Simplification is “the tendency to simplify the language used in translation” (Baker 1996:181-182), meaning that translated language is simpler than non-translated target language from a stylistic, syntactic and lexical point of view. As pointed out by Gimenez (2012:13), an “indicator of simplification might be a narrower range of vocabulary, a measure of which is a type-token ratio (i.e. ratio of the number of different words to the number of running words in a text)”. Further indicators of simplification may be low lexical density, high proportion of high-frequency words vs. low frequency words and low sentence length mean, as proved in Laviosa-Braithwaite’s study (1996). Explicitation is “the tendency to spell thing out rather than leave them implicit” (Baker 1996:180), meaning that the translator tends to eliminate ambiguity in favour of explicitness, and does so by “repeating redundant grammatical items, such as prepositions, and overusing lexical repetition, which in turn results in a lower frequency of pronouns” (Gimenez 2012:13), as hypothesised by Laviosa (1996). Normalisation (also called conventionalisation or standardisation) is “the tendency to exaggerate features of the target language and to conform to its typical patterns” (Baker 1996:183). This means that the translator will “standardise” elements of text such as metaphors, idioms and colloquial expressions, producing a translated text that conforms more to target language than to source language. Translations, therefore, do not reproduce the creative component of the source text and become “unmarked and conventional, less creative than non-translations” (Gimenez 2012:15). Linguistic indicators of normalisation include lexical and collocational creativity, formality degree (on a lexical level), distribution of typical and atypical register features (on a syntactic level) and range of terms used to represent a conceptual domain (on a semantic level) (Zanettin, 2013:22). Levelling out is “the tendency of translated texts to gravitate towards the centre of a continuum” (Baker 1996:184), and is also called convergence by Laviosa, namely the “relatively higher level of homogeneity of translated texts with regard to their own scores on given measures of universal features” (Laviosa 2002:62). According to Baker, levelling out is “neither target-language nor source-language dependent” (Baker 1996:184).Research in the field, however, has suggested other potential translation universals, namely SL interference (also called shining through or transfer) and unique items. Toury (1995) posits the law of interference, namely “phenomena pertaining to the makeup of the source text tend to be transferred to the target text” (Toury 1995: 275). As pointed out by Gimenez, “interference can occur on all levels, from the morphological and lexical level to syntax, information structure and quantitative features” (Gimenez 2012:15). Teich explains the concept of shining through as follows: “…in a translation into a given target language (TL), the translation may be oriented more towards the source language (SL), i.e. the SL shines through the TL” (Teich 2003:145).Tirkkonen-Condit develops the hypothesis of unique items, which states that translated texts “manifest lower frequencies of linguistic elements that lack linguistic counterparts in the source languages such that these could also be used as translation equivalents” (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002, quoted in Gimenez 2012:16). According to Chesterman, “the assumption is that translators find no direct trigger in the source text that would suggest the target-specific item; instead, they select the form that corresponds more closely to the source-text trigger” (Chesterman 2011:75).The validity of these translation universals has been proven in many studies, which have been outlined by Laviosa (1998). Kenny (2000), for example, investigates normalisation in translated texts, focusing on the semantic prosody. She formulates the hypothesis that translated texts tend to use more ‘toned-down’ vocabulary than source texts. Øverås (1998) investigates explicitation in translated English and translated Norwegian and further underlines then difference between translated and non-translated texts. As we have seen, the analysis of the previously mentioned features of language would not have been possible without corpora. As Laviosa points out, “Baker predicted that the availability of large corpora of both original and translated texts, together with the development of a corpus-driven methodology, would enable translation scholars to uncover “the nature of translated text as a mediated communicative event” (Baker 1993: 243 in Laviosa 1998:1) Thanks to corpora, it has been demonstrated that translators have different approaches to language and to the actual process of translation.