovene, as it shall be shown further on, which are (at least partly) based on the different historical background of the two cultures. Although nominalization exploits semantic possibilities that have always been present in the system, there has been a point where in some languages it has become a dominant feature, mostly due to new demands on the language, which were a consequence of altered historical conditions (see Halliday and Martin, 1993, for an overview of the historical development from transcategorization to nominalization and further in a number of European languages). For Italian6, this historical change occurred in the 17th century with Galileo Galilei, approximately four centuries after the birth of the literary Italian language: a new approach to science required a new way of expressing experience and, as Altieri Biagi (1993:897) notes, the most characteristic phenomenon of his syntax seems to be the reduction of the role of the verb in favour of the noun.


From that time on, nominalization has continued to expand to other scientific writings, and from those to other fields and domains of the Italian written language to the point that there have been, in the recent years, several attempts at limiting its use in a number of genres, most notably in the language of administration (e.g. Fioritto, 1997; Cortelazzo and Pellegrino, 2003; Cassese, 1993; De Mauro, 1980/2003). The situation is quite different for Slovene. The first two printed Slovene books were published in 1550,7 14 years prior to the birth of Galileo Galilei and about 60 years before the publication of his most important works. These first Slovene books (and the few ones that followed) were non-literary translations with a specific (religious) purpose. Far more important for later Slovene writings were the translations of the complete Bible, the Song of Songs and the psalms. However, with the end of the Reformation period, writing in Slovene almost ceased and between 1615 and 1672 the production of books stopped. After the revival of literary activity, the Baroque period began, in which the most important works were still Catholic religious books, until 1768 when the publication of Pohlin's Kranjska gramatika (“Carniolan Grammar”) marked the passage to the Age of Enlightenment. Without delving further into the history of the Slovene language and literature, the above sketch probably makes it sufficiently clear that in Slovene scientific writing developed somewhat later than in Italian. Not surprisingly, the development of grammatical metaphor, i.e. nominalization, in Slovene prose started later than in some other European languages. But one strong influence that should be taken into account is that of translation: in the early periods of the Slovene written word, most of what was written was translated (cf. Novak, 2007) and Slovene was increasingly penetrated by features typical of other European languages. In 1933 Vodušek (1933) lamented the pan-Slavic tendencies present among Slovene writers that ascribed to Slovene a verbal character, i.e. a tendency to prefer verbal structures to nominal ones (as opposed to some other European languages), and obliged authors to avoid nominalization and other features that were indeed already present in the language, as they had proved to be extremely productive and efficient in scientific argumentation. Most importantly, this seems to be characteristic of nominalization in contemporary Slovene scientific writing (cf. Mikolič Južnič, 2011), which is not the sole result of transfer of a foreign pattern through translation, but a functionally better solution accepted by authors. The controversy about the use of nominalization in Slovene is still alive: while it is often argued that (excessive) use of nominalization sounds unnatural (cf. Žele, 1996:192), the argument itself is proof that that nominalization is indeed present in the language. The question is to what extent and how frequent it is compared with other languages, as practicing translators often find foreign constructions with nominalizations difficult to translate.

4.

Categorization of process types

The comparison of the use of nominalization in Italian and Slovene is based on its occurrence in relation to the PTs as classified by Halliday (1994:107) and later by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:260). The aim of this comparison is to


show how nominalization occurs with a different frequency in the two languages under observation, but also that is translated differently with reference to different PTs. According to Halliday (ibid.), there are three major and three minor types of processes. The three major PTs are material, mental and relational processes, 8 while the three minor categories are behavioural, verbal and existential processes. Figure 1 shows how all the PTs are in fact a continuum where the three lesser PTs are on the borderline between the main types.

Figure 1. Major and minor PTs.

Each PT is linked to a set of participants and/or circumstances, though the limited space available here does not allow for a discussion of their realization in Italian and Slovene. The major PTs are further divided into subcategories, which are summarized in Table 1, along with typical examples in Italian and Slovene (and their English glosses). 9 Table 1. PTs and subtypes with examples. Process type Material Action Event Behavioural Mental Perception Cognition Desideration Emotion Verbal

Example Lucia ha comprato un libro./Lucija je kupila knjigo “Lucia bought a book.” Il fuoco ha distrutto la foresta/Ogenj je uničil gozd. “The fire destroyed the forest.” Giovanna sta ridendo./Giovanna se smeje. “Giovanna is laughing.” Carlo ha visto la macchina./Carlo je videl avto. “Carlo saw the car.” Luisa pensava che se ne fossero andati./Luisa je mislila, da so odšli. “Luisa thought that they had left.” Il gatto vuole la pappa./Maček hoče hrano. “The cat wants some food.” Giovanna ama la musica classica./Giovanna ljubi klasično glasbo. “Giovanna loves classical music.” Giovanni ha detto la verità./Giovanni je povedal rasnico. “Giovanni


told the truth.” Relational Attributive Identifying Existential

Lisa è stanca./Lisa je utrujena. “Lisa is tired.” Io sono quello brutto./Jaz sem ta grdi. “I am the ugly one.” C’era un vecchio sull’albero./Na drevesu je bil starec. “There was an old men in the tree.”

After a brief presentation of the corpus used, the next section explains how this classification was exploited to choose a sample of the corpus on which to carry out the analysis.

5.

