Surface and Underlying Valence of the Verb “Spread” in English–Indonesian Translation: Evidence from the OPUS Parallel Corpus

Background: This study adopts a corpus-based approach to examine translation empirically through parallel corpora. Focusing on the verb “spread” in English–Indonesian data from the OPUS parallel corpus, it identifies empirical equivalents based on frequency and analyzes shifts in valence across languages.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the surface valence and underlying valence of the verb “spread” in an English–Indonesian parallel corpus. It further seeks to identify its empirical equivalents in the target language by analyzing shifts in syntactic structure and argument realization.

Methods: This study employs a corpus-based approach based on Catford’s concept of empirical equivalence, focusing on actual translation usage rather than dictionary-based meanings. The data are drawn from the OPUS English–Indonesian bidirectional parallel corpus (Cooper, 2016), with a focus on medical discourse. A total of 86 instances of the verb “spread” are analyzed to identify recurring translation patterns. These patterns are used to determine empirical equivalents and to examine shifts in surface valence and underlying valence.

Results: The analysis of 86 instances shows that the verb “spread” is predominantly translated as menyebar (Category A), accounting for 80.23% of the data. Other realizations include penyebaran (C) at 10.47%, zero correspondence (0) at 5.81%, menularkan (D) at 2.33%, and memengaruhi (B) at 1.16%. These findings indicate that menyebar functions as the primary empirical equivalent, while the remaining categories reflect less frequent alternatives and instances of structural shift, including nominalization and omission.

Conclusion: This study shows that menyebar emerges as the primary translation of spread in the target language, reflecting its close alignment with the dominant dispersal sense. The findings also indicate that spread, in both the source and target languages, exhibits semantic ambivalence, as its interpretation varies across different contexts and valence realizations.