한영 법령 번역에서 이중주어 구문 번역 양상
A Study on the English Translations of Dual-subject Sentences in Korean Statutes
3
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Dual-subject construction―which is found in the language of Korean law―is one of the unique features of the topic-prominent Korean language. The first subject in a dual-subject sentence in Korean source texts is often the sentence topic. This paper presents an examination of dual-subject sentences in the Criminal Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Foreign Investment Promotion Act and Civil Act and considers how the two subjects, N1 and N2, were translated into English. First, we identified 41 dual-subject phrases from 38 sentences in the four Korean statutes and analyzed them according to Yang (1989). Second, we examined how the dual subjects were translated into English based on Chae’s (2010) categorization of translation types of dual subjects. Our analysis indicated that in English translations, either N1 or N2 of the source text served as the subject. When N1 of the Korean source text was translated into a subject in English, N2 of the source text played various roles either as an object, complement, component of a verbal phrase or a prepositional phrase. N2 also worked as an adjective phrase, serving to describe N1, the subject. Conversely, when N2 became a subject in the English translations, N1 tended to be omitted in the translated dual-subject clauses. In this study, we identified seven types of English translations of dual-subject sentences of Korean statutes, including two types that were not found in Chae’s (2010) work. The findings suggest that given the different and diverse roles of N1 and N2, despite their seemingly subject-like features, translators need to determine the semantic relationship of N1 and N2 when translating dual-subject statutes into English.
Abstract
Dual-subject construction―which is found in the language of Korean law―is one of the unique features of the topic-prominent Korean language. The first subject in a dual-subject sentence in Korean source texts is often the sentence topic. This paper presents an examination of dual-subject sentences in the Criminal Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Foreign Investment Promotion Act and Civil Act and considers how the two subjects, N1 and N2, were translated into English. First, we identified 41 dual-subject phrases from 38 sentences in the four Korean statutes and analyzed them according to Yang (1989). Second, we examined how the dual subjects were translated into English based on Chae’s (2010) categorization of translation types of dual subjects. Our analysis indicated that in English translations, either N1 or N2 of the source text served as the subject. When N1 of the Korean source text was translated into a subject in English, N2 of the source text played various roles either as an object, complement, component of a verbal phrase or a prepositional phrase. N2 also worked as an adjective phrase, serving to describe N1, the subject. Conversely, when N2 became a subject in the English translations, N1 tended to be omitted in the translated dual-subject clauses. In this study, we identified seven types of English translations of dual-subject sentences of Korean statutes, including two types that were not found in Chae’s (2010) work. The findings suggest that given the different and diverse roles of N1 and N2, despite their seemingly subject-like features, translators need to determine the semantic relationship of N1 and N2 when translating dual-subject statutes into English.
참고문헌 (30)
- 법령용어의 순화와 정비에 관한 법언어학적 연구, "강현철", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2003)
- 고성환, "법조문의 텍스트 분석", 텍스트언어학, 29, pp.25~50 (2010), 한국텍스트언어학회[DOI]
- 구명철, "법률 언어의 가독성 향상을 위한 통사론적인 기초연구 - 법조문에서의 주어생략 현상을 중심으로", 독어학, (38), pp.23~46 (2018), 한국독어학회[DOI]
- 법조문의 문장 실태 조사, "김문오", 국립국어연구원, ~ (2001)
- 법령문의 국어학적 검토: 법무부 검토 의뢰 법령을 중심으로, "김문오", 국립국어연구원, ~ (2002)
- 헌법 분야의 법령용어 및 문장 구조의 문제점과 개선방향. 법령용어 및 문장구조의 문제점과 개선방안, "김문현", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2002)
- 김정우, "한국의 번역학 연구와 국어학의 몇 과제", 우리말글, 56, pp.1~41 (2012), 우리말글학회
- 남기심, "국어 문법의 탐구" (1996), 태학사
- 목정수, "국어 이중주어 구문의 새로운 해석", 언어학, (41), pp.75~99 (2005), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 박준석, "법령 번역의 의의와 문제점 - 생명⋅의료 분야의 사례를 중심으로", 법학연구, 49, pp.493~513 (2016), 부설법학연구소
- 법제처, "법령입안〮심사기준", 법제처 법제도선진화담당관실, ~ (2012)
- 법제처, "알기 쉽게 새로 쓴 형법 설명자료집", ~ (2014)
- 법제처, "알기쉬운 법령 정비기준 제8판", 법제처, ~ (2018)
- 송창선, "국어문법론" (2020), 박이정
- 양정석, "이중주어문의 네 가지 유형", 사림어문연구, 6, pp.83~117 (1989)
- 유정주, "법령어의 애매성과 번역가의 해석문제: 대한민국법령의 ‘등’, ‘및’, 가운뎃점(·)을 중심으로", 번역학연구, 13(5), pp.109~141 (2012), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 유정주, "한국 법령 번역에서 ‘shall’의 사용에 대한 고찰: 비교 코퍼스 분석 결과를 중심으로", T&I REVIEW, 5, pp.71~92 (2015), 통역번역연구소[DOI]
- 유정주, "법령화행에서 ‘한다’와 ‘하여야 한다’의 번역문제: ‘shall’의 사용을 중심으로", 번역학연구, 16(2), pp.105~137 (2015), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 유정주, "다문화사회의 공문서 번역 전략 -민원서식 한영 번역을 중심으로-", 다문화콘텐츠연구, (25), pp.41~75 (2017), 문화콘텐츠기술연구원[DOI]
- 이지은, "한영 법률 번역에서 주제(theme) 선택에 관한 사례 연구: 체계기능주의 언어학적 관점에서", 통역과 번역, 22(2), pp.129~155 (2020), 한국통역번역학회[DOI]
- 이지은, "코퍼스 연구를 통해 살펴본 법령 번역 텍스트의 언어적 특성: 수동태 구문을 중심으로", 번역학연구, 21(2), pp.251~284 (2020), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 임병화, "기술문서의 조건 부사어 통제1) - 번역성 제고 방안을 중심으로 -", 독어학, (20), pp.217~243 (2009), 한국독어학회[DOI]
- 장소원, "법률 텍스트 문장의 문법성", 텍스트언어학, 27, pp.1~29 (2009), 한국텍스트언어학회[DOI]
- 헌법상 용어의 연원과 의미 및 순화방안 연구, "정상우", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2007)
- 정수정, "가독성의 관점에서 바라본 한국 법조문의 어순에 관한 고찰", 독일어문화권연구, (28), pp.375~399 (2019), 독일어문화권연구소[DOI]
- 정주리, "국어의 주제와 주제화", 한국어문교육, 6, pp.135~158 (1992)
- 주진국, "언어 형태와 번역의 기능성: 법률 서식 한영번역의 예", 번역학연구, 10(2), pp.247~273 (2009), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 채숙희, "이중주어 구문의 한영번역유형 연구", 언어학, (58), pp.105~133 (2010), 사단법인 한국언어학회
- 안세림, "Syntactic challenges in simultaneous interpreting from Korean into English and coping strategies: focused on multiple-subject sentences", 통번역학연구, 12(2), pp.183~210 (2009), 통번역연구소
- Paik, E. -S., "Translating statues (or legal translation in general) - For whom should it be done? The Development of Legal Translation", Paper presented at 2016 KLRI CLT International Conference (2016)