Corpus

The corpus used for this study is an Italian-Slovene parallel corpus called ISPAC, which was compiled for the purposes of the research.10 A detailed structure of the corpus is given in Mikolič Južnič (2009), but its main characteristics are that it consists of a collection of 20 source texts (ST) in Italian and their Slovene translations were published approximately between 1990 and 2010. The texts are divided into two main sections, literary and nonliterary. The literary section consists mostly of prose (novels and short stories) and drama (a monodrama), while the non-literary section comprises scientific and popular science books from the fields of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. The whole corpus amounts to approximately 2.5 million tokens; it is sentence-aligned and therefore analysable with tools such as ParaConc. Apart from the parallel corpus, two monolingual (referential) corpora were also used in order to select the nominalizations that were checked against the parallel corpus (see Method below). For Slovene, FIDA, a reference corpus of approximately 100 million tokens, was used (see Erjavec et al., 1998).11 95 % of the texts in FIDA are published texts, mostly periodicals (70 %) and books (23 %); as far as text types are concerned, 96 % are non-fiction texts (ranging from various kinds non-professional texts to texts from the fields of humanities and social sciences as well as natural and technical sciences) and 4 % are fiction texts (including drama, poetry and prose). 12 For Italian, the La Repubblica corpus was chosen (cf. Baroni et al. 2004). 13 It is not completely comparable to the Slovene corpus used, as it has over 350 million tokens and it contains ‘only’ newspaper articles, although it should be noted, as said above, that around 70 % of the material in FIDA is from periodicals. Though nominalization is a phenomenon highly dependent on language genres and thus a different corpus (with a different selection of text types) might give different results as far as the frequency of nominalizations is concerned, we believe that since the two monolingual corpora were merely used as a source for selecting a sample of nominalizations for each PT (instead of, say, choosing random examples of nominalizations, we selected them with regard to their frequency), a different set of examples of nominalizations would not have had a great impact on the outcome of the research questions. The frequency criterion was chosen mostly to ensure that a relevant number of examples was extracted from the parallel corpus, so that we could come across the widest possible variety of translation equivalents.


6.

Method

The size of the parallel corpus and the intended type of research made it impossible to analyse all the instances of nominalization present, as the number of all occurrences exceeds the boundaries of a feasible manual analysis. 14 Since a selection needed to be done which would still be representative of the whole corpus, and considering that one of the aims of the research was to verify the relation between PTs and translatability of nominalizations, the choice was made with reference to the PTs and subtypes listed above in Table 1 and to the frequency of single nominalizations in the two monolingual corpora. After extracting wordlists of the 5,000 most frequent nouns in the Italian monolingual corpus La Repubblica, the first ten most frequent nominalizations were selected among these nouns for each type and subtype of process. In total, 110 nominalizations were thus selected: they are listed in Table 2. These nominalizations were then each tested against the parallel corpus and all the hits were extracted for further manual analysis. After eliminating the instances that were not relevant for our purposes15, the extracted examples (the ST sentences and their translations into Slovene) were manually analysed in order to identify the Slovene functional equivalents of the Italian nominalizations. The results were grouped according to the PTs and subtypes, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Nominalizations selected for the manual analysis of translatability. Process Type/Subtype Material Action Event Behavioural Mental

Perception Cognition Desideration Emotion

Verbal Relational

Attributive Identifying

Existential

Selected nominalizations governo, lavoro, accordo, servizio, azione, operazione, processo, progetto, termine, confronto incontro, sviluppo, crescita, produzione, costruzione, fabbrica, emergenza, ricostruzione, ristrutturazione, realizzazione decisione, scelta, comportamento, sorpresa, sogno, volo, preoccupazione, atteggiamento, chiusura, ricordo sensazione, visione, percezione, osservazione, ascolto, sperimentazione, veduta, vista, tocco, gusto credito, riferimento, conclusione, previsione, considerazione, conoscenza, pensiero, approvazione, riflessione, ragionamento impegno, provvedimento, organizzazione, gestione, trattativa, opposizione, volere, favore, tentativo, speranza dubbio, amore, timore, dolore, sofferenza, odio, disperazione, diffidenza, preoccupazione, soddisfazione proposta, ordine, richiesta, risposta, domanda, dichiarazione, informazione, giudizio, discorso, decreto risultato, passaggio, impressione, prova, differenza, abbondanza, assicurazione, garanzia, conferma, durata funzione, significato, interpretazione, rappresentazione, trasformazione, implicazione, indicazione, suggerimento, elezione, nomina vita, cambio, manifestazione, esistenza, seguito, morte, prevalenza, avvenimento, successione, sopravvivenza


7.

Results and discussion

7.1

Translation equivalents in the Slovene section of the parallel corpus

7.1.1 Quantitative results The queries for the 110 selected nominalizations yielded 13,405 occurrences. The numbers for each single PT and subtype are given in Table 3. The most frequently found process (sub)type is that of actions among material processes, while the least frequent are the occurrences of desideration within mental processes. Table 3. Number of occurrences for single PTs and subtypes. PROCESS TYPE Material: action Existential Verbal Mental: cognition Behavioural Mental: emotion Relational: attributive Relational: identifying Material: event Mental: perception Mental: desideration Total

No. of occurrences 2,467 1,933 1,539 1,173 1,110 943 940 904 864 766 766 13,405

All the occurrences were manually analysed in order to identify the target text equivalents of the Italian nominalizations. The types of translation equivalents 16 (TEs) found and their overall relative frequency in the analysed sample are given in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Proportion of Slovene TEs of Italian nominalizations in the analysed sample.


