International professional writers must consider cultural and linguistic differences in their rhetorical choices. Yet limited studies have explored the practice of international and multilingual professional communication. This article reports on a corpus-based contrastive study of wine-tasting notes (TNs) produced in North America and Spain. The findings reveal that the Spanish TNs focus on sensory attributes whereas the North American TNs focus on narrative elements about wineries and food pairing. The authors conclude by positing the importance of a context-centered rather than a language-centered approach to international professional communication.
AcharyaK. R.DorpenyoI. K. (2023). Translation for social justice and inclusivity in technical and professional communication: An integrative literature review. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 41–63. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/15
3.
BatovaT.ClarkD. (2015). The complexities of globalized content management. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914562472
CaballeroR. (2017). From the glass through the nose and the mouth: Motion in the description of sensory data about wine in English and Spanish. Terminology, 23(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.23.1.03cab
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W. (2011) Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): Pronounced “Luke,”… and other useful facts. In McCarthyP.BoonthumC. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Advances in identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 206–229). IGI Global.
14.
ClarkeD. (2019). Complexity in organoleptic paths of motion in the genre of craft beer reviews: A comparative study of Spanish and English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University].
15.
ClearyY.FlammiaM.MinacoriP.SlatteryD. M. (2015). Global virtual teams create and translate technical communication: Communication strategies, challenges and recommendations[Paper Presentation]. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on professional communication (pp. 1–10).
16.
CooleyS. N.GonzalesL. (2023). Introduction to special issue on social justice and translation in technical communication. Technical Communication & Social Justice, 1(1), 1–7.
17.
Corpas PastorG.Seghiri DominguezM. (2009). Virtual corpora as documentation resources: Translating travel insurance documents. In BeebyA.RodríguezP.Sánchez GijónP. (Eds.), Corpus use and translating (pp. 75–107). John Benjamins.
18.
CotosE. (2014). Genre-based automated writing evaluation for L2 research writing: From design to evaluation and enhancement. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333377
19.
De KockJ. (1997). Gramática y corpus: Los pronombres demostrativos. Revista de Filología Románica, 14(1), 291–298.
20.
De KockJ. (2001). Divergencias y convergencias en dos corpus de registros de lengua diferentes. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía, 28, 31–58.
21.
DiederichC. (2015). Sensory adjectives in the discourse of food. John Benjamins.
GluckM. (2003). Wine language. Useful idiom or idiot-speak? In AitchisonJ.LewisD. M. (Eds.), New media language (pp. 107–115). Routledge.
27.
GnecchiM.MaylathB.MoustenB.ScarpaF.VandepitteS. (2011). Field convergence between technical writers and technical translators: Consequences for training institutions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2011.2121750
28.
GómezE. M. (2020.). Non-professional translation in an Irish business setting: Considerations for global theory and national policy. Translation Studies, 13(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2020.1745678
29.
GonzalesL.TurnerH. N. (2017). Converging fields, expanding outcomes: Technical communication, translation, and design at a non-profit organization. Technical Communication, 64(2), 126–140.
HartR. P. (2001). Redeveloping diction: Theoretical considerations. In WesM. D. (Ed.), Theory, method, and practice in computer content analysis (pp. 43–60). Ablex.
32.
HopperP. (2007). Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(3), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207305307
33.
HylandK. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
34.
HylandK. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum Press.
International Organisation of Vine and Wine. (2022, April 27). Speaking from the OIV’s headquarters in Paris, by web conference, Director General Pau Roca presented on 27 April, information on wine production, consumption and international trade in 2021. https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/8771/en-oiv-press-release-april2022.pdf
37.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Translation services—Requirements for translation services (ISO Standard 17100:2015). https://www.iso.org/standard/59149.html
38.
IshizakiS. (2009). Toward a unified theory of visual–verbal strategies in communication design[Paper Presentation]. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international professional communication conference (pp. 1–9). https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208706
39.
IshizakiS.KauferD. (2011). DocuScope: Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In McCarthyP.BoonthumC. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Advances in identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 276–297). IGI Global.
IzquierdoM. (2024). The audit report in contrast: Developing corpus-informed applications. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 67(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2024.3415242
42.
KatanD. (2018). “Translatere” or “transcreare?” in theory and in practice and by whom? In SpinziC.RizzoA.ZummoM. L. (Eds.), Translation or transcreation. Discourse, texts and visuals (pp. 15–37). Scholars.
43.
KatanD. (2020). Translating tourism. In BielsaE.KapsaskisD. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and globalization (pp. 337–350). Routledge.
44.
KauferD.ButlerB. (2000). Designing interactive worlds with words: Principles of writing as representational composition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
KauferD.IshizakiS. (2006). A corpus study of canned letters: Mining the latent rhetorical proficiencies marketed to writers-in-a-hurry and non-writers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2006.880743
46.
