The Use of Linguistic Variants in Translations vs. Non-translations and in Six Different Registers
This data set was a case study in the COMURE project ("corpus-based, multivariate research of register variation in translated and non-translated Belgian Dutch") which was conducted at the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication of Ghent University between 2010 and 2014.
A data frame with 3762 rows and 4 variables.
VariantThe linguistic variant used in a set of alternatives (27 levels).
VariableThe linguistic variable specifying a set of alternatives (13 levels).
RegisterThe register or "Text type" of the data (6 levels).
LanguageThe language (and source language) of the data (3 levels).
Delaere, I., G. De Sutter and K. Plevoets (2012) Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Target 24 (2), 203–224.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
data(COMURE) # The execution of corregp may be slow, due to bootstrapping: comure.crg <- corregp(Variant ~ Register * Language, data = COMURE, part = "Variable", b = 3000) comure.crg summary(comure.crg, parm = "b", add_ci = TRUE) screeplot(comure.crg, add_ci = TRUE) comure.col <- ifelse( xtabs(~ Variant + Variety, data = COMURE)[, "Standard"] > 0, "blue", "red") plot(comure.crg, x_ell = TRUE, xsub = c("Register", "Language"), col_btm = comure.col, col_top = "black")
Want to suggest features or report bugs for rdrr.io? Use the GitHub issue tracker.