Earticle

Translation studies and linguistics have often made beneficial contributions to each other, and each can potentially benefit from developments within the other (e.g., Fawcett, 1997; Gregory, 2001). Yet it has been a while since they seem to have drifted apart. No doubt this has been at least in part because of the diversity of collaborations translation studies has engaged in to deal with a plethora of translation issues. However, these interdisciplinary trends should not be at the expense of its existing "strong link" with linguistics (Munday, 2001, p.182). Linguistics has made continued progress and thus maintains a great capacity to enrich translation studies, and further, there are still many translation phenomena that can be explained only by linguistics (Fawcett, 1997, Forward). The purpose of this paper is to examine a linguistic theory, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), with a view to highlighting the contribution it has made to translation studies. First, the paper looks briefly at the progress in translation studies over the past several decades. It will consider the debates that occurred between the approach that derives from cultural studies and the approach that draws on linguistics. Second, it reviews how linguistics has enriched translation studies since before the inception of translation studies as an independent academic discipline, and investigates the ways in which the recent developments in SFL (focussing on stratification) could further advance translation theories and practice.

The notion of blasphemy is both in the field of linguistics - for blasphemy is an act of language - and theology - for blasphemy is an outrage to God. As is well known, the competence that I possess only affects linguistics. It is therefore in linguistics that I will pose one of the linguistic problems posed by blasphemy: that of the relations between blasphemy and autonomy. The result is to be foreseen: for lack of competence in theology, I will at most be able to pose this problem, without being able to solve it. I am not really sure that he can receive a clear solution. Before turning to this problem, however, I think it is useful to briefly describe the state of blasphemy today.

It is a rare feat to invent a new science especially in modern days. Ferdinand de Saussure is one of the few scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who had succeeded in such achievement. It is not linguistics that Saussure had invented, as is commonly understood by people. Certainly Saussure had had a significant influence on the evolution of linguistics. But he did nothing of that “invention”. However, Saussure had invented semiotics from a different standpoint to the American scholar Charles Sanders Peirce who lived roughly in the same era. This paper aims to reveal initial disciplines and theoretical design of Saussure as the founder of semiotics.

Translation Studies and Linguistic Theories Jung-Joon Park (University of Incheon) There are definitions and theories concerning translation. But they all seem to have one goal in common: good translation. This paper examines modern linguistic theories and their relations to translation methodologies. Futhermore, the paper examines the role of translator under these considerations. The various opinions of linguists and translation theorists presented here shows that meaningful translation is born through the harmonious integration of different definitions. In short, meaningful translation studies form a domain of reconciliation. Translation studies has to be managed and performed under strict guidelines, and to this effect linguistics may offer various possibilities to open new fields of methodologies where translation is concerned. Language has become an indispensable element in our existence, but like the air we breathe we do not recognize its virtues. Linguistic studies analyzes the structure of everyday language, while, literary works - personal artistic works - are the object of analyses for the literary studies. However, literary studies do not directly concern itself with literary creations. In the same manner, translation studies are not directly associated with the actual practice of translation. Because we consider translation as an integral part of the human linguistic activity, methodologies in translation should reflect linguistic methodologies. The paper's intention is to show the variety of possibilities, on how basic linguistic notions and translation theories can be utilized for translation works and its ensuing results. Accordingly, translation studies can be considered as an integral domain, where translation methodologies and linguistic theories are closely connected to each other.

This article addresses the relationship between linguistics and translation studies with reference to the linguistic gaps. The most representative concept of translation, that is, equivalence of translation came from Catford in the contrastive linguistics. In comparison of ST with TT, different scholars propose different applications of translation equivalence for the most comprehensive explication. However, the notion of equivalence is based on the discipline of linguistics to compare language systems, and has a limit to be applied to the total complex of translation, because each language has its own linguistic parameter and culture. Therefore, the gap between two languages goes to the responsibility of the translator, that is, translator’s linguistic, cultural, and textural competence, which needs to be further elaborated under the concept of so called the components of cultural equivalence.

This paper discusses generative linguistics and corpus linguistics from the perspective of their philosophical foundations, research methodologies, and basic notions. It focuses on how they make distinct but complementary contributions to the development of AI. It is shown that generative linguistics and corpus linguistics arrive at language from fundamentally different directions in that the former is rationalism, reasoning-oriented, and based on deduction and introspection while the latter is empiricism-oriented and resorts to induction and data. Moreover, generative linguistics is said to focus on generic features of language, mentalism, and linguistic competence, but corpus linguistics is claimed to stress the sociality of language and linguistic performance. It is also held that both generative linguistics and corpus linguistics have made contributions to AI development, especially in the field of NLP, machine translation, and information retrieval. In particular, generative linguistics can provide theoretical support for language-related aspects of AI, and corpus linguistics can help AI by providing tools to analyze various aspects of a language system based on powerful real data and by generalizing language patterns based on probabilistic information. The paper then suggests that generative linguistics and corpus linguistics can be used in a symbiotic methodology to boost AI study.

