Bringing home the bacon! A contrastive study of the cognates bring / bringe in English and Norwegian

This paper highlights the value of a bidirectional translation corpus in contrastive studies in an investigation of the cross-linguistic relationship between two cognates in English and Norwegian: bring and bringe . Although monolingual and bilingual dictionaries prove to be excellent sources of information in respect of this relationship, the present study contributes further to our knowledge regarding the cognates’ conditions of use. Drawing on material from the fiction part of the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC), the study reveals that English bring is far more frequent than its Norwegian counterpart. By exploring the close to 500 occurrences of the two words in original and translated texts, it becomes clear that the two verbs have a relatively low Mutual Correspondence. That is, overall, they only correspond to each other in translation in roughly 20% of the cases. This low correspondence rate is surprising, given the fact that we are looking at verbs stemming from the same origin in two closely related languages. The corpus correspondences suggest that there may be at least two main reasons for this. First, Norwegian bringe may be considered more formal than English bring and there is thus a preference for using less formal verbs in Norwegian to express the meaning of bring , notably the multi-word verbs ha med (REFL) ‘have with (REFL)’, ta med (REFL) ‘take with (REFL)’ and komme med ‘come with’. Second, English bring is more versatile than Norwegian bringe , particularly in the sense that it more readily forms part of phrasal verbs and fixed phrases. It is also the case that English bring has come to be used with a wider range of meanings than Norwegian bringe , as attested in the dictionaries 105 meanings is particularly salient in the current data. The findings underline the role a parallel corpus such as the ENPC can play in shedding light on contrastive nuances that contribute to a broader understanding of cross-linguistic relationships.


Introduction
This study takes two cognates as its starting point in order to show the potential of a bidirectional translation corpus in uncovering lexico-grammatical similarities and differences between two closely related languages. Although seemingly perfect crosslinguistic matches of each other, the English verb bring and the Norwegian verb bringe seem to have different conditions of use. Dictionary entries, as well as informal (corpus) observations, suggest exactly that, with English bring being the more frequent and versatile of the two. In fact, in the fiction part of two monolingual corpora of English and Norwegian -the British National Corpus (BNC) and Leksikografisk bokmålskorpus (LBK) -the lemma bring is around seven times more frequent than its Norwegian cognate, suggesting that English bring has a wider area of use.
The aim of the study is to uncover the true nature of these verbs in the two languages, through a detailed contrastive analysis of bring/bringe on the basis of data drawn from the fiction part of the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC). In this way, it will be possible to establish how they are used in the two languages, when they overlap in meaning and use, and when they do not. It will also be of interest to survey the extent to which they correspond to each other in translation and what other correspondences they may have. This may in turn pave the way for a semantic network of bringing across the two languages. Example (1) shows a case of a perfect, congruent translation correspondence between the two verbs, while example (2) shows a non-congruent correspondence.
(1) En dag, det var en torsdag, brakte budet to pakker. (JW1) 2 One day, a Thursday, the messenger brought two cartons. (JW1T) (2) I put a finger to his mouth: "Don't bring it up again. (ABR1) Jeg la en finger på munnen hans: "Ikke snakk mer om det. (ABR1T) Lit.: 'Not talk more about it'. 2 The corpus ID identifies the author (JW), the text by that author (1). Translations are marked with a T. For an overview of the texts in the ENPC, see Johansson (2007).
In (1), Norwegian bringe is a monotransitive verb in the past tense (brakte), corresponding to past tense, monotransitive bring (brought) in the English translation. In (2), on the other hand, bring is part of a phrasal verb (bring up = 'mention'/'discuss') and the Norwegian translator has opted for the simplex verb snakke 'talk'. This paper has the following structure: Section 2 starts with a brief background to the verbs, mainly based on dictionary and general grammar sources, while Section 3 outlines the material and method used. The contrastive analysis of the bring/bringe data is contained in Section 4, followed by the concluding Section 5.

