Search

The aim of this study is to explore the nominal style in translation, based on the language pair Swedish-German. The non-fiction source text (a Swedish economic text), which was used as material for this study, was translated by the author into German before the actual analysis was carried out. An important feature of the nominal style is the frequent occurrence of nominalizations. With the assumption that German non-fiction texts are particularlyprone to use the nominal style, whereas Swedish non-fiction texts are more likely to usethe verbal style, a quantitative and qualitative analysis was carried out, with the intention of exploring these tendencies in the two languages. The focus was on the one hand on the question of the frequencies with which nominalizations occur in both texts, and on the other hand, how and to what extent nominalizations may be structurally shifted intranslation. Building on the translation model by Eriksson (1997), a classification was made that grouped different structural changes and made them measurable. The results show that the expected assumption could be confirmed. The proportion of nominalizations in the German target text was higher than in the Swedish source text, but with a much smaller difference than assumed. Carlsson (2004) came to a similar conclusion in her study, in which economic texts from newspapers were compared in a language-contrasting manner

Nominalized infinitives (NIs, such as (das) Lachen ‘(the) laughing’, (das) Um-die-Ecke-Wohnen lit. ʻ(the) around-the-corner-living’) are the morphologically most elaborated deverbal nominalization patterns without restrictions in present-day German. However, this was not the case in earlier stages of German. The article reconstructs the steps behind the increase in productivity of the NI since Old High German with the support of historical corpora from Old High, Middle High, Early New High, and present-day German. It will be shown that the increase in productivity is due to an interplay of morphology and syntax. Syntactically, NIs develop from the verbal infinitive together with a syncretism with the pre-Old High German nominal gerund. Morphologically, NIs replace -ung-derived nouns in order to form abstract nouns in Middle High German. In a further step, the morphological complexity of NIs increases, because syntagmata are nominalized, including the emergence of synthetic compounds. In a reverse development taking place from Middle High German onwards, nominalized infinitives can also get result-readings which coincides with pluralizability (such as das Schreiben ‘letter’ – die Schreiben ‘letters’).

Scientific language, in contrast to general language, is characterised by its abstract and implicit style of expression, known as nominal style. A typical feature of this style is the frequent use of nominalizations which tend to be more common in German than in Swedish. This study will investigate whether these differences are also present in highly specialized medical texts. The quantitative and qualitative analysis is based on the translation of two medical articles from Swedish to German. The aim is to find out how often a nominalization in the source text corresponds to a nominalization in the target text, which structural shifts occur and how they influence the degree of nominal style. For this purpose, the concept of the “grammatical metaphor” was applied. The results show that the Swedish source text contains less nominalizations than the German target text. In 30% of the cases, less explicit and more metaphorical information was conveyed in the target text. In most of these cases a Swedish verbal construction was translated into a German nominalization. The metaphorization was often optional and guided by the conventions of medical texts. 65% of the occurrences showed the same degree of grammatical metaphoricity and were thus re-metaphorized. In the remaining 5%, the target text was less explicit and thus de-metaphorized. The Swedish source text proved to be less nominal than the target text.

Review, Aethiopica, Vol 21 (2018)

In this paper we will investigate the nature of deverbal nominals across languages. Deverbal nouns are typically classified according to their word-formation model: affixation and conver-sion. Our study will compare the word formation of deverbal nominals in Slavic (Croatian, Slovenian and Polish) and Romance languages (Italian, French and Spanish) in order to show (i) that affixation corresponds to a specific mode of morphological operations and (ii) that the differences and similarities between deverbal nominals of these two language families follow from the properties of the base verbs. Furthermore, our analysis will try to shed some light on the distinction between nouns and verbs. The paper comprises three major thematic parts. The first part briefly reviews the basic notions and theoretical assumptions of Generative Grammar regarding word formation. We have especially tried to explain those notions that we draw from Distributed Morphology. This part further exposes the theoretical framework that is used in this paper. In the second part, deverbal nominals in Slavic languages are analysed and de-scribed. We primarily investigate the Slavic languages, since in these languages morphology plays a larger role in the construction of deverbal nouns. The third part contains an investiga-tion of the phrasal structure of nominalizations across the Romance languages. We close the work with a general conclusion about the behaviour of deverbal nouns in these two groups of languages. We concentrate mainly on the differences between the phrasal architecture of nom-inalizations and correspondent verbal constructions.

In seinen Schriften zur Typologie des Relativsatzes behandelt Lehmann auch das Baskische […] Die Diskussion um den baskischen Relativsatz geht jedoch schon auf De Rijk (1972) zurück und wird von Oyharqabal (1985) fortgesetzt. In diesen Werken geht es um allgemeine Themen der Typologie des Relativsatzes (vor allem um das Problem der Zugänglichkeit), wobei allerdings wichtige Fragen unberücksichtigt bleiben: Warum gibt es im Baskischen mehrere unterschiedliche Relativsatzkonstruktionen? Worin unterscheiden sie sich? Wie lassen sie sich voneinander und gegen andere Verfahren der Nominalisierung abgrenzen, mit anderen Worten: welche Konstruktion gehört noch zu den Relativsatzbildungen, welche nicht mehr? Ich will hier die verschiedenen Verfahren der Relativsatzbildung (Relativierung) vorstellen und versuchen, mit Hilfe von Lehmanns (1984) Kontinuum der Nominalisierung Ordnung in die Phänomene , zu bringen, um schließlich Erklärungsansätze zu finden.