Psycholinguistic Computerized Tools of Linguistic and Translation Studies Discourse Analysis

Keywords: computerized research methods, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), Textanz, translation universals, discourse, information distortion

Abstract

Recently, researchers in the field of linguistics, psycholinguistics, psychology of language, translation studies and other related fields have shown an increased interest in studying linguistic features of discourse. An increasing amount of studies on deception, means of suggestion and manipulation in discourse clearly indicate that there is a relationship between the use of function words, discourse cognitive compexity and speakers’ emotional states, his/her hidden intentions. Function words as ‘style words’ (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010) including pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, articles are processed automatically due to their procedural meaning. This paper is focused on the application aspects of two computerized methods – Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), and Textanz that are sensitive to function words. Designed by J. Pennebaker, social psychologist from University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues (Pennebaker et al., 2007), LIWC as a text analysis program that counts words in linguistic and psychological categories helps a researcher detect meaning in a wide variety of experimental settings, including to demonstrate information distortion in political discourse and translation. Our previous investigation on deception validated LIWC’s potential in identifying information distortion in English political discourse. The current study was aimed at verifying the above mentioned programs’ ability to detect deviations in translating. The authors found that such translation universals as simplification, normalization, and explicitation are markers of information distortion, or the “third code” (Frawley, 1984), in the target versions. Another important finding was that  they can be easily traced in English-Ukrainian parallel and comparable corpora through the use of LIWC and Textanz – reliable detectors of linguistic means with mostly procedural meaning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kasevych, V. (2013). Kognitivnaya lingvistika. V poiskakh identichnosti [Congative linguistics. In search of identity]. Мoscow: Yazyki Slavianskoy Kultury. [in Russian].
Kushnir, O., Bryk, O., Dzikovskyi, V., Ivanitskyi, V., Ketarynchuk I., Kis, Y. (2016). Statystychnyi rozpodil i fluktuatsii dovzhyn rechen v Ukrainkskykh, Rosiyskykh i Angliyskykh korpusakh [Statistical distribution and fluctuation of seentence length in Ukrainian, Russian, and English corpora]. Vіsnik Lvіvskogo polіtehnіchnogo nacіonalnogo unіversitetu. Serіja іnformacіjnі sistemi ta merezhі – Visnyk of Lviv Polytechnic National University. Series Informarion Systems and Networks, 854, 228-239. [in Ukrainian]
Parastayev, G. (2012). Leksiko-Semanticheskiye Osobennosti Amerikanskogo Politicheskogo Diskursa: Na Primere Istoricheskikh i Obshchestvenno-Politicheskikh Realiy [Lexical and Semantic Features of the U.S. Political Discourse: Based on Historical and Public Political Realia]. Ph.D. dissertation. Moscow. [in Russian]
Rosenhart Yu. (2017). Lingvalnyi profil anglomovnoho polityka-nepravdomotsia [Linguistic profile of English deceiving politician]. Aktualni Pytannia Inozemnoyi Filolohiyi – Topical issues of foreign philology, 7, 147–152. [in Ukrainian]
Starish, A. (2004). Filosophiya Informatsii [Philosophy of Information]. Simferopol: Tavriya. 376 p. [in Russian]
Shvachko, S. (2014). Na prostorakh metaznakov pervodovedeniya [In the Space of Metasigns of Translation Studies]. Naukovyi Visnyk of Chernivtsi University. Germanic Philology, 692–693, 316-320. [in Russian]
Yanovets, A. (2014). Psycholinguistychni Osoblyvosti Dyskursu Anglomovnoho Polityka u Stani Emotsiynoyi Napruhy [Psycholinguistic Features of English Speaking Politician's Discourse in the State of Emotional Stress]. Extended Summary of Ph.D. dissertation. Kherson: Kherson State University. 20 p. [in Ukrainian].
Berman, A. (1999). Traduction et la letter ou l'Auberge du lointain. Paris: Seuil. 141 p.
Frawley, W. (1984). Translation. Literary, Linguistic & Philosophical Perspectives. Newark.
Ireland M. R. Slatcher, R., Eastwick, P. Scissors, L., Eli J. Finkel, E., Pennebaker, J. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initia¬tion and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928
McClelland, D. C. (1979). Inhibited power motivation and high blood pressure in men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.88.2.182
Nabokov, V. (2004). Problems of Translation: Onegin in English. In: The Translation Studies Reader, (pp. 115–127). Lawrence Venuti (Ed.), London & New York: Routledge.
Newman, M.L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
Pennebaker, J.W., & Beall, K.S. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.274
Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., & Francis, M.E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostik. Leipzig: Ernst Bircher Verlag.
Shapiro, D. (1996). On the psychology of self-deception. Social Research, 63 (3), 785–800.
Stone, P., Dunphy, D., Marshall, S., & Ogilvie, D. (1966). General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press. 651 p.
Tausczik, Y., Pennebaker, J. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility. L.; N. Y.: Routledge, 1995. 353 p.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064
Vermeer, H. (2004). Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In: The Translation Studies Reader, (pp. 227-238), Lawrence Venuti (Ed.), London & New York: Routledge.
Weintraub, W. (1989). Verbal Behavior in Everyday Life. N.Y.: Springer.
Wyke, B. van. (2010). Ethics and Translation. Handbook of Translation Studies, 1, (pp. 111–115). Y. Gambier, L. van Doorslaer (Eds). https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.eth1
Zasiekin, S. (2014). Literary translation universals: a psycholinguistic study of the novice translators' common choices. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 1, 223–233.
Zasiekin, S. (2016) Understanding translation universals. Babel: International Journal of Translation, 62(1), 122–134.
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.07zas
Salinger, J. D. (1984). Franny. Novels, Stories. Translated by Yu. Pokalchuk. Kyiv: Molod. P. 242-267. [in Ukrainian].
Salinger, J. D. (1982). Franny and Zooey. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 201 p.

Abstract views: 196
PDF Downloads: 146
Published
2018-04-12
How to Cite
Zasiekin, S., & Rosenhart, Y. (2018). Psycholinguistic Computerized Tools of Linguistic and Translation Studies Discourse Analysis. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, (23(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1204994