The cognates bring and bringe: Background
The apparent mismatch between these two verbs has puzzled me for a number of years, and a long-standing wish of looking more closely into their cross-linguistic relationship has now been fulfilled. Although a former student of mine wrote a short term paper on the use of bring in a contrastive perspective (Veamyhr 2009), a full-scale, corpusbased comparison of the two verbs does not exist. Veamyhr's paper was narrower in scope than the present study, focusing on how the English verb forms bring and brought are translated into Norwegian, i.e. a unidirectional comparison. I take this opportunity to acknowledge Veamyhr's preliminary work on the topic, which to a large degree confirmed the hunch that, despite their common origin and core meaning, bring and bringe do not seem to have the same conditions of use in English and Norwegian. The current study aims to provide a full and systematic bidirectional analysis of all forms of the two verbs. Before we turn to the analysis proper, some background is in order, mainly obtained from dictionaries.
Bring and bringe have been introduced as cognates, pointing to the fact that, etymologically, they have the same origin. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) the origin of bring is "common Germanic", with the core meaning of "[t]o cause to come along with oneself; <…> it implies motion towards the place where the speaker or auditor is, or is supposed to be, being in sense the causative of come; motion in the opposite direction is expressed by take" (OED). Norwegian bringe -as well as its Danish and Swedish equivalents -is, according to Bjorvand and Lindeman (2007, 127), an old loanword from Middle Low German. 3 The fact that this verb is found in all the other old Germanic languages suggests that it at some point fell out of use in the North Germanic languages, but was reintroduced again in the Middle Low German period (ibid.).

Bring and bringe in monolingual dictionaries
If we look up bring and bringe in modern, monolingual dictionaries, the entries for English bring are typically much longer than those for Norwegian bringe. I will refrain from speculating whether this is connected to the previous observation of bringe having been brought back into the language after having fallen into disuse for a period of time, but this may be worth bearing in mind. In the following, I will give a brief and condensed overview of each verb in one monolingual English dictionary (oxforddictionaries.com) and one monolingual Norwegian dictionary (Bokmålsordboka); see Tables 1 and 2 Following Quirk et al.'s (1985, 54) definition, monotransitive verbs occur in the clause type SVO, ditransitive in the clause type SVOO (excluding prepositional phrases as indirect object (ibid.: 59)) and complex transitive in the clause types SVOC and SVOA. 5 Phrasal verbs in the context of bring refer to phrasal transitive verbs in which the particle can either precede or follow the direct object (Quirk et al. 1985(Quirk et al. , 1153 This list can of course only give us a rough indication of possible differences between the two verbs, but it will be put to the test in the systematic cross-linguistic comparison in Section 4.

Bring and bringe in bilingual dictionaries
Another useful source of information regarding the relationship between the two verbs is bilingual dictionaries. I will refer to one such resource, namely the bilingual English-Norwegian and Norwegian-English dictionaries available via ordnett.no.
In the English to Norwegian direction, nine main entries for bring can be found in ordnett.no, of which only the first and seventh have bringe as a suggested Norwegian translation. The other suggestions for entry 1 are komme (hit/dit) med 'come (here/there) with', ha med seg 'have with oneself', ta med (seg) 'take with (oneself)', and for entry 7 formå 'persuade', få 'get'/'cause', respectively. This is, perhaps unsurprisingly, very much in line with what we learnt from the monolingual dictionaries (see Table 2 in particular). Further information that can be gleaned from the other entries in the English-Norwegian bilingual dictionary includes the fact that Norwegian has prefixed verbs with bringe corresponding to English bring, viz. anbringe as in the points to be dealt with can be brought under three main heads, frembringe as in it brings bad luck and innbringe as in his writings bring him £30,000 a year. 6 This last use was listed in oxforddictionaries. com as a subentry of sense 1. The prefixed verbs all have in common that they belong to a highly formal register, thus these senses of bring would most likely call for other translation correspondences in a less formal register such as fiction. Notably, the entry with an example of the ditransitive use of bring lists the following translation possibilities in Norwegian: hente 'fetch', ta inn 'take in', ta frem 'take forth/out', sette frem 'set forth/out', of which hente is used as a translation of bring in bring me a glass of water, please. There are a couple of other observations worth making, namely that sense 4 in oxforddictionaries.com is equated with bringe and få 'get'/'cause' and also that several of the other equivalents are prefixed verbs or may be classified as phrasal verbs, e.g. forårsake 'cause', medføre 'cause' and legge frem 'lay forth/out'.

7
The English glosses are mine.
However, from what we have seen in the other dictionaries, it seems plausible that bring can in fact cover all four senses. The most striking thing about the whole entry for bringe in ordnett.no is that it in addition to the four senses above lists a fair number of set phrases, including potential phrasal verbs. These are not mentioned under the entry for bringe in Bokmålsordboka and include expressions such as: bringe en sak inn for retten 'take a case to court', bringe i sikkerhet 'bring into safety'/'carry into safety', bringe frem 'bring forth'/'bring (out)', bringe med 'bring along'/'take (along)'. 8 This suggests that Norwegian bringe may enter into such phrases; the corpus investigation will tell us more about the extent to which this happens in Norwegian fiction.

