1897-1059 Major English Equivalents of the Polish Impersonal -no/-to Construction in Translated Academic Prose: A Parallel Corpus-Driven Study of Research Article Abstracts Wiraszka Łukasz author Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie 03bqmcz70 Correspondence to: Łukasz Wiraszka lukasz.wiraszka@uj.edu.pl 14 11 2025 Volume 142, Issue 4 2025 257 274 Copyright © 2025 2025 This study explores some of the factors underlying the choice from among the major English translation equivalents of the Polish impersonal construction with <em>-no/-to</em> verb forms in academic writing. Based on a parallel corpus of 487 Polish abstracts of research articles in linguistics and their English versions, Multiple Correspondence Analysis is deployed as an exploratory technique to identify potential associations among three types of constructions employed in the English target texts and four usage features related to the Polish source texts. Binary Logistic Regression is then used on a subset of the data with two most frequent constructions to determine the significance and strength of the correlations. The results indicate that while the agentless passive is the default structural equivalent of the Polish <em>-no/-to</em> construction, three factors may prompt the use of an active-voice structure with an inanimate subject, which was found to be the second major equivalent. These factors include: the presence of a locative adjunct referring to the study being summarized, the semantic type of the process denoted by the <em>-no/-to</em> verb, and the length of the NP functioning as the complement of the verb. The fourth usage feature under examination, namely the position of the complement in relation to the verb, seems to be less significantly correlated with the translation choice between the two major constructions in English. 1 Austin P.C., Steyerberg E.W. 2017. Events per variable (EPV) and the relative performance of different strategies for estimating the out-of-sample validity of logistic regression models. – Statistical Methods in Medical Research 26.2: 796–808. 2 Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. 3 Blevins J.P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. – Journal of Linguistics 39.3: 473–520. 4 Bunčić D. 2018. Impersonal constructions in Slavic languages and the agentivity of the verb. – Kempgen S., Wingender M., Franz N. (eds.). Deutsche Beiträge zum 16. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Belgrad 2018. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 101–110. 5 Bunčić D. 2019. Agent prominence in the Polish -no/-to construction. – Bauer A., Bunčić D. (eds.). Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. XXIV. JungslavistInnen-Treffen in Köln, 17.–19. September 2015. Berlin: Peter Lang: 63–76. 6 Callies M. 2013. Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. – International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18.3: 357–390. 7 Davies M. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA). [available online at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/, accessed: 9 March 2025]. 8 Donesch-Jeżo E. 2016. Cross-cultural variability of research article abstracts from different discourse communities. – Państwo i Społeczeństwo 16.3: 33–60. 9 Duszak A. 1998. Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 10 Glynn D. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. – Glynn D., Robinson J.A. (eds.). Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 133–179. 11 Glynn D., Krawczak K. 2012. Context and cognition: A corpus-driven approach to paren­thetical uses of mental predicates. – Kosecki K., Badio J. (eds.). Cognitive processing in language. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang: 87–98. 12 Greenacre M. 2006. From Simple to Multiple Correspondence Analysis. – Greenacre M., Blasius J. (eds.). Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. London: Chap­man &amp; Hall: 41–76. 13 Gries S.Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. [2nd revised ed.]. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 14 Gries S.Th., Wulff S. 2012. Regression analysis in translation studies. – Oakes M.P., Ji M. (eds.). Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies. Amsterdam, Philadel­phia: John Benjamins: 35–52. 15 Grzegorczykowa R., Laskowski R., Wróbel H. 1999. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. [3rd ed.]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 16 Halloran M.S. 1984. The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. – Rhetoric Review 3: 70–83. 17 Hyland K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 18 Hyland K. 2004. Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 19 Kibort A. 2004. Passive and passive-like constructions in English and Polish. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics. 20 Kościołek I., Bunčić D. 2023. Can Polish -no/-to demote discourse-prominent referents? Corpus data vs. acceptability. – Discours 33: 3–19. 21 Kotowicz D. 2017. The use of the passive voice in English and Polish medical research arti­cles. – Problems of Applied Sciences 6: 199–208. 22 Kowalski G. 2015. Claim-making and claim-challenging in English and Polish linguistic discourses. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 23 Krzek M. 2017. The null subject parameter meets the Polish impersonal -NO/-TO construc­tion. – Sheehan M., Bailey L.R. (eds.). Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure. Berlin: Language Science Press: 307–318. 24 Lavine J.E. 2005. The morphosyntax of Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to. – Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13.1: 75–117. 25 Lavine J.E. 2017. Syntactic change and the rise of transitivity: The case of the Polish and Ukrainian -no/-to construction. – Studies in Polish Linguistics 12.3: 173–198. 26 Levshina N. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 27 Levý J. 1967. Translation as a decision process. – To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his 70. birthday, 11. October 1966. [vol. 2]. The Hague, Paris: Mouton: 1171–1182. 28 Przepiórkowski A., Bańko M., Górski R.L., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. (eds.). 2012. Narodowy korpus języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [available online at: https://nkjp.pl/, accessed: 6 March 2025]. 29 Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. 30 R Core Team. 2024. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foun­dation for Statistical Computing. 31 Ruda M. 2014. The impersonal subject -N/-T construction in Polish and the typology of voice heads. – Studies in Polish Linguistics 9.4: 203–243. 32 Sansò A. 2006. “Agent defocusing” revisited passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages. – Abraham W., Leisiö L. (eds.). Passivization and typology. Form and function. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 232–273. 33 Siewierska A. 1988. The passive in Slavic. – Shibatani M. (ed.). Passive and voice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 243–290. 34 Swales J.M., Feak Ch.F. 2009. Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 35 Wanner A. 2009. Deconstructing the English passive. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 36 Wiraszka Ł. 2021. A cognitive linguistics account of viewpoint in academic prose. – Language, Mind, Culture and Society 5: 76–100. 37 Wiraszka Ł. 2023. Active verbs with inanimate, text-denoting subjects in Polish and English abstracts of research articles in linguistics. – Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 59.1: 217–237.