Semantic differences in translation: Exploring the field of inchoativity

Vandevoorde, Lore

doi:10.5281/zenodo.2573677

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This parallel corpus (Leech, 1991 ; Kay and Röscheisen, 1993 ; Véronis, 2000 ) allows for the automatic word alignment of items with their translations (Koehn, 2005 ), and SF annotation was conducted using the state-of-the-art FrameNet parser (Xia et al, 2021 ), a tool for multilingual frame-semantic annotation to semi-automatically query the search of prototypical patterns of translational text production (Alves and Vale, 2017 ). Afterward, semantic mirroring (SM) (Vandevoorde, 2020 ), a procedure that consists back-translating into source language, allowed for the translatological examination of translated and original versions of the items.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Semantic mirroring (SM) was devised originally by Dyvik ( 1998 , 2005 ) as an automated method for deriving large-scale entries from a word-aligned parallel corpus for machine translation and other kinds of multilingual processing; Vandevoorde ( 2020 ) extended this technique for the analysis of sets of lexemes as representations of semantic fields, thus enabling their comparison, as it allows one to statistically visualize semantic relations in translated and untranslated language as well as their distances. The presented pipeline takes inspiration in SM as a means to consider the variation of frames evoked by original, translated, and back-translated sentences as clusters of meaning distinctions, so as to raise questions pertaining to the nature and characteristics of the observed tendencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Embodied Metarepresentations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meaning has been established pervasively as a central concept throughout disciplines that were involved in cognitive revolution. Its metaphoric usage comes to be, first and foremost, through the interpreter's constraint: representational relationships and contents are considered to be in the “eye” or mind of the observer and shared properties among observers themselves are knowable through interlinguistic phenomena, such as translation. Despite the instability of meaning in relation to its underdetermination by reference, it can be a tertium comparationis or “third comparator” for extended human cognition if gauged through invariants that exist in transfer processes such as translation, as all languages and cultures are rooted in pan-human experience and, thus, share and express species-specific ontology. Meaning, seen as a cognitive competence, does not stop outside of the body but extends, depends, and partners with other agents and the environment. A novel approach for exploring the transfer properties of some constituent items of the original natural semantic metalanguage in English, that is, semantic primitives, is presented: FrameNet's semantic frames, evoked by the primes SEE and FEEL, were extracted from EuroParl, a parallel corpus that allows for the automatic word alignment of items with their synonyms. Large Ontology Multilingual Extraction was used. Afterward, following the Semantic Mirrors Method, a procedure that consists back-translating into source language, a translatological examination of translated and original versions of items was performed. A fully automated pipeline was designed and tested, with the purpose of exploring associated frame shifts and, thus, beginning a research agenda on their alleged universality as linguistic features of translation, which will be complemented with and contrasted against further massive feedback through a citizen science approach, as well as cognitive and neurophysiological examinations. Additionally, an embodied account of frame semantics is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodied Metarepresentations

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This parallel corpus (Leech, 1991;Kay and Röscheisen, 1993;Véronis, 2000) allows for the automatic word alignment of items with their translations (Koehn, 2005), and SF annotation was conducted using the state-of-the-art FrameNet parser (Xia et al, 2021), a tool for multilingual framesemantic annotation to semi-automatically query the search of prototypical patterns of translational text production (Alves and Vale, 2017). Afterward, semantic mirroring (SM) (Vandevoorde, 2020), a procedure that consists back-translating into source language, allowed for the translatological examination of translated and original versions of the items.…”

Section: Embodied Metarepresentationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Semantic mirroring (SM) was devised originally by Dyvik (1998Dyvik ( , 2005 as an automated method for deriving large-scale entries from a word-aligned parallel corpus for machine translation and other kinds of multilingual processing; Vandevoorde (2020) extended this technique for the analysis of sets of lexemes as representations of semantic fields, thus enabling their comparison, as it allows one to statistically visualize semantic relations in translated and untranslated language as well as their distances. The presented pipeline takes inspiration in SM as a means to consider the variation of frames evoked by original, translated, and back-translated sentences as clusters of meaning distinctions, so as to raise questions pertaining to the nature and characteristics of the observed tendencies.…”

Section: Semantic Mirroringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation_1.pdf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TELLING in English, Norwegian and French: A three-way contrast

Egan¹

2021

BeLLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of a study of double object constructions containing the cognate verbs English tell and Norwegian fortelle, based on data from the English–Norwegian Parallel Corpus. The results show that there is a certain degree of correspondence between the two verbs in constructions with nominal direct objects, with less mutual correspondence in constructions with finite clausal objects, very little correspondence in constructions with objects in the form of direct speech, and none whatsoever in the case of non-finite clausal objects, which only occur with tell. The paper then expands the topic to include tell predications in French. The data were retrieved from the Oslo Multilingual Corpus. It transpires that the form of French translations of Norwegian expressions are more similar, at least for some constructions, to the Norwegian originals than are their English counterparts.

show abstract

Semantic differences in translation: Exploring the field of inchoativity

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Embodied Metarepresentations

Embodied Metarepresentations

Presentation_1.pdf

TELLING in English, Norwegian and French: A three-way contrast

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About