Phrasal verbs with bring and bringe
As this investigation includes all uses of the verbs, a brief note on their phrasal-verb uses is in order. For the purposes of this study I will adopt Quirk et al.'s (1985 definition of phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are multi-word combinations consisting of a lexical verb and a particle behaving as a single unit. Phrasal verbs with bring are found in Quirk et al.'s type II category of "transitive phrasal verbs" in which "the particle can either precede or follow the direct object" (ibid., 1153).
For comparison with one proposed Norwegian framework of multi-word verbs, Landmark (1998)  Some of the verbs listed that may be classified as phrasal verbs, e.g. bringe med 'bring along' (Lit. bring with), are not considered phrasal verbs in the current study, but rather instances of monotransitive bringe followed by an optional Adverbial realised by a PP, in line with bring (V) sth (dO) with REFL (A/PP). The sequences bringe med and bring with do not operate as single units. See Section 2.3 for the definition of phrasal verbs adopted in this study.

9
It is, however, slightly unclear whether Landmark considers komme med in the sense of bring as a 'tight transitive multi-word verb', as it is not explicitly mentioned.
In some cases it may be hard to distinguish phrasal verbs from free combinations of verb plus spatial adverb. Quirk et al. (1985Quirk et al. ( , 1154 propose that [w]here there is ambiguity between idiomatic and nonidiomatic interpretations of the same combination, insertion of an adverb will select the nonidiomatic one. Thus [1], unlike [2], can mean 'she reared the girls': She brought the girls up. [1] She brought the girls right up. [2] In their overview of multi-word lexical verbs, Biber et al. (1999, 412-413) identify 12 phrasal verbs with bring in total in their corpus, of which two are deemed "common", i.e. occurring more than 10 times per million words (bring up/out? . Thus, the dictionaries consulted above suggest that bring is more productive as a phrasal verb than bringe is.

Material and method
The following sections give an overview and description of the corpus and data set used in the current investigation, as well as an outline of what may be termed the "bidirectional contrastive method".

The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus
The English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC) was compiled at the University of Oslo in the mid-1990s, under the directorship of Stig Johansson. It is a bidirectional translation corpus, consisting of comparable data originally written in English and Norwegian and their translations into Norwegian and English. The corpus is structured in a way that encourages research in the fields of contrastive linguistics and translation studies, from an applied as well as a theoretical perspective (see e.g. Johansson 1998, 8). The ENPC contains a fiction and a non-fiction part, of which only the former will be used for the purpose of this study. ENPCfiction contains text extracts of 10,000-15,000 words from 30 contemporary novels in each of the two languages. 10 These have been aligned at sentence level with their respective translations in the other language. In total, 10 By contemporary is here meant fiction published in the 1980s and 1990s.
ENPCfiction amounts to 1.6 million running words, distributed across four components, or sub-corpora: English originals (EO), English translations (ET), Norwegian originals (NO) and Norwegian translations (NT). The fact that the sub-corpora are equal in size means that direct comparisons of raw frequencies are possible and valid. For a fuller and more detailed account of the ENPC, see e.g. Johansson 2007;Johansson et al. 1999Johansson et al. /2000.
As only three of the sub-corpora in the ENPC are lemmatised and POS-tagged, the material was extracted using search strings including all verb forms of bring (bring|brings|brought|bringing) and bringe (bringe|bringer|brakte|bragte|brakt|bragt) through the Translation Corpus Explorer search interface (developed by J. Ebeling and L. Wilhelmsen). 11 In addition to ensuring comparability of the output of the searches, this procedure also ensures total recall and very good precision (close to 100%, but see Section 3.1.1 for one false hits).

