Article published in:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 14:2 (2014) ► pp. 191–213

For Pete’s sake!

A corpus-based contrastive study of the English/Norwegian patterns “for * sake” / for * skyld

| University of Oslo (Norway)
In this paper we present a contrastive analysis of two similar-looking patterns in English and Norwegian that may be said to express the same meanings. Both English “for * sake” and Norwegian for * skyld have been attested with the following meanings: purpose, consideration and annoyance (used as an expletive). An analysis of bidirectional translation corpus data reveals marked cross-linguistic differences in the frequency and use of the patterns, contributing to a fair amount of non-correspondence in translation between the two languages. The in-depth contrastive analysis undertaken confirms that the two patterns behave differently in the two languages: while English prefers the expletive use, Norwegian prefers the purpose use. This observation regarding the patterns’ conditions of use led to the conclusion that the two languages operate with two different extended units of meaning, and that the two patterns as such are not considered perfect translation equivalents of each other. It was therefore interesting to take a closer look at one of the patterns — the English expletive use — and its actual correspondences in Norwegian. The cross-linguistic investigation uncovers some evidence of “quasi-swearing” in the translated texts and some evidence of different ways of swearing in English in Norwegian, both in terms of how expletives are lexicalized and what they refer to, e.g. blasphemy or sexual blatancy.
Keywords: extended unit of meaning, patterns, phraseology, swearing, bidirectional translation corpus, English/Norwegian
Published online: 30 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.2.02ebe
References

References

Altenberg, B.
1982 The Genitive v. the of-construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
1999 “Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences”. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. and S. Granger
2002 “Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies”. In Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-based Approaches, B. Altenberg and S. Granger (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, L-G. and Trudgill, P.
1990 Bad Language. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A.
1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Similarity analysis and the translation profile”. In The Study of Language and Translation, W. Vandeweghe, S. Vandepitte and M. van de Velde (eds), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21: 53–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, J. and Ebeling, S.O.
2013 Patterns in Contrast. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasund, I.K.
2005 Fy Farao! Om nestenbanning og andre kraftuttrykk. Oslo: Cappelen.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James, C.
1980 Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Johansson, S.
1998 “On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research”. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, S. Johansson and S. Oksefjell (eds), 3–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2007 Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. and Hofland, K.
1994 “Towards an English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus”. In Creating and Using English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zurich 1993, U. Fries, G. Tottie and P. Schneider (eds), 25–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lie, S.
2013 “Translate this, motherfucker! A Contrastive Study on the subtitling of taboo words”. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Oslo.
Ljung, M.
2011 Swearing: A Cross-cultural Linguistic Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Mattsson, J.
2006. “Linguistic Variation in Subtitling: The subtitling of swearwords and discourse markers on public television, commercial television and DVD”. http://​www​.euroconferences​.info​/proceedings​/2006​_Proceedings​/2006​_Mattsson​_Jenny​.pdf [last accessed 12 November 2013].
2009 The Subtitling of Discourse Particles. A Corpus-based Study of well, you know, I mean, and like, and their Swedish Translations in Ten American Films. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
McEnery, T.
2006 Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO)
Oxford University Press, http://​oxforddictionaries​.com/
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
Oxford University Press, http://​www​.oxforddictionaries​.com/
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J.
1991 “Collocational frameworks in English”. In English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), 128–144. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996 “The search for units of meaning”. Textus IX. 75–106.Google Scholar
1998 “The lexical item”. In Contrastive Lexical Semantics, E. Weigand (ed), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A.-B.
1994 An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M.
2013 “Sequence and order. The neo-Firthian tradition of corpus semantics”. In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis, H. Hasselgård, J. Ebeling and S.O. Ebeling (eds), 13–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G.C.
2008 “The Good Lord and his works: A corpus-driven study”. In Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Egan, Thomas & Hildegunn Dirdal
2017.  In Cross-linguistic Correspondences [Studies in Language Companion Series, 191], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Hasselgård, Hilde
2020. Corpus-based contrastive studies. Languages in Contrast 20:2 ► pp. 184 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.