<html><body><a href="http://infoling.org" target="_blank"><img
src="http://infoling.org/img/infoling.png" alt="Logo image by Hay
Kranen / CC-BY" width="255" height="50" align="left" border="0" /></a>
<br /><br /><br />
<br /><font style="font-size:80%"><table border="0" bordercolor="#FFF"
width="190px"><tr><td> </td><td> <a
style="text-decoration:none" href="http://www.facebook.com/infoling"
target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://infoling.org/img/facebook-icon.png" alt="Infoling at
Facebook" style="vertical-align:-30%;height:16px;width:16px" />
Facebook</a></td><td> <a style="text-decoration:none"
href="http://www.twitter.com/infoling" target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://infoling.org/img/t_small-b.png" alt="Infoling at Twitter"
style="vertical-align:-30%;height:16px;width:16px" />
Twitter</a></td></tr></table></font>
<br />Moderador/a: Carlos Subirats (U. Autónoma Barcelona), Mar Cruz
(U. Barcelona)
<br />Editoras: Paloma Garrido (U. Rey Juan Carlos), Laura Romero (UB)
<br />Programación, desarrollo: Marc Ortega (UAB)
<br />Directoras/es de reseñas: Alexandra Álvarez (U. Los Andes,
Venezuela), Yvette Bürki (U. Bern, Suiza), María Luisa Calero (U.
Córdoba, España), Luis Cortés (U. Almería)
<br />Asesoras/es: Isabel Verdaguer (UB), Gerd Wotjak (U. Leipzig,
Alemania)
<br />Colaboradoras/es: Julia Bernd (Cause Data Collective, EE.UU),
Matthias Raab (UB), Antonio Ríos (UAB)
<br />
<br />Con el patrocinio de:
<br /><table border="0" bordercolor="#FFFFFF"
width="200px"><tr><!--<td><a href="http://www.fundacioncomillas.es/"
target="_blank"><img
src="http://www.infoling.org/img/logo-comillas.png" alt="Fundación
Comillas" width="85" height="49" align="left" border="0"
/></a></td>--><td><a
href="http://www.arcomuralla.com/Arco/Shop/default.asp"
target="_blank"><img style="border:0;margin-top:10px"
src="http://www.infoling.org/img/logoarco.jpg" alt="Arco Libros"
width="62" height="34" align="left" border="0"
/></a></td></tr></table><br /><hr /><font style="font-size:90%">
<br /><b>Infoling 5.101 (2013)</b><br />ISSN: 1576-3404 </font>
<br /><font style="font-size:90%">© Infoling 1996-2012. Reservados
todos los derechos</font>
<br />
<br /><hr /><b>Tesis doctoral: </b><br />Pimentel, Janine. 2012.
Criteria for the Validation of Specialized Verb Equivalents.
Applications in Bilingual Terminography. Université de Montréal
(Canadá), Département de linguistique et traduction.<br /><b>Enlace
externo</b>: <a
href="http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/pdf/Pimentel_J_thesis_2012.pdf"
target="_blank">http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/pdf/Pimentel_J_thesis_2012.pdf</a><br
/><b>Información de:</b> Infoling List
<infoling@infoling.org><br />Compartir: <a
href="http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/facebook/offer?url=http://www.infoling.org/informacion/T109.html&pubid=ra-4def7f4a7565a706"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img border="0"
src="http://infoling.org/img/facebook-icon.png" alt="Send to Facebook"
title="Send to Facebook"
style="vertical-align:-30%;height:16px;width:16px"
/></a> <a
href="http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/twitter/offer?url=http://www.infoling.org/informacion/T109.html&template=@infoling%20Pimentel,%20J.%20Criteria%20for%20the%20Validation%20of%20Specialized%20Verb%20Equivalents%20{{url}}&pubid=ra-4def7f4a7565a706&shortener=bitly&bitly.login=infoling&bitly.apiKey=R_60e1d6b1cb688030e7759b835f63d0c0"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img border="0"
src="http://infoling.org/img/t_small-b.png" alt="Tweet this"
title="Tweet this" style="vertical-align:-30%;height:16px;width:16px"
/></a><hr /><p><a
href="http://infoling.org/english/search/tesis/ID/109"
target="_blank">View with English headings</a></p><hr /><br
/><b>Director/a de tesis: </b>Marie-Claude L‘Homme <br /><br
/><b>Descripción</b><br /><p>Multilingual terminological resources do
not always include valid equivalents of legal terms for two main
reasons. Firstly, legal systems can differ from one language community
to another and even from one country to another because each has its
own history and traditions. As a result, the non-isomorphism between
legal and linguistic systems may render the identification of
equivalents a particularly challenging task. Secondly, by focusing
primarily on the definition of equivalence, a notion widely discussed
in translation but not in terminology, the literature does not offer
solid and systematic methodologies for assigning terminological
equivalents. As a result, there is a lack of criteria to guide both
terminologists and translators in the search and validation of
equivalent terms.<br /><br />This problem is even more evident in the
case of predicative units, such as verbs. Although some terminologists