The bring/bringe data set
The searches for all forms of the verbs in the four sub-corpora returned a highly unbalanced number of hits in the English vs. Norwegian data, as shown in Table 3.  Table 3. Number of occurrences of the lemmas bring and bringe in the ENPC subcorpora

Lemma
One occurrence in the Norwegian originals was excluded on the grounds that it was a "false hit": brakte in example (3) is a form of the verb brake 'thunder', and is thus a homonym of the past tense of bringe.
(3) Snorkingen til Klegge lød bare som koselig humlesurr i forhold til tordenskrallene som brakte ut av munnen til Digralde. (TTH1) Lit.: 'The snoring of Klegge sounded just as nice bee buzzing in comparison to the thunderclaps that thundered out of the mouth of Digralde' 11 http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/services/omc/team/ The lack of balance between English bring and Norwegian bringe in terms of frequency is in fact quite striking when compared to other cross-linguistic studies of cognates and other seemingly perfect matches across languages. It is striking because of the lack of overuse or underuse in the translations compared to the original texts in the same language. As pointed out by Johansson (2007, 32): With a bidirectional corpus like the ENPC, we can pinpoint differences between choices in original and translated texts in the same language. In some cases, we find overuse in translation, where a form is used more often in translations than in original texts, in other cases there is underuse, with the opposite frequency difference. <...> Overuse and underuse can be taken as evidence that the means of expression do not match in the source and target language and that there is a tendency for the source text to leave its mark on the translation.
A case in point is Johansson's (2006) bidirectional study of English well and Norwegian vel in sentence initial position, where well was shown to be more than twice as common in English original texts than in English texts translated from Norwegian. 12 Johansson calls this phenomenon "translation effect", but stresses that "overuse and underuse are meant as descriptive terms and do not necessarily imply that there is anything wrong with translated texts where we find evidence of overuse and underuse" (2007,33).
The distribution of bring vs. bringe across the four sub-corpora suggests that there is no such translation effect in the material, at least not in terms of frequency. What can be observed is a clear difference between the languages rather than between original and translated texts, suggesting that bring is triggered in translation by other Norwegian sources than bringe, and that it gives rise to other translation correspondences than bringe. This in turn may suggest that the two may not be as good matches of each other as one may be led to believe. The contrastive analysis in Section 4 will give us a clearer picture of how the two verbs relate to each other, and whether there is indeed no translation effect.

The bidirectional contrastive method
The method applied here can be referred to as the 'bidirectional contrastive method', which exploits the parallel structure of the corpus to its full contrastive potential. This means that the verbs will be explored in both directions of correspondence, viz. starting from the original texts to establish how bring and bringe have been rendered in the translations, and starting from the translations to establish which item(s) in the source texts give rise to bring and bringe in the translations (see Figure 1). This method also enables us to control for translation effects in the sense that any deviance in the use of the verbs in the translated texts will become apparent when compared to their use in the original texts.
Inspired by Johansson's (2007, 25) framework, correspondences in the corpus will be referred to according to Figure 1. bring and bringe correspond to any verb. This means that the focus will be on the actual mutual correspondence of the lemmas bring and bringe (i.e. congruent correspondence in the strictest sense).

Degree of congruence between bring and bringe
The contrastive analysis starts with an overview of the (non-)correspondence of the two lemmas in ENPCfiction in Table 4.  In (5), bring is translated into the phrasal verb ta med 'take with', while the phrasal verb bring up in (6) is rendered by the prefixed verb oppdrar 'upraise'. Both of these would be considered non-congruent choices in the framework outlined in Figure 1 above. Example (7) is interesting in terms of congruence, because fått is in fact a formally similar, congruent correspondence to brought, albeit not in the strictest sense as it is a different verb from bringe. Finally, (8)  It is also revealed in Table 4 that a different tendency in terms of correspondence between the two verbs can be observed when going from Norwegian originals into English translations (NO → ET); bring is used as a translation of bringe in about 60% of the cases. Since we have seen that the meanings of Norwegian bringe tend to overlap with meanings of English bring, this is as expected. Indeed, a similar tendency would also be expected when looking at bring in Norwegian translations from English, but here the percentage of correspondence is only around 33%. In this case, then, we may suspect some translation effect, in that proportionally more instances of English bring than expected give rise to Norwegian bringe in translation, when compared to bringe in original texts. However, 33% is still well above the percentage recorded when taking English as a starting point, i.e. EO → NT and ET ← NO.