Some of the categories have been further divided into smaller groups: within the category of noun, common nouns are distinguished from nominalizations; within the category of verb there are verbs with the same root/meaning as the ST nominalization, those that have another root/meaning and copulas followed by an adjective; there are also two types of omissions: those where there was (virtually) no loss in meaning and those where there was an actual loss in meaning. Table 4 summarizes all the TE types found and gives examples from the parallel corpus for each type. Table 4. TE types and examples from the parallel corpus. TE type Noun - nominalization le trattative ripresero […] a Spa “the negotiations resumed in Spa” so se poganjanja nadaljevala […] v Spaju “the negotiations continued in Spa” - other noun le implicazioni etiche e anche politiche “the ethical and political implications” etične in politične konsekvence “the ethical and political consequences” Verb - with the same root/meaning molti giovani politicizzati professano un atteggiamento di diffidenza “several politicized youngsters profess an attitude of mistrust” veliko politično občutljivih mladih ljudi ne zaupa “several politically sensitive youngsters do not trust” - with a different root/meaning Sono partito questa notte, dopo la chiusura del giornale “I left last night, after putting the newspaper to bed” Odpotoval sem ponoči, ko sem končal z delom “I left at night when I finished with work” - copula + adjective Ebbe preoccupazioni notevoli circa il “disprezzo” che “He had considerable concerns about the ‘contempt’ that” Precej zaskrbljen je bil zaradi ‘prezira’, ki “He was quite concerned because of the ‘contempt’ that” Adjective dalla prevalenza di funzioni di applicazione di istanze legislative si è passati ad un crescente coinvolgimento “from the predominance of a function of application of legislative decisions there was a passage to a growing participation” ko se je začel prehod od pretežnega udejanjanja zakonodajnih navodil k povečanemu vključevanju “when the passage began from a predominant application of legislative instructions to the growing inclusion” Adverb assumono in prevalenza […] un atteggiamento per lo meno di sospetto “(they) assume for the most part an attitude of suspicion at best” so večinoma […] vsaj nezaupljivi “(they) are mostly at least suspicious” Pronoun ma così piace al Signore, e a discutere i suoi decreti c'è pure il rischio che mi fulmini “but such is the will of God and in discussing his decrees there is also the risk of him striking me with lightning” vendar je takšna Gospodova volja, in če bi se spraševal o njej, bi lahko celo tvegal, da me ta hip zadene strela “but such is God's will and if I questioned it, I could even risk that lightning strikes me right this instant” Preposition La battaglia in favore di un sapere universale “the battle in favour of universal knowledge” Bitka za splošno znanje “the battle for universal knowledge” Omission - without loss in meaning Non c'è tuttavia, concludeva Newton, ‘sufficiente abbondanza di esperimenti “there is not,

A contrastive study of nominalization Newton concluded, ‘sufficient abundance of experiments” Vendar pa ni, sklepa Newton, ‘zadosti Ø eksperimentov “But there are not, concludes Newtown, enough Ø experiments” - with loss in meaning La gran testa ferrata, sospinta dalla disperazione di mille braccia, riprese l’abbrivio “the big reinforced head, pushed by the desperation of a thousand hands, resumed its progress” Velika okovana glava, ki jo je poganjalo Ø tisoč rok, je znova dobila zalet “the big reinforced head, which was pushed Ø by a thousand hands, found a new impulse”

Re-examining the relative proportions of the translation types given in Figure 2 and concentrating on those categories that are further divided into smaller groups (nouns, verbs and omissions), Table 5 illustrates the proportions of each subtype. Table 5. Shares of the single subtypes of TEs with respect to the whole category (in %). Noun

nominalization other noun

Omission Verb

94.0 6.0

omission with loss of meaning

34.9

omission without loss of meaning

65.1

copula + adjective

4.8

verb with same root/meaning

76.0

verb with different root/meaning

19.2

7.1.2 Discussion As far as the TEs found in the examined sample of the parallel corpus are concerned, it was determined that most often, i.e. in 81.1 % of the cases, Italian nominalizations are translated with a noun, which is usually also a nominalization. Various reasons may be at the heart of this choice made by the translators: it is the most straightforward equivalent and therefore the first to come to mind, despite the relative aversion of the Slovene language to the use of the structure, as mentioned above (cf. Žele, 1996; Klinar, 1996), and to the heightened lexical density resulting from the use of nominalization (cf. Halliday and Martin, 1993:76; cf. also Mikolič Južnič, 2010). From the point of view of the translation process, interference, as defined by Toury (1995:275), may well be a great influence on the structures used in the Slovene texts, although nominalization is indeed a feature of some registers of modern Slovene, as some studies mentioned above have shown (Plemenitaš, 2007; Mikolič Južnič, 2007, 2011). An important factor, which due to the limited space available here can only be mentioned in passage, is the genre of the texts: the two main sections of the ISPAC corpus have shown a great difference in the frequency of nominalizations, much greater numbers being present in non-literary texts.17 Another influence may be ascribed to the prestige of the STs and their authors (as well as to the Italian culture as a whole), a number of each are wellknown in the Slovene cultural territory. The translators would therefore be prone to imitate the style found in the originals in trying to maintain their dignity and prestige. The examples given in section 7.1.1 were all taken singularly, almost out of context. Let us consider a more realistic situation, or rather a more


