Bibliographic record
Abstract
Figurative language with its greatness of power, vividness and liveliness, as a form of language expression, is the perfect combination of informative function and aesthetic function. In conveying idea, figurative language focuses on lively figures of speech to create endless associations in readers through their senses. That is to covey meaning on the one hand and bring the aesthetic appreciation to the readers on the other. Therefore, how to deal with the figurative language in translation then to make the translation precisely and naturally reproduce the original idea from SL to TL without losing the aesthetic enjoyment as the TL readers expect from what the SL readers get, are both important in the work of translation. This thesis tries to provide several practical ways in the translation of figurative language. Key words: Figurative language, Source language (SL), Target language (SL) Resume: Le metaphore est une facon d’expression de la langue . Plein de vitalite , il est la combinaison parfaite de la fonction de l’esthetique et celle de l’information . Le metaphore a pour objectif de transmettre des images vivantes et marquantes aux organes des sens pour provoquer des imaginations illimitees . Donc , la traduction , en tant que le pont des echanges des informations inter-culturelles doit traiter du metaphore de facon serieuse , C’est a dire , il faut rendre la traduction fidele au texte original et en meme temps , chercher a donner la jouissance d’esthetique aux lecteurs . Ce texte explique la nature du metaphore en tant qu’un moyen d’expression de la langue , comment donnner l’image d’esthetique aux lecteurs dans la traduction , et fait une analyse de ces cinq categories de traductions Mots-cles: le langage du metaphore, la langue du depart, la langue cible
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".