Patterns of use
We will now turn to the conditions of use in cases where bring corresponds to bringe and where it does not. In other words, is it possible to detect specific patterns that trigger correspondence or non-correspondence? The first observation to be made from Table 5 is that some degree of correspondence is found in all the syntactic patterns, although the amount of congruence varies across all categories and according to direction of correspondence. We can establish that the most frequent pattern overall for both verbs is complex transitive, as in example (9)  An important fact hidden behind the numbers in the monotransitive category in EO → NT and ET ← NO in Table 5 is the relatively high proportion of phrasal verbs with bring (23 out of 87 in EO → NT and 21 out of 91 in ET ← NO; see Table 10 below). These do not generally have a Norwegian correspondence with bringe; example (12) is the only one attested in the ENPC material. In addition, a phrasal verb with bring in ET has a phrase with bringe as its Norwegian source (13). In terms of Mutual Correspondence (MC) (Altenberg 1999), which quantifies the strength of attraction between two items in translation, there is an asymmetric relationship in that the correspondence is higher when going from the Norwegian texts to the English texts in all the syntactic categories, i.e. there is a translation bias. For illustration, I will use the complex transitive category. Similarly, the reverse MC (rMC) (Ebeling & Ebeling 2015), i.e. the number of times our items have each other as source, is also skewed, as shown in Table 7, with 19.4% vs. 34%, albeit the translation bias is not as pronounced as in the case presented in Table 6.

ET ← NO NT ← EO rMC Source
14 x 100 19.4% 11 x 100 34% 24% Target  72  32   Table 7. Reverse MC of the lemmas complex transitive bring and bringe Not only are the MC and rMC skewed, both measures are extremely low, considering the fact that we are looking at cognates, which for all intents and purposes would be thought to reach (r)MCs close to 100%.
Generally speaking, low correspondence rates could suggest a lexical gap between languages, or low (lexical) importance of the items compared (Altenberg 1999, 255). However, neither of these explanations seems viable in the current circumstances. What the measures do suggest, however, is that English bring has a correspondence paradigm that is more varied than that of bringe. We need to probe further into the actual correspondences of bring and bringe to gain more knowledge regarding the nature of these. Tables 8 and 9 for the simplex versions of the verbs, while Table 10 Tables 8 and 9, it is the former that seems to contain the more valuable contrastive information. Although Table 9 reveals that Norwegian bringe can have many different sources in English, it mainly shows what we already knew, i.e. bring is the most common correspondence of Norwegian bringe, and shows few other tendencies, apart perhaps from the use of take as a correspondence of bringe. Table 8, on the other hand, does reveal some clear tendencies, namely that Norwegian appears to rely on multi-word verbs containing the particle med 'with' to cover the meaning of bring. While around 10% (17 out of 173) of the simplex uses of bring in EO → NT are rendered by bringe, more than 40% (72 out of 173) are rendered by komme med, ha med (REFL) and ta med (REFL). This, together with the fact that Norwegian bringe is conspicuously less used than English bring, suggests that bringe may be felt to be too formal, or even unnatural/unidiomatic, in modern Norwegian fiction, despite the fact that it would have been acceptable in most patterns and meanings in which English bring is used. By using the less formal phrasal (ha/ta med) and prepositional (komme med) verbs, idiomaticity in the sense of naturalness is achieved. The other direction of correspondence supports this, in that a similar preference for multi-word sources can be noted there.

An overview of actual correspondences of bring and bringe in the material is offered in
It is interesting to note that the connection between bring and verbs such as take, ta and komme was already mentioned in the OED definition quoted in Section 2, i.e. bring is in a sense the causative of come or expresses motion in the opposite direction of take. This latter point is illustrated in example (14), where the English sentence with bring is in the passive voice, while the Norwegian translation with ta is in the active. In other words, bring and ta describe motions in opposite directions.
(14) There were not enough chairs and an extra had to be brought from upstairs.
(RR1) Det var ikke nok stoler, så de måtte ta ned en ekstra fra annen etasje. (RR1T) Lit.: … so they had to take down an extra from second floor However, the criterion of 'opposite direction' does not always seem to hold, as example (15) attests. Here, bringe and take are perfect matches of each other, with no change of perspective.
(15) Men det vil bringe oss frem. (EFH1) But it will take us forward. (EFH1T) The words and expressions occurring once as correspondences of bring and bringe are all very much in line with the definitions given in the dictionaries (see Table A in the Appendix for a list of these). What this study has uncovered, which one cannot expect to find in dictionaries, is the distribution of the various correspondences. While it is fairly safe to use bring in most contexts as a translation of Norwegian bringe, the opposite is not the case. The core meaning of bring is most commonly captured by one of the multiword verbs mentioned above.
With regard to the more specialised, i.e. phrasal, uses of bring in particular, there is less of a pattern to discern. Table 10 gives an overview of the phrasal verbs and fixed phrases with bring in the material.  The only phrasal use of bring that is relatively common is bring up, with 16 occurrences each in EO and ET. The others are only marginally attested. The Norwegian correspondences of bring up are relatively predictable, however. In the sense of rearing, which is by far the most common, the typical Norwegian correspondence is oppdra 'upraise', while in the sense of broaching a topic, nevne 'mention', si 'say' or snakke 'talk' are used.

