유생성(animacy)이 영한 번역에 미치는 영향
Effects of Animacy on English-Korean Translations
1
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this study is to discuss how animacy affects English-Korean translations. 52 inanimate subject sentences and 52 animate subject sentences are selected from Reader’s Digest (English-Korean Version) Vol. 80-85. Our analysis shows the followings: i) 96.2% of the English animate subjects are kept as subject in their Korean translations, while only 55.8% of inanimate subjects are translated as subject. ii) Inanimate subjects such as nature (e.g. cloud), machine (e.g. helicopter), social organization (e.g. college) remains as subject in Korean translations. iii) Human participants occurring in syntactic slots other than subject are chosen as new subjects in Korean translations, while inanimate subjects are demoted to adverbial or prenominal phrase. iv) Less prototypical transitive clauses tend to be translated as transitive clauses with the same inanimate subjects, while more prototypical transitive clauses tend to be translated as intransitive clauses with new subjects.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to discuss how animacy affects English-Korean translations. 52 inanimate subject sentences and 52 animate subject sentences are selected from Reader’s Digest (English-Korean Version) Vol. 80-85. Our analysis shows the followings: i) 96.2% of the English animate subjects are kept as subject in their Korean translations, while only 55.8% of inanimate subjects are translated as subject. ii) Inanimate subjects such as nature (e.g. cloud), machine (e.g. helicopter), social organization (e.g. college) remains as subject in Korean translations. iii) Human participants occurring in syntactic slots other than subject are chosen as new subjects in Korean translations, while inanimate subjects are demoted to adverbial or prenominal phrase. iv) Less prototypical transitive clauses tend to be translated as transitive clauses with the same inanimate subjects, while more prototypical transitive clauses tend to be translated as intransitive clauses with new subjects.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김은일, "영어구사력 향상을 위한 한영구조에 나타난 유생성차이에 관한 비교연구", 영어교육연구, 9, pp.145~164 (1998)
- 김은일, "유생성의 문법", 현대문법연구, 20, pp.71~93 (2000)
- 김은일, "한국어 ‘되다’ 구문의 영어 번역문에 대한 기능문법적 설명", 언어과학, 15(3), pp.61~82 (2008), 한국언어과학회
- 이영옥, "무생물 주어 타동사 구문의 영한번역", 번역학연구, 2(1), pp.64~65 (2001)
- 정연창, "주어 생략에 대한 소고", 언어과학, 14(2), pp.101~120 (2007), 한국언어과학회
- Comrie, B., "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (Second Edition)" (1989), The University of Chicago Press
- Croft, W., "Typology and Universals" (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Cruse, D. A., "Some Thoughts on Agentivity", Journal of Linguistics, 9, pp.11~23 (1973)
- Dixon, R. M. W., "Ergativity", Language, 55, pp.59~138 (1979)
- Givón, T, "English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Volume I in: 기능영문법 I" (2002), 박이정
- Givón, T., "Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. I & II" (2001), John Benjamins
- Hopper, P. J., "Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse", Language, 56, pp.251~299 (1980)
- Ikegami, Y., "‘Do-Language’ and ‘Become-Language’: Two Contrasting Types of Linguistic Representation in: The Empire of Signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture", pp.285~326 (1991), John Benjamins
- Lakoff, G., "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind" (1987), University of Chicago Press
- Song, N. S., "Empathy-based Affectedness and Passivization", pp.74~89 (1987), Transactions of the Philological Society
- Taylor, J. R., "Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory" (1989), Clarendon Press
- Yamamoto, M., "Animacy and Reference" (1999), John Benjamins