(L‘Homme 1998; Lerat 2002; Lorente 2007) have worked on specialized
verbs, terminological equivalence between units that belong to this
part of speech would benefit from a thorough study. By proposing a
novel methodology to assign the equivalents of specialized verbs, this
research aims at defining validation criteria for this kind of
predicative units, so as to contribute to a better understanding of
the phenomenon of terminological equivalence as well as to the
development of multilingual terminography in general, and to the
development of legal terminography, in particular.<br /><br />The
study uses a Portuguese-English comparable corpus that consists of a
single genre of texts, i.e. Supreme Court judgments, from which 100
Portuguese and 100 English specialized verbs were selected. The
description of the verbs is based on the theory of Frame Semantics
(Fillmore 1976, 1977, 1982, 1985; Fillmore and Atkins 1992), on the
FrameNet methodology (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010), as well as on the
methodology for compiling specialized lexical resources, such as
DiCoInfo (L‘Homme 2008), developed in the Observatoire de
linguistique Sens-Texte at the Université de Montréal. The research
reviews contributions that have adopted the same theoretical and
methodological framework to the compilation of lexical resources and
proposes adaptations to the specific objectives of the project.<br
/><br />In contrast to the top-down approach adopted by FrameNet
lexicographers, the approach described here is bottom-up, i.e. verbs
are first analyzed and then grouped into frames for each language
separately. Specialized verbs are said to evoke a semantic frame, a
sort of conceptual scenario in which a number of mandatory elements
(core Frame Elements) play specific roles (e.g. ARGUER, JUDGE, LAW),
but specialized verbs are often accompanied by other optional
information (non-core Frame Elements), such as the criteria and
reasons used by the judge to reach a decision (statutes, codes,
previous decisions). The information concerning the semantic frame
that each verb evokes was encoded in an xml editor and about twenty
contexts illustrating the specific way each specialized verb evokes a
given frame were semantically and syntactically annotated. The labels
attributed to each semantic frame (e.g. [Compliance], [Verdict]) were
used to group together certain synonyms, antonyms as well as
equivalent terms.<br /><br />The research identified 165 pairs of
candidate equivalents among the 200 Portuguese and English terms that
were grouped together into 76 frames. 71% of the pairs of equivalents
were considered full equivalents because not only do the verbs evoke
the same conceptual scenario but their actantial structures, the
linguistic realizations of the actants and their syntactic patterns
were similar. 29% of the pairs of equivalents did not entirely meet
these criteria and were considered partial equivalents. Reasons for
partial equivalence are provided along with illustrative examples.
Finally, the study describes the semasiological and onomasiological
entry points that JuriDiCo, the bilingual lexical resource compiled
during the project (<a
href="http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/?page_id=1357"
target="_blank">http://olst.ling.umontreal.ca/?page_id=1357</a>),
offers to future users.</p><br /><b>Área temática:</b>
Lexicografía, Lexicología, Lingüística cognitiva, Lingüística de
corpus, Terminología, Traducción<br /><br /><b>Índice</b><br
/><p>1. Introduction <br />1.1. Statement of the problem <br />1.2.
Objectives of the research <br />1.3. Structure of the thesis <br
/><br />2. The state of the art <br />2.1. Legal language <br
/>2.1.1. Characteristics <br />2.1.1.1. Law and language <br
/>2.1.1.2. Law and culture <br />2.1.1.3. (Un)translatability <br
/>2.1.2. Genres <br />2.1.2.1. Definition of genre <br />2.1.2.2.
Legal genres <br />2.1.2.3. Judgments <br />2.1.2.4. Genres,
corpus design and terminology interpretation <br />2.2. Equivalence
<br />2.2.1. Definitions of equivalence <br />2.2.1.1. Langue and
parole <br />2.2.1.2. Concepts and designations <br />2.2.1.3.
Similarity and interchangeability <br />2.2.1.4. Semantic content
and collocational context <br />2.2.1.5. Equivalence types <br
/>2.2.1.6. Creation and discovery <br />2.2.2. Equivalence problems
<br />2.2.3. Qualitative and quantitative discrimination of
equivalents <br />2.2.4. Methodologies for establishing equivalence
<br />2.3. Approaches to specialized verbs <br />2.3.1. The theory
of classes of objects <br />2.3.2. Explanatory and Combinatorial
Lexicology <br />2.3.3. The Communicative Theory of Terminology
<br />2.3.4. The ontology-oriented approach <br />2.3.5. The speech
act theory <br />2.3.6. Specialized verb equivalents <br /><br
/>3. Theoretical framework <br />3.1. Frame Semantics <br />3.1.1.