comprehensive one. Example (2a) and its translation (2b) (from the ISPAC corpus) show a relatively frequent situation where in Italian there are a number of nominalizations present in often very long sentences and accompanied by a special type of nominalizations (which is otherwise excluded from this analysis18), i.e. nominalized infinitives, and also other kinds of non-finite verbal forms (the nominalizations have been underlined). (2) a. Una terza ragione per dichiarare decaduta e respingere la vecchia diade sta nell'osservare che essa ha perso gran parte del suo valore descrittivo, perché la società in continua trasformazione e il sorgere di nuovi problemi politici – e qui chiamo problemi politici quelli che richiedono soluzioni attraverso gli strumenti tradizionali dell'azione politica, cioè dell'azione che ha per scopo la formazione di decisioni collettive che una volta prese diventano vincolanti per tutta la collettività – ha fatto nascere movimenti che non rientrano, ed essi stessi ritengono o presumono di non rientrare nello schema tradizionale della contrapposizione di destra e sinistra. “A third reason for declaring the old dyad declined and for rejecting it is found in pointing out that it has lost a great part of its descriptive value because society is in constant change and the rise of new political problems – and here I call political problems those that require solutions through the traditional instruments of political action, i.e. of the action that aims at the formation of collective decisions which, once taken, become binding for all the community - has given birth to new movements that do not fall, and they themselves believe or presume that they do not fall into the traditional model of the opposition between right and left.” b. Tretji razlog, zaradi katerega naj bi oklicali staro diado za pokojno in jo zavrgli, tiči v ugotovitvi, da je ta diada v veliki meri izgubila svojo opisovalno moč, kajti družba, ki se brez prestanka spreminja, in nastajanje novih političnih problemov – in tukaj imam za politične probleme tiste, ki terjajo reševanje s tradicionalnimi orodji političnega delovanja, to je delovanja, katerega cilj je oblikovanje kolektivnih odločitev, ki potem, ko so sprejete, postanejo zavezujoče za vso skupnost – sta povzročila nastajanje gibanj, ki jih ni moč vključiti v tradicionalno shemo navzkrižja med levico in desnico in ki tudi sama trdijo ali pa predpostavljajo, da ne sodijo vanjo. “A third reason because of which the old dyad should supposedly be deemed dead and rejected, lies in the observation that this dyad has lost the great part of its descriptive power, because society, which changes constantly, and the emergence of new political problems – and here I consider political problems those that require solving with traditional tools of political action, i.e. action the goal of which is forming collective decisions, which then, after being taken, become binding for the whole community – have caused the formation of movements which cannot be inserted in the traditional model of the opposition between left and right and which themselves believe or presume that they do not belong in it.”


In (2b), i.e. in the translated sentence, ten out of the eleven nominalizations (including nominalized infinitives) have been preserved, while the remaining one has been translated with a (finite) verb (trasformazione “transformation” > spreminjati se “to transform, to change”). What is also present here is the tendency to translate certain other non-finite structures either as finite verbs (and thus inserted into finite dependent clauses, e.g. per dichiarare “to declare” > naj bi oklicali “supposedly deemed”) or as additional nominalizations (e.g. nascere “to be born” > nastanek “formation, emergence”), the translation then resulting in a mix of different tendencies. The most important implication here is that a number of the nominalizations found in Slovene translations are then not the result of direct translations but ‘new creations’ used to solve a different problem, i.e. the difficulty in using non-finite verb structures in Slovene (cf. Lenassi, 2004, for a comparison of Slovene and Italian non-finite verb forms). Other than with nouns, 8 % of the Italian nominalizations from our sample have been translated with (finite) verbs, which is in line with the grammatical metaphor theory: the metaphorical expression is unpacked into its congruent form and then used in a finite dependent clause. Three categories of verbs have been identified in the Slovene examples, the first one being by far the most frequent: -

those with the same formational root and/or meaning of the ST nominalization (e.g. occupazione “occupation” < occupare “to occupy” is translated using basically the same Latin root: okupirati “to occupy”; diffidenza “distrust” < diffidare “to distrust” is translated with a very close translation ne zaupati “not to trust”);

-

those with a (slightly) different meaning and consequently a different root (e.g. chiusura “closure” is translated with the verb končati “to finish”);19

-

those having the structure of a copula followed by an adjective (e.g. (ebbe) preoccupazioni “(had) worries” is translated with zaskrbljen je bil “(he) was worried”, although a direct translation with a noun is grammatically possible – imel je skrbi “(he) had worries” – and therefore it is not a matter of structural impossibility).

The other categories shown above in Figure 2, i.e. adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions and omissions, usually require a particular set of circumstances. All of them can be used as ways of interrupting a very long string of nominalizations (or other deverbal categories and even words derived from Latin nominalizations the verbal counterpart of which does not exist in Italian, such as istanza ”motion”), as for instance the adjectival translation of prevalenza “preponderance” in example (3), quoted also in Table 4, which is translated with pretežen “predominant”. (3) a. dalla prevalenza di funzioni di applicazione di istanze legislative si è passati ad un crescente coinvolgimento “from the predominance of a function of application of the legislative decisions there was a passage to a growing participation” b. ko se je začel prehod od pretežnega udejanjanja zakonodajnih navodil k povečanemu vključevanju


“when the passage began from a predominant application of legislative instructions to the growing inclusion” Adjectives will normally be found in translations if the ST nominalization is the actual thematic focus of the structure (i.e. what is talked about in the broader context), as in example (4), or if it is in a genitive relationship with another noun, as in example (5). (4) a. attraverso questa trasformazione del primitivo linguaggio d'azione “through this transformation of the primitive action language” b. tako preobražene prvotne govorice dejanja “the thus transformed primitive language of action” (5)

a. prima che ai sostenitori dei movimenti di opposizione fossero concessi i diritti formali “before the supporters of the movements of opposition were granted the formal rights” b. preden so bile privržencem opozicijskega gibanja priznane formalne pravice “before the supporters of the opposition's movement were granted formal rights”

