skip to main content

A corpus linguistic study of constructional equivalence for the Indonesian translation of ROB and STEAL based on the OpenSubtitles Parallel Corpus

Universitas Udayana, Indonesia

Received: 30 Dec 2021; Published: 11 Nov 2022.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Catford’s (1965) classic idea in translation theory indicates the measurability of translation equivalence. Following up on this idea, this paper offers a case study to measure the translation equivalence of English verbal near-synonyms ROB and STEAL (R&S), especially the equivalence at the constructional level. Adopting a quantitative corpus linguistic method and the Construction Grammar approach, we analyse random usage samples of R&S from English-Indonesian parallel corpus for the degree of constructional equivalence along two dimensions: (i) the profiled participant roles and (ii) the grammatical construction types of these verbs. We discover that the Indonesian translations maintain a high degree of equivalences along these dimensions, albeit with few variations. This suggests that the translators attempt to be as faithful as possible to the source texts. Furthermore, our study reveals the translation norms/typicality in how the constructional profiles of the near-synonyms R&S are translated into Indonesian. The paper generally seeks to demonstrate how such a central notion as equivalence in translation studies can be investigated using parallel corpora and the quantitative corpus linguistic method.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  Research Materials
Constructional equivalence in the Indonesian translations of ROB and STEAL
Subject open science; open data; open code; R programming; corpus data
Type Research Materials
  Download (12KB)    Indexing metadata
Keywords: construction grammar; constructional equivalence; parallel corpus; quantitative corpus linguistics; translation study; translation equivalence
Funding: Faculty of Humanities, Udayana University under contract 023.17.2.677526/2021

Article Metrics:

  1. Arka, I. W., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective. In P. Austin & S. Musgrave (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages (pp. 45–69). CSLI
  2. Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–250). Benjamins
  3. Baker, M. (2017). In other words: A coursebook on translation (Third edition). Routledge
  4. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford University Press
  5. Dux, R. (2011). A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame [Master’s thesis, University of Texas]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-3114
  6. Dux, R. (2018). Frames, verbs, and constructions: German constructions with verbs of stealing. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German (pp. 367–405). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-010
  7. Enghels, R., & Wylin, K. (2015). Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish: A contrastive study of voler and robar. Languages in Contrast, 15(1), 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.06eng
  8. Fernández-Martínez, N. J., & Faber, P. (2020). Who stole what from whom? A corpus-based, cross-linguistic study of English and Spanish verbs of stealing. Languages in Contrast, 20(1), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19002.fer
  9. Fillmore, C. J. (2014). Frames, constructions, and FrameNet. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions Collocations Patterns (pp. 121–166). DE GRUYTER
  10. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-55. 1952–59, 1–32
  11. Glynn, D. (2004). Constructions at the crossroads: The place of construction grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 197–233
  12. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press
  13. Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002
  14. Gries, S. Th. (2009). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Mouton de Gruyter
  15. Hilpert, M. (2020). Constructional approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of English grammar (First edition, pp. 106–123). Oxford University Press
  16. Hu, K. (2016). Introducing Corpus-based Translation Studies (1st ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg : Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48218-6
  17. Janda, L. A., & Lyashevskaya, O. (2013). Semantic profiles of five Russian prefixes: Po-, s-, za-, na-, pro-. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 21(2), 211–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2013.0012
  18. Kenny, D. (2001). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 77–80). Routledge
  19. Kenny, D. (2020). Machine Translation. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (Third edition, pp. 305–310). Routledge
  20. Levshina, N. (2015). How to do Linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company
  21. Lison, P., & Tiedemann, J. (2016). Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 923–929
  22. McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of Biological Statistics (Third). Sparky House Publishing. http://www.biostathandbook.com/HandbookBioStatThird.pdf
  23. Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2006). The Strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(3), 1–48
  24. Mikhailov, M., & Cooper, R. (2016). Corpus linguistics for translation and contrastive studies: A guide for research. Routledge
  25. Neuwirth, E. (2014). RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer Palettes [R package version 1.1-2]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer
  26. R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Manual]. https://www.R-project.org/
  27. Rajeg, G. P. W. (2021a). paracorp: A concordancer for parallel, bilingual corpora [R package v0.0.1]. Universitas Udayana. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HV9CU
  28. Rajeg, G. P. W. (2021b). Constructional equivalence in the Indonesian translations of ROB and STEAL (0.0.1) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZC8Y
  29. Rajeg, G. P. W., & Rajeg, I. M. (2019). Analisis Koleksem Khas dan potensinya untuk kajian kemiripan makna konstruksional dalam Bahasa Indonesia. In I. N. Sudipa (Ed.), ETIKA BAHASA Buku persembahan menapaki usia pensiun: I Ketut Tika (Vol. 1, pp. 65–83). Swasta Nulus. https://doi.org/10.26180/5bf4e49ea1582
  30. Rajeg, G. P. W., Rajeg, I. M., Kartini, P. D. I., & Putra, I. G. S. D. (2021a). Pemanfaatan Bank-Data Digital Dwibahasa dalam Kajian Terjemahan: Studi Kasus Padanan Bahasa Indonesia untuk Verba Sinonim Bahasa Inggris ROB & STEAL. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Sains Dan Teknologi (SENASTEK) 2021, 0831–0835. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17078369
  31. Rajeg, G. P. W., Rajeg, I. M., Kartini, P. D. I., & Putra, I. G. S. D. (2021b). Material pendukung untuk MODEL KAJIAN TERJEMAHAN BERBASIS BANK DATA TERJEMAHAN DIGITAL INGGRIS-INDONESIA DAN IMPLIKASI PEDAGOGISNYA. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y6ESA
  32. Stefanowitsch, A. (2010). Empirical cognitive semantics: Some thoughts. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355–380). Mouton de Gruyter
  33. Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus. In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion (pp. 257–289). John Benjamins Publishing Company
  34. Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–306). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0016
  35. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243
  36. Thorgren, S. (2005). Transaction verbs: A lexical and semantic analysis of rob and steal (Reports from the Department of Language and Culture No. 3; Linguistics in the Midnight Sun). Luleâ University of Technology. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-56412
  37. Toury, G. (2000). The nature and role of norms in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation studies reader (pp. 198–211). Routledge
  38. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
  39. Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2019). readxl: Read Excel Files [R package version 1.3.1]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl
  40. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Macmillan
  41. Zanettin, F. (2014). Corpora in Translation. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 178–199). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025487_10

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-04-12 16:50:34

No citation recorded.