본 연구는 한국어학 및 응용언어학의 지식구조를 분석하고, 이를 초록 수준 담화의 변화와 비교한다. 2005년부터 2024년까지 Web of Science Core Collection에 수록된 논문을 대상으로, 중복 제거와 메타데이터 정제를 거쳐 최종 818편의 코퍼스를 구축하였다. 공출현 단어 분석은 Author Keywords만을 사용하였으며, 일관된 분석 절차 아래 association-strength 정규화와 Louvain 군집화를 적용하였다. 테마 진화는 inclusion index를 이용하여 세 시기에 걸쳐 추적하였고, 영문 초록은 다섯 개 지표 모두에서 유효한 결과가 산출된 796편을 기준으로 다섯 개의 Coh-Metrix 지표로 요약하였다. 분석 결과, ‘korean’ 키워드가 이 분야의 핵심 허브로 확인되었다. 두 개의Basic backbone은 여전히 중심적 위치를 유지하였다. 하나는 multilingualism, identity, heritage language를 중심으로 하고, 다른 하나는 English, South Korea, language ideology를 중심으로 한다. 반면 교육, 코퍼스 방법, stance, 디지털 리터러시를 포함하는 응용 지향 축은 후기에 더욱 두드러지게 나타났다. 최근 시기의 초록에서는 narrativity가 낮아지고, word concreteness와 deep cohesion은 높아졌으며, syntactic difficulty는 다소 완화되어, 보다 압축적이고 정보 중심적인 학술 글쓰기로의 이동을 시사한다.

This study examines the knowledge structure of Korean linguistics and applied linguistics and compares it with changes in abstract-level discourse. Using Web of Science Core Collection records published between 2005 and 2024, the study constructed a final corpus of 818 records after deduplication and metadata cleaning. Co-word analysis was conducted on Author Keywords only, with association-strength normalization and Louvain clustering applied under a consistent analytical procedure. Thematic evolution was traced across three periods with the inclusion index, and English abstracts were summarized with five Coh-Metrix indices based on 796 abstracts with valid outputs across all five measures. The results identify the keyword ‘korean’ as the principal hub of the field. Two Basic backbones remain central: one organized around multilingualism, identity, and heritage language, and the other around English, South Korea, and language ideology. In contrast, an application-oriented axis involving education, corpus methods, stance, and digital literacy becomes more prominent in the later period. Recent abstracts show lower narrativity, higher word concreteness and deep cohesion, and slightly reduced syntactic difficulty, suggesting a shift toward more compact and information-focused academic writing.

페르디낭 드 소쉬르의 『일반언어학 노트(Writings in General Linguistics)』가 2006년 드디어 영역본으로 출간되었다. 본 연구는 자율적인 언어학을 위해 문헌학의 부정(否定)을 주장했던 현대언어학 시대에서 바로 그 역사적 순간을 고찰하고 있다. 『일반언어학 강의(Cours de Linguistique Générale)』가 출간된 지 이제 약 90년이 흘렀다. 이에 본 연구에서는 편찬자의 고뇌를 되새겨보고, “문헌학(다양한 언어적 소산을 통해 권위있는 문헌을 정립)”과 “번역(언어 내에서의 번역, 해석, 설명)”이 소쉬르의 강의노트를 재구성하는 과정에서 어떻게 적용될 수밖에 없었는지를 집중적으로 살펴보고자 한다. 역사적 이해와 문화적 가치를 망각하고 기억 상실증 환자처럼 단편적인 텍스트-화용론 차원에 머물러 있는 번역이론과 비교해 볼 때 지적 인지(intellectual cognition)의 한 형태인 문헌학은 번역 이론/실제는 물론 번역교육에도 보다 유의미하다는 주장이 설득력을 얻고 있다.

This study explores the process by which university-level learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) develop their understanding of composing academic essays. A series of lessons utilizing the genre-based approach to instructional writing, alongside the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) framework, were implemented. A classroom unit was treated as a single community of practice (CoP) to understand social learning; anthropology and social theory (CoPs), literacy pedagogy (genre-based approach), and linguistics (SFL) were conceptually connected for theorization. Participants wrote pre- and post-academic essays, and then reviewed each other’s essays using the SFL framework to answer the question “What did you learn from the genre analysis of your peer’s essay?” These reflections on learning shared through journals and interview data were analyzed to answer the question “What literacy strategies connected to learners’ cognitive and metacognitive knowledge can be found in their reflections on learning?” This cognitive and metacognitive knowledge was categorized into six features: top-down strategies, bottom-up strategies, the interactive approach to strategies, initial assessment, ongoing assessment, and the elaboration of strategies. Both bottom-up and top-down strategies were identified in the journals, especially among high-proficiency learners. EFL learners with lower English proficiency focused on the selection of lexical resources, a bottom-up strategy.

The main goal of this paper is to look over the current extension of topic studies in linguistics. Admitting that the definition of topic still remains a controversy among scholars, much of research has been done so far. The difference in their approaches voice the various reflections in theoretical pursuit. Among others, the present study focuses on the well-known two camps: formal and functional. For the former, transformational model is a target of discussion. In this line, the main task of a formal approach is to identify the topic in terms of structural operation including syntactic and morphological characteristics. For the latter, the approach is more interested in the pragmatic and discourse functions of the topic entity than just in its relations to syntactic structure.

Kim, Dae-Young. 2014. The Portential of Harmonizing Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory in Studying Metaphor. Journal of Linguistic Studies 19(1), 173-197. Cognitive linguistics and Relevance Theory share two common points. First is that both the two theories view metaphor as a natural linguistic mechanism which reflects human cognitive activities. Second is that both sides accept subjectivization in the process of meaning determination. However, when metaphor is used in ordinary language communication, it holds implicated meanings that transcend the literal sense of the sentence (i.e. linguistic/rhetorical use of metaphor), which is context-dependant and sensitive. This is different from conceptual metaphor, which is a way of thinking that brings about a range of language expressions that involve that type of thinking. Furthermore, whereas Relevance Theory views that the process of interpreting utterance is composed of two clear-cut phases (i.e. decoding and inference), the embodied-mind hypothesis by cognitive linguistics disregards this modularity. Focusing on those theoretical common points and differences between cognitive linguistics and Relevance Theory, I tap on the potential of harmonizing those two sides in studying metaphor. (JeonJu University)