Name: et al. 1981), before computer corpora became widely

Name:Isna Gusnanda P15211141012ContrastiveTextology                            TheRelation between CL and TS: Corpus-Based Approach Contrastive linguistics (CL) is a study ofsimilarities and differences in the structure and use of two or more languagevarieties. CL exists as an independent discipline within the field of appliedlinguistics to fulfil new needs arising in foreign language teaching.Meanwhile, according to (Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies, page 21) Translationinvolves the transfer of “meaning” contained in one set of language sign intoanother set of language signs through competent use of the dictionary andgrammar, the process involves a whole set of extra-linguistic criteria also. Therelationship between contrastive linguistics (CL) and translation studies (TS) areclosely related each other. This paper is studying therelationship between CL and TS. Most contrastive linguists have either directly or indirectly made useof translation as a means of establishing cross-linguistic relationships, andJames has stated that “translation equivalence, of this rather rigorouslydefined sort including interpersonal and textual as well as ideationalmeaning is the best available TC tertium comparationis for CA contrastiveanalysis.

” (James 1980:178)Both ofCL and TS disciplines are related to language andlinguistics in general. It is alsorelated to applied linguistics in particular.Both CL and translation aredeal with two languages at the same time. This similarity in the objects of this study makes itdifficult to draw clear boundaries between CL and translation, since they sharemany features and actually overlap in numerous relevant aspects. The relatedinterests of CL and translation have led to an important amount of literatureon the relationship between the two disciplines from a very early stage (Bausch1972; Raabe 1972; Kühlwein et al. 1981), before computer corpora became widelyavailable in language research.The introduction of electronic language corpora makes a change in the world oflinguistic research in general.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Corpora contains a lot of sample of languagethat used to studying or analyzinglanguage. Corpus based on approach itselfalso have significant meaning to relation between CLand TS.Corpora contributes in translation studies in some ways, the first  of which  relates  to corpus-assisted  translating. Secondly,corpora can be  used to aid  translation teaching and training,  because  “large corpora  concordancing”  (LCC) can  help  students to  develop  “awareness”, “reflectiveness”  and “resourcefulness”, which are said to bethe skills that distinguish a translator from those unskilled  amateurs (Bernardini 1997).

Thirdly, corpora, especially aligned parallelcorpora, are essential for the development of translation technology such as machinetranslation (MT) systems. Those advantages make Corpora is important and anessential tool in TS, since they can provide substantial amounts of real data.Corpora have  benefit in translation  and contrastive  studies, corpus-based  translation  and contrastive  linguistic  studies have  also  beenlarged on the scope  of corpus linguistic  research. While contrastive linguistics andtranslation studies have traditionally been accepted as two separatedisciplines within applied linguistics, there are many contact points betweenthe two; and with the common corpus-based approach and the usually shared typeof data (e.g.  comparable and  parallel corpora),  corpus-basedtranslation and contrastive linguistic studies have become even more closelyinterconnected (cf.

Ramon Garcia 2002).In conclusion, both of CL and TS have tiedrelationship. The corpus-based approach has not only led to important progressin CL and TS independently. It has also brought the restructuring in thedisciplines and in their relationship, italso makes CL and TS are able to be exploreddeeper.  ReferencesBassnett,Susan (1980).

Translation Studies. London: Methuen.Bausch,Karl Richard (1972). “Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzen.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 6, 7-15.

James,Carl (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: LongmanKühlwein,Wolfgang, Thome, Gisela & Wolfram Wills (eds) (1981). KontrastiveLinguistikund Übersetzungswissenschaft. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Raabe,Horst (1972). “Zum Verhältnis von kontrastiver Grammatik und Übersetzung.

“Nickel (1972), 59-74.RamónGarcía, Noelia (2002). Estudio contrastivon inglés-español de lacaracterización de sustantivos. PhD Thesis. University of León, Spain.WhatIs Translation and Translation Studies English Language Essay.

18 January 2018.ía,Noelia Ramón. Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies Interconnected:The Corpus-based Approach. 18 January 2018. http://lans-tts. JOURNAL1.      Title:Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies Interconnected: TheCorpus-based ApproachThenew corpus-based approach to CL and TS makes it able to revise the relationship between them,and look for a new common ground to work on. The hypothesis is that the use oftranslation equivalence as a tertium comparationis for a corpus-basedcontrastive analysis provides essential data for TS in a wide range of aspects.On the other hand, the corpus approach of TS has shed a new light on numerousaspects of CL.2.

      Title:A Contrastive Linguistic Analysis of Inflectional Bound Morphemes of English,Azerbaijani and Persian Languages: A Comparative StudyThisstudy is about contrasting and comparing inflectional bound morphemes ofEnglish,  Azerbaijani  and Persian languages in details to pinpoint any similarities and differencesbetween them. To do so, an inventory of Azerbaijani, Persian and English inflectionswith examples and illustrations are listed to highlight their similarities anddiscrepancies.  There are restricted  numbers of inflections in each language  and are utilized  to indicate  aspects  of grammatical  function  of a  word.

  Results reveal  that there  are more  varieties  of inflections  in  Azerbaijani language  than  in English  or Persian  and; they  share  some common  properties  as well  as  several dissimilarities. English and Persian represent more irregularity interms of plurality  for nouns  and affixation  for verbs;  Azeri  incorporates numerous  inflections  into each  category  as well.  3.

      Title:A Linguistic Contrastive Analysis Case Study: Out of Context Translation ofArabic Adjectives into English in EFL ClassroomThis  linguistic contrastive  analysis  study aims  to  vet and  spell  out the  probable  problematic differences  in meanings  between  some Arabic  adjectives  and their  possible  equivalents in English (Strong version ofCA)  that may get to the surface whenJordanian students produce a piece of out of context translation of Arabicadjectives into English in EFL Classroom. The results  of  study showed  that  the process  of  finding and  choosing  the correct  right equivalents ofArabic adjectives in English language when TEFL students translate out ofcontext adjectives  is  difficult and  misleading  in most  cases  because of  the  probable problematic differences between  some  Arabic adjectives  and  their possible  equivalents  in English  so  they should pay their attention to a) context,b) parts of speech and c) collocations.4.      Title:Classification of Adjectives In terms of English and Persian ContrastiveAnalysisThepresent study provides a theoretical article of English and Persian adjectives.

The article works upon existing research literature to advance theory incontrastive analysis field. English and Persian adjectives contain some similarand different features which influence language learning/teaching andtranslation. A contrastive analysis on English and Persian adjectives assiststhe language learners to cope with their  problems  when they  are  more involved  in  listening, reading,  speaking,  writing, and translation  tasks. 5.      Title:Contrastive Analysis of Prepositional ErrorsThis  paper will  highlight  the identification,  description, categorization  and  explanation of  errors  found in  the gathered  written data.  The  findings conclude  that  interference of  Urdu  (L1  oflearners)  is  maximum as  the  results exhibit  the  dominance of  inters  language in prepositional errors. Further, this study suggests the need forexploring new teaching strategies particularly to teach tricky areas of secondlanguage i.

e. prepositions.