Adverbs are often used in more or less fixed phrases which function as adjuncts in the sentence structure, as in example (6). (6) a. In conclusione si ricordi questo principio fondamentale “in conclusion this fundamental principle should be remembered” b. nazadnje pa ne smemo pozabiti tega temeljenga načela “lastly we should not forget this fundamental principle” Pronouns are found when the need is felt to avoid a repetition as a cohesive device (if, for instance, there are two synonyms or a paraphrase in the ST) as in example (7), or when the ST uses a word with a generic meaning as a cohesive device, the translation of which is not usually used in the same way, as in example (8). (7) a. Se è vero che i soldi non fanno la felicità, è garantito che si soffre meglio nell'abbondanza. “If it is true that money does not give you happiness, it is certain that you suffering better in abundance.” b. Če je res, da denar ne prinaša sreče, pa z njim nesrečo lažje prenašaš. “If it is true that money does not bring you happiness, with it you can bear misfortune more easily.” (8)

a. il persiano deve […] e montare in sella, tutte operazioni difficoltose nel buio della note “the Persian must […] and mount, all of which are difficult operations in the darkness of the night”


b. mora Perzijec […]in zajahati, kar je […]v nočni temi […] vse dokaj težavno “the Persian must […] and mount, which is all quite difficult in the darkness of the night” Prepositions are only found when the ST nominalization is used in a phrase that functions as a preposition in itself (although it still could be unpacked in the form of a verb in its own clause), the TE thus being practically the only possibility (see example 9). (9) a. come una rivolta a favore della liberazione sessuale “as a rebellion in favour of sexual liberation” b. kot upor za seksualno osvoboditev “as a rebellion for sexual liberation” Omissions are a somewhat different problem. With this term, those instances are covered where in the target text there was no element that carried the meaning of the ST nominalization. Two distinct situations may occur: -

there is no real loss in meaning in the translated text (example 10)

-

there is a major or minor loss in meaning in the translated text (example 11)

The first kind occurs to simplify overly verbose ST sentences, while the second type is caused mainly by the translator’s failure to render the original meaning. (10) a. Ognuno portava consigli, suggerimenti “everyone offered advice, suggestions” b. padali so najrazličnejši nasveti “the most varied advice was given” (11) a. Io, per esempio, ho la sensazione che di queste cavolate me ne importi zero, ma ho la percezione che se queste cavolate non le so, prenderò un'altra fregatura ”I, for instance, have the feeling that I don’t give a damn about this stuff, but I have the perception that if I don’t know this stuff, I’ll fail again” b. Občutek imam, da me vse te kozlarije čisto nič ne zanimajo, vendar če vseh teh kozlarij ne bom znal, sem pogrnil “I have the feeling that I’m not interested at all in this stuff, but if I don’t know all this stuff, I’ll fail”

7.2

Translation equivalents and process types

7.1.3 Quantitative results Another aim of the analysis was to see whether PTs influence the occurrence of the various TEs identified above. The occurrences of each single TE for each PT


were counted and the results are summarized in Table 6; both the shares of the main categories of the TEs and those of the relevant subtypes mentioned above are shown. Each column in the table expresses the shares in percentages for a single PT, so the figures are comparable despite the differences in absolute occurrences (seen in Table 3). Figure 3 is a visually friendlier presentation of the same data, in which it is possible to see clearly the main differences among the occurrence of the TEs for single PTs. The results are discussed in the following section. Table 6. Proportions of the individual TE types for each PT (in %). Translation Process types equivalents Mental Verbal Material Existential 79.7 85.6 77.8 78.3 Noun 75.5 78.9 71.4 75.4 - nominalization 4.2 6.7 6.4 2.9 - other noun 10.7 7.2 6.5 7.2 Verb - same 8.1 5.7 4.9 5.2 root/meaning - other 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 root/meaning - copula + 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 adjective 1.4 0.1 0.7 3.8 Adverb 3.7 1.1 7.4 4.4 Adjective 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.5 Pronoun 0.4 0.1 2.4 1.4 Preposition 3.6 5.1 4.3 4.4 Omission - no loss of 2.1 4.0 2.9 2.8 content 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.6 - loss of content

Relational 87.6 82.8 4.8 6.5

Behavioural 83.5 79.6 3.9 8.9

4.8

7.2

1.2

0.9

0.5 0.9 2.3 0.3 0.2 2.2

0.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.0 4.2

1.5 0.7

2.3 1.9


Figure 3. Shares of TEs for single PTs.

7.1.4 Discussion Analysis of the influence of PTs on the TE (Table 6 and Figure 3) has shown that there are indeed differences in the choices made for the single PTs. For a more definitive answer, a much larger-scale analysis would be required but some tendencies seem to be noticeable also in this sample analysis. The analysed sample shows some potential tendencies in the contrastive relationship between the two languages. Nominal translations are most frequent with relational processes (87.6 %), while the least presence is found with material processes (77.8 %). Interestingly, both material and relational processes display the lowest share of verbal translations (6.5 %), while the highest share is found with mental processes. Nominalizations of mental processes are thus the most likely to be unpacked into verbs when translated into Slovene if compared with the other PTs, but behavioural processes also have a relatively high frequency of translations with a verb, while apart from omissions, the other TEs are extremely rare. Adverbs are most frequent with existential processes (3.8 %) and almost never used with verbal ones (0.1 %). The latter are also very rarely translated with adjectives (1.1 %), which are almost seven times more frequent with material processes (7.4 %). While, for instance, nominalizations of material processes are less likely to be translated with a noun than any other kind, they


