1 / 9

Comments on “Building a resource for studying translation shifts” (by Lea Cyrus)

Comments on “Building a resource for studying translation shifts” (by Lea Cyrus). Hans C. Boas University of Texas at Austin http://hcb.gmc.utexas.edu. Translation Shift.

jael
Download Presentation

Comments on “Building a resource for studying translation shifts” (by Lea Cyrus)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comments on“Building a resource for studying translation shifts” (by Lea Cyrus) Hans C. Boas University of Texas at Austin http://hcb.gmc.utexas.edu

  2. Translation Shift • Departure from formal correspondence between source and target text, i.e. deviations that have occurred during the translation process (different subtypes). • What are the parallels and differences between “translation processes” (L1 L2) and “paraphrase relations” (L1L1)?

  3. Catford’s (1965) notion of “shift” • “One of the problems with Catford’s approach is that it relies heavily on the structuralist notion of system and thus presupposes that is it feasible – or indeed possible – to determine and compare the valeurs of any two given linguistic items. His account remains theoretic and, at least to my knowledge, has never been applied to any actual translations, not even by himself.”

  4. Systematic differences between linguistic systems • Some shifts occur for stylistic/pragmatic reasons and preferences • Other shifts occur systematically because of differences in linguistic systems • These systematic differences are predictable

  5. Equivalents/discrepancies • Aspectual category: English progressive and German counterparts. • Indirect and prepositional passives in English have no constructional equivalents in German (This bed has been slept in by Napoleon). • Systematic contrastive studies catalogue these differences (Nickel 1972, Rohdenburg 1974, Chesterman 1998)

  6. Predicate-Argument Structures • Arguments are given short intuitive role names • Entity being dramatised: ENT_DRAMATISED • How are these argument labels different from FEs in FrameNet?

  7. Semantic modification/divergence • “Semantic likeness is interpreted somewhat liberally and the tag is assigned only if the semantic difference is significant.” • What criteria can we use to measure semantic likeness? • Salkie (2002), Teubert (2002) make different proposals for mesasuring semantic likeness.

  8. Tools/FuSer • Current: predicate-argument structures are annotated manually. • Future: there will be a wizard to scan the sentence for predicate candidates or to suggest suitable argument types when the predicate is already included in the database • How will the wizard work? Parallels to FrameNet efforts?

  9. Translation process etc. • Direction of translation may be important: L1 L2, L2 L1 • What about reports in different languages that are not the result of a translation? • Thomas Schmidt’s KICKTIONARY (soccer texts in different languages reporting on the same games) • What can we learn by comparing the different “genres”?

More Related