Criteria for the validation of specialized verb equivalents : application in bilingual terminography

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. 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. 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. 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. 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, offers to future users.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.