also have a significant share of adjectival translations (more frequent than translations with a verb, which does not happen with any other PT). The occurrence of pronouns and prepositions is rare overall, usually less than 1 % (except for prepositions with material and existential processes). 20 On the other hand, omissions vary from 2.2 % with relational processes to as much as 5.1 % with verbal ones. Those where there is no real loss in meaning would certainly merit a study of their own, as they seem to exemplify the tendency, quite frequent in Italian, to ‘round up the sentence’ (Bruni et al., 1997:370) in order to make it sound more appealing: where and when this occurs and to what extent it is recognized by translators for what it is (and therefore purposefully omitted in the translated text), remains to be researched. The other kind of omissions, where there is in fact loss of content, either because of a translational mistake or an oversimplification, are fortunately very rare, ranging between 0.7 and 1.9 % and seem to occur rather randomly in all of the texts, although they are relatively more frequent in some of them.21 As far as the reasons behind the differences in the occurrence of TE types with the various PTs are concerned, it would seem that the nature of the PT involved does influence the choice of TE to some extent, although it is difficult to generalize any tendency observed, as this analysis is based on a limited number of selected verbs. It is indeed possible that the choice of a different set of verbs would yield different results, but the selection presented here was based on the frequency of occurrence in a large monolingual corpus (La Repubblica) and thus to some extent it may represent what is typical in the language. To sum up, it is evident that there is an overwhelming presence of direct translations of ST nominalizations with target text nominalizations, which is caused both by influences of transfer from the ST (Mikolič Južnič, 2007:204) and probably also by the ever increasing presence of nominalization in particular text types and genres in Slovene itself. Despite this presence, roughly one out of five nominalizations is translated with another strategy in order to make the target text comply with conventions and ‘rules’ of the target language.

8.

Conclusion

The aim of this contribution was to shed light on the different occurrences of nominalization in Italian and Slovene. Nominalizations were viewed as grammatical metaphors in the framework of SFG. Mainly the focus of the research was on the overall presence of nominalization in the two languages and on the other structures found within the Slovene texts in place of the Italian nominalizations. The results of the corpusbased analysis of a sample of nominalizations partially disproved our initial hypotheses, as they showed that in the translated texts most of the original nominalizations have been translated with nominalizations. Although about 1/5 of the analysed instances used other structures, such as a finite verbal structure, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions or even omissions, it was confirmed that among these other structures, verbs are used the most frequently. Translations with verbs usually involved unpacking of the original nominalizations into their congruent versions, while the other alternative


translations mostly required some particular conditions to be fulfilled, as explained in section 7.1.2. The other goal was to check the influence of the types of processes on the use of different strategies in translating nominalizations. It was found that there are differences among the various PTs, although they are not particularly prominent. The greatest variations are found with respect to the presence of nouns as TEs to the various PTs; notable differences are also perceived about the presence of translations with verbs. Several questions remain open. First of all, a more comprehensive analysis could perhaps confirm that the observed phenomena are more generally applicable: such an analysis would primarily entail using a comparable corpus of Slovene original texts to establish whether and to what extent the frequency of nominalizations in our parallel corpus is due to interference and/or other translation-related phenomena, while another important factor would be the inclusion of a number of other text types in the analysis in order to observe variation among them. Second, identifying any potential factors that influence the choice between a nominal or verbal translation, which seems to be connected to the participants and circumstances involved with single PTs, would have significant impact on the translation of nominalizations. Last but not least, the area of omissions with no loss in meaning would merit some in-depth research in order to determine which precisely are those rhetoric devices characteristic of one language (e.g. Italian) that usually do not have (and, most importantly, do not need) a counterpart in another language (e.g. Slovene).

Notes * This article integrates a portion of the research project implemented as part of my PhD thesis (Mikolič Južnič, 2007) and co-funded by the Consorzio internazionale per lo sviluppo internazionale dell’Università di Trieste with further research carried out recently on the topic of process types and their role in the translation of Italian nominalizations into Slovene. 1

Lexical density is defined as the number of lexical words per clause, as opposed to grammatical words (Halliday and Martin, 1993:76) 2 The following abbreviations are used in the paper: SFG (systemic functional grammar), PT (process type), TE (translation equivalent), ST (source text). 3 On the textual level, the most important change is reflected in the thematic structure of the clause and in its argumentative power (cf. (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999:239), while on the interpersonal level the transformation involves a change of a proposition or proposal into a participant, which cannot be the object of interpersonal mediation anymore, but is realized as a given in the new clause (ibid.:241-242). 4 Examples are intentionally translated into English as literally as possible. 5 Sometimes it is hard to determine whether a noun is indeed derived from a verb or not, but that question is beyond the scope of this study. Here the criterion taken into account is whether a noun is the metaphorical expression of a process and if therefore it could be reworded in a congruent version. 6 See Halliday (1987) and Banks (2008) for an outline of the historical development of transcategorizations in Ancient Greek and Latin and through the history of English. Some of the processes noted for English have undoubtedly taken place also in Italian, as Halliday himself notes (Halliday and Matthiessen, 1999:240). 7 It was the Catechismus and Abecedarium by Primož Trubar, a Slovene Protestant reformer, which were published in Tübingen.


