A corpus-based analysis of mediation in EU multi-word organization names

Rodas, Fernando Sánchez

doi:10.26615/978-954-452-080-9_020

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our corpus-based approach is in the wake of the recently envisioned possibilities of introducing corpora in onomastics (Motschenbacher 2020) and employs PETIMOD 3.0., an intermodal corpus 3 of the Committee on Petitions (PETI) of the European Parliament (EP). PETIMOD 3.0. is the last enlargement of a collection containing eight subcorpora of all the possible variants of mediated and non-mediated discourse (nontranslated/non-interpreted/translated/interpreted) in the English and Spanish Eurolect (Corpas Pastor & Sánchez Rodas 2022;Sánchez Rodas 2022a, 2022b, 2021. The oral subcorpora contain committee interventions from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and invited speakers; written subcorpora contain mostly petitions, SIR documents (Summary, Information, and Recommendation), draft agendas, minutes, letters, and opinions.…”

Section: Choice Of Corpus Data and Corpus Management Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument-Structure Constructions with Organization Names in the English Eurolect

Rodas¹,

Pastor²

2023

names

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construction Grammar (Hoffmann & Trousdale 2013) has received very little attention in onomastics, let alone corpus-based approaches, as corpora are just starting to be applied to the empirical study of names (Motschenbacher 2020). This study employs Named Entity Recognition plus verbal pattern extraction in an intermodal corpus (Bernardini 2016) of EU discourse, or Eurolect (Sandrelli 2018). The methodological aim is to mine English argument-structure constructions (Goldberg 1995) with subordinate clauses introduced by that and organization names in the subject slot ([ORG + V + that + SC]). First, the personification recognition method of Dorst, Mulder, and Steen (2011) is applied to quantitatively prove the strong relationship between the extracted argument-structure constructions and personification metaphors in EU discourse. Second, the constructions and their form-meaning pairings are described, both per subcorpus and globally. Results show that, at a macro- and meso-level of schematicity, the [ORG + V + that + SC] construction transversally symbolizes personification as an understanding scheme for institutional relations, constructing organization names with semantically human verbs of belief, speech, and thought. At a microscopic level, however, some constructions occur exclusively in one of the four subcorpora (non-translated, translated, non-interpreted, and interpreted English), meaning that they could be covering specific mediating functions through their name-verb slot choices.

show abstract

Section: Choice Of Corpus Data and Corpus Management Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument-Structure Constructions with Organization Names in the English Eurolect

Rodas¹,

Pastor²

2023

names

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Translation and interpreting of organisation names in the English and Spanish Eurolect: a corpus-based study

Rodas¹

2023

Romanica Olomucensia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-word named entities (MWNEs) are crucial bearers of information and often provide answers to major questions concerning the understanding of texts; however, work focusing exclusively on MWNEs is of very recent origin and comes mostly from a single field of study, Natural Language Processing (NLP). This paper aims to perform a contrastive analysis of a set of English and Spanish multi-word organisation names(MWORGs) extracted from two bilingual comparable corpora (written and oral) created from texts and speeches of the European Parliament. The methodology will follow a data-driven Constructionist approach. First, Named Entity Recognition (NER) and manual recall are employed to retrieve the MWORGs, and their performance is evaluated through metrics. Then, four items of metadata are annotated for each entity. The analysis unveils that, at this onomastic level, the non-translated English Eurolect in fact contains a considerable number of translations (17.3%), while non-interpreted English has an even higher percentage of interpretations (24.3%). In the translated and interpreted Spanish Eurolect, mediating schemes (translations, interpretations, borrowings, and blending) are predictably dominant (80.5% and 98.1% respectively), although they also coexist with native onomastic constructions. The results of the study boost the commonly disregarded potential of proper names as a key tool for understanding translation and interpreting as relative categories in which each (non-)translated and (non-)interpreted textual genre is ruled by its own set of constructional rules, establishing different quantities of mediating and nonmediating constructions depending on factors such as the language, the norms, and the events which condition textual production.

show abstract

A corpus-based analysis of mediation in EU multi-word organization names

Cited by 2 publications

References 8 publications

Argument-Structure Constructions with Organization Names in the English Eurolect

Argument-Structure Constructions with Organization Names in the English Eurolect

Translation and interpreting of organisation names in the English and Spanish Eurolect: a corpus-based study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About