Phrasal verbs # occurrences
Phrasal uses of Norwegian bringe are few and far between, with three occurrences in NO and four in NT. Bringe på det rene (corresponding to 'find out'/'explain'/'clear up') is found three times, bringe på bane (corresponding to 'come up'/'bring up') twice and bringe for dagen (corresponding to 'elicit') once. In addition, and as mentioned above, the phrasal verb bringe inn 'bring in' is found once in translated text. With reference to the discussion of bringe med 'bring with' in Section 2.2, it is tempting to suggest that bringe med (REFL), albeit strictly speaking not a phrasal verb, has some sort of fixed status in the Norwegian material. Five out of the 16 instances of monotransitive bringe in NO have bringe med (REFL), as in example (16) It should be mentioned that one thing that sets bringe med (REFL) apart from the verbs with med that have been acknowledged as multi-word verbs -ha/ta/komme med -is the fact that these may correspond to simplex bring, while the med-phrase in bringe med is somehow superfluous.

Concluding remarks
This investigation has gone some way towards explaining the discrepancy in frequency between bring and bringe. Not only does bring seem to be the more favoured of the two because of its slightly broader scope of meaning, 19 but also because it more frequently enters into fixed and frequent phrases (cf. Sinclair 1999). Moreover, bring appears to be less restricted in terms of level of formality, as it readily corresponds to typically less formal options, i.e. phrasal verbs.
The study has revealed some clear correspondence tendencies, notably the fact that Norwegian in many contexts prefers a multi-word verb to cover the meaning of bring. However, whenever Norwegian bringe is used in original texts it naturally corresponds to a form of English bring in most cases.
The relatively long lists of words and expressions used once as correspondences of bring/bringe in the respective sub-corpora (see Appendix) suggest that certain lexicogrammatical contexts may trigger more lexically specific verbs, as illustrated in example (17) where brought has been translated into kjørte 'drove', a natural choice in a context in which a car features.
(17) <...> and the headmaster brought him to his auntie's in his car because there was no one at home in his own house. (RDO1) <...> og overlaereren kjørte ham til tanta hans i bilen sin fordi det ikke var noen hjemme hos Liam. (RDO1T) It is beyond doubt that the broad network of verbs corresponding in one way or another to bring/bringe attests to the spectre of meanings covered by the core and general bring verbs, given the right context (and English bring in particular). Thus, the contrastive method has added to our previous knowledge as outlined in dictionaries in providing a broader network of bring verbs in English and Norwegian.
With reference to the title of this paper, the idiom bring home the bacon is not attested in the ENPC material. This is not surprising, given Aijmer and Altenberg's acknowledgement that bidirectional corpora "are seldom big enough to provide evidence of less common language features" (Aijmer & Altenberg 2013, 2). In the same vein, Johansson points out that "the corpus is rather small for lexical studies beyond the core vocabulary" (Johansson 2008, 57), and needless to say, idiomatic expressions such as bring home the bacon can hardly be considered part of the "core vocabulary". Nevertheless, the corpus has proved suitable for the more frequent uses of the verbs, although, ideally, the study should be supplemented in future research with data culled from large monolingual corpora of the languages under contrast.
A number of other avenues for developing this study further include a large-scale monolingual investigation of the whole semantic network of bring verbs in the two languages, as well as an expansion of the contrastive dimension of the study by adding more languages to gain a broader cross-linguistic perspective. To further enhance the current study, an even more detailed discussion of the immediate context and actual collocates of bring and bringe ought to be included. Finally, a future study would also need to look at the uses of bring and bringe in other text-types. Given the fact that bringe is thought to be stylistically more formal than its English counterpart, it would be particularly important to include text-types considered to be more formal than fiction.
While this study may not in actual fact have 'brought home the bacon', it has shown the potential of a bidirectional translation corpus in sharpening the description of two closely related verbs in their authentic contexts. It has revealed that the verbs have developed different preferred patterns and meanings from the same origin. The findings uncovered in the current study would be difficult to pinpoint without a parallel corpus such as the ENPC, which has proved ideal in gaining more knowledge about the relationship between the cognates bring and bringe.