8

The reasons for this particular choice are explained in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:248), but the main reasons are a) that they are the pillars of grammar as an experiential theory; b) they represent three different types of structural configurations; and c) most of the sentences in any text belong to these three categories. 9 For a detailed discussion of PTs, subtypes and the differences among them, see Halliday (1994) or Halliday and Matthiessen (2004). The examples in Table 1 are quoted from Mikolič Južnič (2007:81-86). 10 It is an established practise to use comparable corpora (i.e. original texts in two or more languages with certain criteria – e.g. time of composition, text type, audience – in common; cf. Granger 2010, Johansson and Hasselgård 1999) when researching cross-linguistic phenomena, especially from the viewpoint of Contrastive Linguistics, because this kind of corpora can best show us how the languages function when they are supposedly not influenced (cf. Granger 2010:19) by phenomena linked to the translation process (e.g. by interference, mentioned in section 7.1.2), as it is often the case with parallel coprora. In the present study parallel corpora were chosen because of our specific interst in all the ways nominalizations are translated into Slovene, not only in the general difference between the two languages. 11 Despite the fact that Slovene is a small language, spoken by approximately 2 million people, a number of different-sized corpora are available for research (e.g. Fida and its upgrades FidaPLUS and GigaFida, and also Nova Beseda, Evrokorpus, etc.). The corpus Fida was chosen primarily because it is a very well-balanced corpus that comprises a number of genres, and because it was possible to obtain wordlists for single grammatical categories (e.g. the noun), which cannot be obtained through the web interfaces of other corpora. 12 The numerical data given are quoted from a lecture given by Erjavec at Gralis 2006 in Graz (Austria); the presentation of the lecture (.ppt file) is available on the Gralis page of the University of Graz (see References). 13 The most reasonable choice, for Italian, was between the CORIS/CODIS corpus and La Repubblica corpus, as any other corpora are either not publicly available or they are too limited in their text selection and size (cf. Mikolič Južnič, 2007). Despite the fact that CORIS/CODIS is more balanced with respect to the text types it comprises, La Repubblica was preferred mostly because it allowed us to gather the data needed for the research automatically, which was not the case for CORIS/CODIS. 14 A rough estimate of the nominalizations present in the whole corpus was made with queries on the deverbal suffixes in Italian, which yielded a number of over 40,000 instances. 15 The automatic analysis could not distinguish, for instance, between occurrences of organizzazione as a true nominalization of the process organizzare “to organize” and those occurrences where the word was used in the meaning of ‘a social group which distributes tasks for a collective goal’ (definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization). 16 The expression translation equivalent is used in a broad sense, meaning any element found in the translated portion of the analysed text the meaning of which can be related to the meaning of the original nominalization. 17 Of all the nominalizations analysed in the corpus, 76 % were found in the non-literary section of the Italian subcorpus, while in Slovene over 78 % were also found in the non-literary section (cf. Mikolič Južnič, 2010). 18 Nominalized infinitives are indeed a kind of nominalized process, but they are not included in this research as their nature is rather different from nominalizations in several ways (see Skytte, 1983 for a detailed profile of the syntax of the Italian infinitive). 19 The example is taken for the sentence given in Table 4 above and perhaps needs a bit of clarification: in the ST sentence there is talk of ‘putting the newspaper to bed’, i.e. finishing the preparations of the next day’s edition and thus finishing working; the translated version uses a slightly generalized but functionally effective wording, which focuses on ‘finishing work’ and is contextually appropriate as the information about the speaker’s job is a given. 20 The number of prepositional translations with material and existential processes depends largely on the occurrence of certain prepositional phrases occurring with some of the analysed nominalizations (e.g. nei confronti di, in termini di, in seguito a, a seguito di). The nominalizations in such phrases were counted as nominalizations because they could still be paraphrased with a congruent version. 21 A notably bad translation is Casati Modignani (2003), in which quite a large number of sentences are oversimplified and poorly translated in general.


References Altieri Biagi, M. L. 1993. “Il “Dialogo sopra i Massimi Sistemi”.” In Letteratura Italiana. Le opere. vol. II, III, tomo II, A. Asor Rosa (ed), 891-971. Torino: Einaudi. Banks, D. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing, Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Comastri, F., Piccioni, L., Volpi, A., Aston, G. and Mazzoleni, M. 2004. “Introducing the la Repubblica Corpus: A Large, Annotated, TEI(XML)-Compliant Corpus of Newspaper Italian.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference LREC ’04. Lisbon, Portugal, 26-28 May 2004. European Language Resources Association. 1771-1774. Bruni, F., Alfieri, G., Fornasiero, S. and Tamiozzo Goldman, S. 1997. Manuale di scrittura e comunicazione. Per la cultura personale, per la scuola, per l'università. Bologna: Zanichelli. Casati Modignani, S. 2003. Vanilija in čokolada. Translated by Mal, L. M. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba. Cassese, S. (ed). 1993. Codice di stile delle comunicazioni scritte ad uso delle amministrazioni pubbliche. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. CORIS/CODIS Corpus. Available at http://dslo.unibo.it/coris_eng.html [last accessed 6 June 2012]. Cortelazzo, M. and Pellegrino, F. 2003. Guida alla scrittura istituzionale. Roma/Bari: Laterza. De Mauro, T. 1980/2003. Guida all'uso delle parole. Parlare e scrivere semplice e preciso per capire e farsi capire. 12th edition. Rome: Editori Riuniti. Erjavec, T. 2006 “The FIDA & MULTEXT-East Language Resources”. Lecture given at Gralis 2006. Institut für Slawistik der Universität, Graz 9 May 2006. Available at http://www-gewi.uni-graz.at/gralisalt/4.Gralisarium/GraLiS%202006/Erjavec_2006.ppt [last accessed 6 June 2012]. Erjavec, T., Gorjanc, V. and Stabej, M. 1998. “Korpus FIDA.” Proceedings of the Language Technologies for the Slovene Language Conference. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 8 October 1998. Institut Jožef Stefan. 124–127. Fioritto, A. (ed). 1997. Manuale di stile. Strumenti per semplificare il linguaggio delle amministrazioni pubbliche. Bologna: Il Mulino. Gaeta, L. 2004. “Derivazione nominale deverbale. Nomi d'azione.” In La formazione delle parole in italiano, M. Grossman and F. Rainer (eds), 314-351. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Gaeta, L. 2002. Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi. Un saggio di morfologia naturale. Milano: Franco Angeli. Gaeta, L. and Ricca, D. 2003. “Frequency and Productivity in Italian Derivation: A Comparison between Corpus-Based and Lexicographical Data.” Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15(1):63-98. Gaeta, L. and Ricca, D. 2006. “Productivity in Italian Word Formation: A VariableCorpus Approach.” Linguistics 44(1):57-89. Granger, S. 2010. “Comparable and translation corpora in cross-linguistic research. Design, analysis and applications.” Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University. 2:14-21 Available at http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/75716 [last accessed 3 July 2012]. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.