KauferD. S.IshizakiS.ButlerB. S.CollinsJ. (2004). The power of words: Unveiling the speaker and writer's hidden craft. Routledge. 10.4324/9781410609748
Labrador de la CruzB.Ramón GarcíaN. (2024). Positive evaluation in the translation of online promotional discourse in the cheese industry. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 67(3), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2024.3417056
49.
LaursenA.JensenL.KampfC. (2014). Using an ad-hoc corpus to write about emerging technologies for technical writing and translation: The case of search engine optimization. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2307011
López-ArroyoB.Sanz-ValdiviesoL. (2022). The phraseology of wine and olive oil tasting notes: A corpus based semantic analysis. Terminology, 28(1), 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.20035.lop
55.
López-ArroyoB.Sanz-ValdiviesoL. (2024). A hint of the summery goodness of green grass: A look at English descriptors in tasting notes. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 19, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2024.20213
56.
López-ArroyoM. B.Pizarro SánchezI.Moreno-PérezL.Sanz-ValdiviesoL.Palacios BurgosF. J. (2022). Tech-writing tools: Herramientas para la ayuda a la escritura de textos especializados en lengua inglesa [Tech-writing tools: Writing aids for professional and technical texts in English]. https://olivewinetoolbox.uva.es/diccionario/public/index.php/home
MarcellinoW. (2023). Public policy research applications of DocuScope’s linguistic taxonomy: Mining style and stance for sociocultural insight. In BrownD. W.WetzelD. Z. (Eds.), Corpora and rhetorically informed text analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScope (pp. 148–166). John Benjamins.
59.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). Continuum.
MasseyG. (2021). Transitioning from interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in applied translation studies: Towards transdisciplinary action research in translators’ workplaces. Journal of Translation Studies, 1(2), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.3726/JTS022021.4
MaylathB.St.AmantK. (Eds.). (2019). Translation and localization. A guide for technical and professional communicators. Routledge.
65.
Medina RegueraA.Álvarez GarcíaC. (2014). La relación empresa-traducción en el sector agroalimentario andaluz. Skopos, 4, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.21071/skopos.v4i.4364
66.
Moreno-PérezL.López-ArroyoB. (2021). Atypical corpus-based tools to the rescue: How a generator can help translators adapt to the demands of the market. Monti, 13, 251–279. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2021.13.08
67.
Moreno-PérezL.López-ArroyoB. (2023). Wine and translation: An analysis of phraseological units in English and Spanish technical sheets. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 33(2), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2268115
Ortego AntónM. T. (2020). Las fichas descriptivas de embutidos en español y en inglés: Un análisis contrastivo de la estructura retórica basado en corpus [Descriptive tasting notes of cold meats: A corpus based contrastive analysis of their rhetorical structure]. Signos, 53(102), 170–194. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3379-4700, https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342020000100170
71.
PalumboG.Hill DuinA. (2018). Making sense of virtual collaboration through personal learning networks. In MoustenB.VandepitteS.ArnóE.MaylathB. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multilingual writing and pedagogical cooperation in virtual learning environments (pp. 109–136). IGI Global.
PiekkariR.WelchD. E.WelchL. S.PeltonenJ. P.VesaT. (2013). Translation behaviour: An exploratory study within a service multinational. International Business Review, 22(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.12.004
74.
PymA. (2008). Translation vs. language learning international institutions: Explaining the diversity paradox. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 1(1), 70–83.
75.
Ramírez AlmansaI. (2018). Interpretación (español > alemán/ inglés) en el sector vitivinícola: La cata de vino. Estudios Franco-Alemanes, 10, 181–199. https://doi.org/10.21071/estfa.v10i.15862
76.
ScarpaF. (2019). Pragmatic aspects of scientific and technical translation. In TiptonR.DesillaL. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and pragmatics (pp. 279–294). Routledge.
SpenceC.Van DoornG. (2022). Visual communication via the design of food and beverage packaging. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(42), 1–23. https://https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00391-9
79.
St AmantK. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international website analysis and design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1401_6
80.
SuojanenT. (2010). Comparing translating and technical communication: A holistic approach. In KinnunenT.KoskinenK. (Eds.), Translators’ agency (pp. 47–60). Tampere University Press.
81.
SwalesJ. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
82.
SwalesJ. (2004). Research genres. Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
83.
SwalesJ. M. (2011). Aspects of article introductions (Vol. 1). University of Michigan Press.
84.
TesseurW. (2017). The translation challenges of INGOs professional and non-professional translation at Amnesty International. Translation Spaces, 6(2), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.2.02tes
85.
TouryG. (1981). In search of a theory of translation. Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