The origins <br />3.1.2. Semantic frames <br />3.1.3. Frame
elements and profiling <br />3.2. Applications of Frame Semantics
<br />3.2.1. FrameNet <br />3.2.1.1. Frame development <br
/>3.2.1.2. Annotation reports <br />3.2.1.3. Lexical entry reports
<br />3.2.1.4. Frame relations <br />3.2.1.5. Lexicographic
relevance <br />3.2.2. Terminology <br />3.2.2.1. Molecular
biology <br />3.2.2.2. Environmental Science <br />3.2.2.3. Law
<br />3.2.2.4. Soccer <br />3.2.2.5. Computing and the Internet
<br />3.3. Choice of the theoretical model <br /><br />4.
Methodology <br />4.1. Corpus design <br />4.1.1. Corpus features
<br />4.1.2. The Portuguese judgments <br />4.1.2.1. Function <br
/>4.1.2.2. Institutional context <br />4.1.2.3. Experts <br
/>4.1.2.4. Macrostructure <br />4.1.2.5. Content <br />4.1.3. The
Canadian judgments <br />4.1.3.1. Function <br />4.1.3.2.
Institutional context <br />4.1.3.3. Experts <br />4.1.3.4.
Macrostructure <br />4.1.3.5. Content <br />4.1.4. Comparability
and representativeness <br />4.1.4.1. Function <br />4.1.4.2.
Institutional context <br />4.1.4.3. Experts <br />4.1.4.4.
Macrostructure <br />4.1.4.5. Content <br />4.2. Bottom-up
workflow <br />4.3.1. Extraction of candidate terms <br />4.3.2.
Validation of candidate terms <br />4.3.3. Sense distinctions <br
/>4.3.4. Selection of contexts <br />4.3.5. Actantial structures
<br />4.3.6. Frame description <br />4.3.7. Data encoding <br
/>4.3.8. Annotation of contexts <br />4.3.9. Data validation <br
/>4.3.10. Assignment of equivalents <br /><br />5. Results <br
/>5.1. Terms observed <br />5.1.1. Portuguese terms <br />5.1.1.1.
Eliminated candidate terms <br />5.1.1.2. Retained candidate terms
<br />5.1.1.2.1. Verbs that meet all four criteria <br />5.1.1.2.2.
Verbs without morphological derivatives <br />5.1.1.2.3. Verbs
without paradigmatic relations <br />5.1.2. English terms <br
/>5.1.2.1. Eliminated candidate terms <br />5.1.2.2. Retained
candidate terms <br />5.1.2.2.1. Verbs that meet all four criteria
<br />5.1.2.2.2. Verbs without morphological derivatives <br
/>5.1.2.2.3. Verbs without paradigmatic relations <br />5.1.3.
Discussion <br />5.2. Frames observed <br />5.2.1. Number of terms
grouped together into the frames <br />5.2.2. The relations between
the terms grouped into the frames <br />5.2.2.1. Frames grouping
together synonyms <br />5.2.2.2. Frames grouping together
near-synonyms <br />5.2.2.3. Frames grouping together opposite terms
<br />5.2.3. Recurrent Frame Elements <br />5.2.3.1. ARGUER and
PROTAGONIST <br />5.2.3.2. COURT and JUDGE <br />5.2.3.3.
IRREGULARITY, ISSUE and LAW <br />5.2.4. Discussion <br />5.3.
Equivalents observed <br />5.3.1. Full equivalents <br />5.3.2.
Partial equivalents <br />5.3.1.1. Differences in the number of
actants <br />5.3.1.2. Differences in the nature of the actants
<br />5.3.1.2.1. Metonymies <br />5.3.1.2.2. Semantic preference
<br />5.3.1.2.3. Semantic prosody <br />5.3.1.3. Differences in the
valence patterns <br />5.3.2. Discussion <br />5.4. JuriDiCo <br
/>5.4.1. The macrostructure <br />5.4.2. The microstructure of the
term entries <br />5.4.2.1. Headword <br />5.4.2.2. Frame <br
/>5.4.2.3. Actantial structure <br />5.4.2.4. Linguistic
realizations of the FEs <br />5.4.2.5. Definition <br />5.4.2.6.
Contexts <br />5.4.2.7. Equivalents <br />5.4.2.8. Additional
information <br />5.4.2.9. Administrative information <br />5.4.3.
The microstructure of the frame entries <br />5.4.3.1. Definition
<br />5.4.3.2. FEs <br />5.4.3.3. Terms <br />5.4.4. Future work
<br /><br />6. Conclusion</p><br /><b>Fecha de lectura o defensa:</b>
mayo de 2012<br /><br /><b>Número de págs.:</b> 329<br /><br
/><b>Correo-e del autor/a:</b> <janine.pimentel@umontreal.ca><br
/><br /><b>Información en la web de Infoling:</b><br /> <a
href="http://www.infoling.org/informacion/T109.html" target="_blank">
http://www.infoling.org/informacion/T109.html</a></body></html>