Halliday, M. A. K. 1987. “Language and the Order of Nature.” In The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature, Fabb, N., Attridge, D., Durant, A. and MacCabe, C. (eds), 135-154. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning. A Language-Based Approach to Meaning. London/New York: Continuum. Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R. 1993. Writing Science. Litercy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Johannson, S. and Hasselgård, H. 1999. “Corpora and cross-linguistic research in the Nordic countries.” In Contrastive Linguistics and Translation. Special issue of Le Langage et l’Homme 34(1), Granger, S., Beheydt, L. and Colson, J. P. (eds.), 145-162. Klinar, S. 1996. “Samostalniškost angleščine v primeri s slovenščino.” In K tehniki prevajanja iz slovenščine v angleščino, Klinar, S. (ed), 149-193. Radovljica: Didakta. Košak, T. 2007. “Posebnosti verbalnega in nominalnega sloga v poslovni nemščini in slovenščini”. Master’s Dissertation, University of Ljubljana. La Repubblica Corpus. Available at http://dev.sslmit.unibo.it/corpora/ corpus.php?path=&name=Repubblica [last accessed 6 June 2012]. Lenassi, N. 2004. “Implicitne glagolske konstrukcije: problem njihovega poučevanja v okviru poslovnega italijanskega jezika”. Vestnik 38(1/2):173-195. Mikolič Južnič, T. 2007. “Nominalne strukture v italijanščini in slovenščini: pogostnost, tipi, in prevodne ustreznice”. PhD Thesis, University of Ljubljana. Mikolič Južnič, T. 2010. “Translation of Italian Nominalizations into Slovene: a Corpus-Based Study.” Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 12 (2010):145-158. Mikolič Južnič, T. 2011. “Vpliv besedilnih tipov na pojavljanje nominalizacije v slovenščini: korpusna raziskava.” In Meddisciplinarnost v slovenistiki. Obdobja 30., Kranjc, S. (ed), 321-327. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba filozofske fakultete. Novak, F. 2007. “Pomen dela slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja za oblikovanje slovenskega strokovnega izrazja in stilistike strokovnih besedil.” In Razvoj slovenskega strokovnega jezika. Obdobja 24, Orel, I. (ed), 263-282. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slovenistiko, Center za slovenščino kot drugi/tuji jezik. Plemenitaš, K. 2007. Posamostaljenja v angleščini in slovenščini: primer časopisnih vesti in kritik. Maribor: Slavistično društvo. Ravelli, L. 1988. “Grammatical metaphor: an initial analysis.” In Pragmatics, Discourse and Text. Some Systemically-inspired Approaches, Steiner, E. H. and Veltman, R. (eds), 133-148. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Ravelli, L. 2003. “Renewal of Connection: Integrating Theory and Practice in an Understanding of Grammatical Metaphor.” In Grammatical Metaphor. Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, Simon-Vandenbergen, A., Taverniers, M. and Ravelli, L. (eds), 37-64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Skytte, G. 1983. La sintassi dell'infinito in italiano moderno. København: Munskgaard. Thornton, A. M. 1997. “Quali suffissi nel “Vocabolario di base”?” In Ai limiti del linguaggio, Albano Leoni, F., Gambarara, D., Gensini, S., Lo Piparo, F. and Simone, R. (eds), 385-396. Bari: Laterza. Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vodušek, B. 1933. “Za preureditev nazora o jeziku.” In Krog: zbornik umetnosti in razprav, Ložar, R. (ed) 66-76. Ljubljana: Sotrudniki.


Žele, A. 1995. “Razvoj posamostaljenja v slovenskem publicističnem jeziku med 1946 in 1995.” In Jezik in čas, Vidovič Muha, A. (ed), 191-200. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1996. Žele, A. 1997. “Slovenski razvoj besedotvornih pomenov pri izglagolskih samostalnikih, posebno pri glagolniku.” Slovenski jezik/Slovene Linguistic Studies 1:69-90.

Author’s address Tamara Mikolič Južnič Department of Translation Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana 2 Aškerčeva ulica 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia [email protected]