UniversitÃ© de MontrÃ©al - ThÃ¨se sous forme numÃ©rique

More documents

Recommendations

Info

905) Subcategorization. This criterion refers to the syntactic characteristics ofthe verbs: copula, transitive, intransitive verbs, etc. In this respect,discursive verbs are usually transitive verbs. Connective verbs can becopula verbs, transitive verbs with a direct object NP and intransitive verbswith a PP. Phraseological verbs have less restrictions when it comes toverbal subcategorization, i.e. they can be transitive, intransitive with PP orwithout PP. Terminological verbs can be intransitive verbs without PPs ortransitive verbs with a direct object that specifies the event denoted by theverb, e.g. nuclearizar, galvanizar níquel (Eng. nuclearize, to galvanizenickel).6) Semantic relation with the subject. Here, the subject of the verb isdistinguished in terms of its logical relation with the verb: Agent, Cause,Instrument, and Theme. The subjects of discursive verbs are always anAgent corresponding to the author of the texts. They are usually hidden inimpersonal constructions. The subjects of connective verbs are usually anAgent that can also be hidden in impersonal constructions. However, thesubjects of verbs expressing logical relations between two units ofspecialized meaning are usually an object or an abstract concept playing thesemantic role of Theme, Cause, Origin and Place. The subjects ofphraseological verbs and terminological verbs can refer to peoplecontrolling the action (Agent), to natural phenomena, to events and abstractconcepts (Cause), to objects controlled by the Agent (Instrument) and toconcrete objects (Theme or Result).7) Lexical selection. This criterion is used to analyze the combinatoryrestrictions between the verb and its arguments so as to identifyphraseological behaviour. Although the authors do not provide illustrative
91examples, they state that discursive verbs are subject to combinatorics buttheir cooccurrents do not contain specialized meaning and, as a result, bothcan often be paraphrased. Connective verbs show restrictions regarding theuse of prepositions and can be paraphrased. Phraseological andterminological verbs show strong restrictions regarding combinatorics andparaphrases are not always possible.After analyzing each type of verb using these criteria and considering thecognitive dimension (―specialized knowledge‖) and linguistic one (―specializedmeaning‖) of the verbs, Lorente and Bevilacqua (2000) and Lorente (2002) reach thefollowing conclusions. Firstly, discursive verbs are not specialized knowledge units orspecialized meaning units. Secondly, connective verbs and phraseological verbs can bespecialized knowledge units but are not specialized meaning units. Thirdly,terminological verbs are specialized knowledge units and specialized meaning units.This classification of verbs is graphically represented by means of a Venn diagram inwhich each group of verbs is part of a larger group (Figure 12).Figure 12. Classification of verbs that occur in specializeddiscourse: proposal by Lorente (2000, 2002)
Page 3 and 4:
Université de MontréalFaculté de
Page 5 and 6:
iiiframework to the compilation of
Page 7 and 8:
vd‘autres contributions ayant dé
Page 9 and 10:
vii2.3.1. The theory of classes of
Page 12 and 13:
x5.3.1. Full equivalents ..........
Page 14:
xiiTable 23. The frame [Proof] grou
Page 19 and 20:
xviiTypographical conventionsTerms:
Page 21 and 22:
xixTo my parents, Fátima and João
Page 23 and 24:
1. IntroductionThis research studie
Page 25 and 26:
3translator can understand the mean
Page 27 and 28:
5theoretical frameworks that have b
Page 29 and 30:
2. The state of the artIn order to
Page 31 and 32:
9terminology of Canadian and Portug
Page 33 and 34:
11Translation:Legal discourse is in
Page 35 and 36:
13possible? The question of transla
Page 37 and 38:
152.1.2. GenresAccording to Gémar
Page 39 and 40:
17Genre studies are consensual in d
Page 41 and 42:
19Figure 1. Typology of legal texts
Page 43 and 44:
21the two typologies. For example,
Page 45 and 46:
23In Canada as in Portugal, dispute
Page 47 and 48:
25judgments. He argues that knowled
Page 49 and 50:
27Maingueneau (2004) for whom build
Page 51 and 52:
29find equivalents in a systematic
Page 53 and 54:
31(2005) and most recently in Adams
Page 55 and 56:
33the langue-related concept of equ
Page 57 and 58:
352.2.1.2. Concepts and designation
Page 59 and 60:
37in Hartmann and James (1998: 51)
Page 61 and 62: 392.2.1.4. Semantic content and col
Page 63 and 64: 41―Vocabulary type‖ refers to r
Page 65 and 66: 43A concept can only be understood
Page 67 and 68: 45assistance to identify and valida
Page 69 and 70: 47(intertextual). Cop (1991: 2776)
Page 71 and 72: 49Functional equivalenceZgusta (198
Page 73 and 74: 51particular purpose in mind: ―Ä
Page 75 and 76: 53Table 2. Anisomorphism: example o
Page 77 and 78: 55in such a way that they are compo
Page 79 and 80: 572.2.3. Qualitative and quantitati
Page 81 and 82: 59be cases of full equivalence with
Page 83 and 84: Graphicalrepresentation of therelat
Page 85 and 86: 63For instance, in Figure 10 saudad
Page 87 and 88: 65Another example of insufficient c
Page 89 and 90: 67appears and then skims texts in t
Page 91 and 92: 69equivalents but she also maintain
Page 93 and 94: 71defined by taking into account th
Page 95 and 96: 73Among these studies, some contrib
Page 97 and 98: 75other words or sequences of words
Page 99 and 100: 77The third type of verbs, i.e. pol
Page 101 and 102: 79author applied to the selection o
Page 103 and 104: 81represent synonymy, antonymy, nom
Page 105 and 106: 83contexts, but also a hyperlink ca
Page 107 and 108: 85The typology of verbs appearing i
Page 109 and 110: 87Phraseological verbs are predicat
Page 111: 89temperature rises; the air circul
Page 115 and 116: 93Another problem with this represe
Page 117 and 118: 95connective verbs are simple verbs
Page 119 and 120: 97different. The criteria designed
Page 121 and 122: 99to show the mismatch that occurs
Page 123 and 124: 101content from the perspective of
Page 125 and 126: 103mesma quantia global, de 6151000
Page 127 and 128: 105entities with authority to trans
Page 129 and 130: 107Nevertheless, Pimentel and L‘H
Page 131 and 132: 109In 1995, L‘Homme proposes a me
Page 133 and 134: 111these reasons, we believe it rem
Page 135 and 136: 113But in order to understand Frame
Page 137 and 138: 115Par exemple, les règles de sous
Page 139 and 140: 117the nature of language‖, that
Page 141 and 142: 119This kind of understanding by th
Page 143 and 144: 121Firstly, according to him, seman
Page 145 and 146: 123exchanging the goods for money (
Page 147 and 148: 125As mentioned in the previous sec
Page 149 and 150: 127Quarreling:(3, 9) the participan
Page 151 and 152: 129corresponds to a semantic type w
Page 153 and 154: 131Figure 21. Lexical entry report
Page 155 and 156: 133parent frame. The frame [Quarrel
Page 157 and 158: 1353.2.2.2. Environmental ScienceAn
Page 159 and 160: 137Figure 23. The Coastal Engineeri
Page 161 and 162: 139Spanish terms that are reported
Page 163 and 164:
141the FrameNet methodology will be
Page 165 and 166:
143Agnoloni et al. (2010). Followin
Page 167 and 168:
145scenes: ―Whereas a scene is de
Page 169 and 170:
Table 9. Confirming cross-linguisti
Page 171 and 172:
149Table 10. Summary of the annotat
Page 173 and 174:
151Contrary to the FrameNet approac
Page 175 and 176:
153Also, in an article entitled ―
Page 177 and 178:
155support for the characterization
Page 179 and 180:
157period in which the texts were w
Page 181 and 182:
159for Brazilian Portuguese). The E
Page 183 and 184:
161case. In its written form, an ac
Page 185 and 186:
163Table 14. Beginning of the thema
Page 187 and 188:
165The decisão is the final sectio
Page 189 and 190:
167In order to identify the content
Page 191 and 192:
1694.1.3.3. ExpertsAll authors of t
Page 193 and 194:
171The ―Introduction‖ states th
Page 195 and 196:
173favourable decisions are quite s
Page 197 and 198:
1754.1.4.1. FunctionPortuguese and
Page 199 and 200:
177semble impliquer qu‘ils doiven
Page 201 and 202:
179Figure 24. Bottom-up approach4.3
Page 203 and 204:
181Despite this word of caution, we
Page 205 and 206:
183evokes the last stage of the cri
Page 207 and 208:
185Finally, some candidate terms we
Page 209 and 210:
187Due to the differences in the nu
Page 211 and 212:
189making an oral agreement. In thi
Page 213 and 214:
191is a substantially higher one th
Page 215 and 216:
193concur 1L'Heureux-Dubé J. disse
Page 217 and 218:
195Although the occurrences of the
Page 219 and 220:
197[Constitutionality]infringe 1 ,
Page 221 and 222:
199Table 18. comply 1 , infringe 1
Page 223 and 224:
201have the same number and type of
Page 225 and 226:
203< FE nom="">< FE nom="">vtFigure
Page 227 and 228:
205After hearing his alibi evidence
Page 229 and 230:
207declarar 1Como é sabido, o Trib
Page 231 and 232:
209Sometimes the target term shares
Page 233 and 234:
211FEs that correspond to prepositi
Page 235 and 236:
213the hearing judgeFigure 40. Anno
Page 237 and 238:
215the indication of the reference.
Page 239 and 240:
217the first meaning was related to
Page 241 and 242:
219cumprir 1 ; 2) exceed 1 and viol
Page 243 and 244:
221the semantic nature of the terms
Page 245 and 246:
Portuguese223Agency, authority, BNS
Page 247 and 248:
2255.1.1. Portuguese termsCandidate
Page 249 and 250:
2276. Ambiguity between the past pa
Page 251 and 252:
229a legal genre set out in the fir
Page 253 and 254:
231as Prata (2005) and Prata et al.
Page 255 and 256:
2331. Ambiguity between the past fo
Page 257 and 258:
235(section 5.1.1.2.1); the second
Page 259 and 260:
237corpus, the action of adducing i
Page 261 and 262:
239draw some considerations on the
Page 263 and 264:
241extraction of Portuguese terms b
Page 265 and 266:
243The second half of the frame des
Page 267 and 268:
Portuguese245artigo, lei, lei pream
Page 269 and 270:
247We can observe that both terms e
Page 271 and 272:
249the core FEs correspond to the a
Page 273 and 274:
251resolve 1[1] This Court can reso
Page 275 and 276:
253are not responsible for applying
Page 277 and 278:
255Table 27. Linguistic realization
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
263Table 33 illustrates that the se
Page 287 and 288:
265Tabela 35. Linguistic realizatio
Page 289 and 290:
267LAW and ISSUE. For all these rea
Page 291 and 292:
PortugueseEnglsih269Table 36. amend
Page 293 and 294:
271The application of the aforement
Page 295 and 296:
273propugnar 1Por último, na conte
Page 297 and 298:
PortugueseEnglish275Table 37. The f
Page 299 and 300:
277The following pairs of verbs are
Page 301 and 302:
279This frame groups together one E
Page 303 and 304:
281The scenario includes two core F
Page 305 and 306:
PortugueseEnglish283For instance, a
Page 307 and 308:
285Translation:* Este Tribunal pode
Page 309 and 310:
English287Table 42. The [Order] fra
Page 311 and 312:
289considered candidate equivalents
Page 313 and 314:
291Supreme Court judgments not only
Page 315 and 316:
293Figure 45. Alphabetical list of
Page 317 and 318:
295As in DiCoInfo (L‘Homme 2008),
Page 319 and 320:
297the term dismiss 1 the actantial
Page 321 and 322:
299In the annotated contexts (Figur
Page 323 and 324:
301expression in sentences containi
Page 325 and 326:
303Finally, as the task of annotati
Page 327 and 328:
305The study started with the revie
Page 329 and 330:
307As the research specifically aim
Page 331 and 332:
309study: a larger amount of terms;
Page 333 and 334:
311Atkins, S. and M. Rundell (2008)
Page 335 and 336:
313Carreno, I. (2005). Analyse de l
Page 337 and 338:
315Devinat, M. (2005). La règle pr
Page 339 and 340:
317Fontenelle, T. (2000). ―A Bili
Page 341 and 342:
319Gross, G. and F. