Verb-particle constructions in translated Dutch: a corpus-based analysis

The current study offers a contrastive analysis of Dutch and English verb-particle constructions (VPCs) and their translation. The study falls within the framework of an ARC project on how spatial elements become applicatives. In Dutch, VPCs are formed by combining a base verb such as werken ‘work’ with a preverbal element such as uit ‘out’. This type of word formation is quite productive in Dutch, for example: uitwerken ‘elaborate’, overwerken ‘work overtime’, afwerken ‘finish’. These preverbal elements usually have a spatial origin and may alter the valency of the base verb. English, although closely related to Dutch, presents a contrast due to its different structural options. Three primary types of English VPCs can be identified: those featuring a verb followed by an adverb (e.g., watch out), a preposition (e.g., watch for), or both an adverb and a preposition (e.g., watch out for). English VPCs differ most noticeably from Dutch VPCs in that the particle comes after the verb.
While VPCs in Dutch and English have been extensively researched (Blom 2005; Cappelle 2023; Thim 2012; Van Kemenade & Los 2003), their translation has not received equivalent attention, except for select studies (for instance, Cappelle & Loock 2017; and Claridge 2002 – focusing on English-German translations). This study addresses this gap by analyzing English translations of specific Dutch VPCs, including: uitwerken, ondergaan, voorkomen, and uitlopen in the Open Parallel Corpus (Tiedemann 2011). The aim is to evaluate how similar constructions in both languages either facilitate or hinder translation. While equivalent English VPCs exist for uitwerken ‘work out’ and ondergaan ‘go under’, no equivalent English VPCs exist for voorkomen ‘exist, occur’ and uitlopen ‘walk out (of), sprout, overrun its time’. We investigate how translators render these VPCs, whether through (i.) separable VPCs, (ii.) inseparable VPCs, (iii.) simplex verbs, (iv.) paraphrases, or (v.) complete omission. Additionally, we scrutinize the form and semantics of the VPCs in the Dutch source language and their impact on translators’ decisions.
Our analysis encompasses 1000-hit samples for each VPC under study. We anticipate that if a similar English VPC exists, translators will predominantly opt for it, aligning with research on priming in translation (Defrancq & Rawoens 2016; Tirkkonen-Condit 2002). While the results of statistical analyses are not yet finalized, the preliminary findings corroborate this expectation, indicating that Dutch VPCs with English counterparts (uitwerken and ondergaan) are more frequently translated using VPCs rather than simplex verbs or paraphrases. Conversely, Dutch VPCs lacking English equivalent VPCs (voorkomen and uitlopen) are relatively more frequently translated by paraphrases or omission, with translators resorting to solutions such as altering voice or perspective changes. For instance: Het spijt me, het liep even uit is translated as I'm so sorry. I've been held up.
In summary, the study aims to enhance our comprehension of complex word-formation in corpus-based translation studies, shedding light on the form and semantics of Dutch and English VPCs and how these factors influence translational choices.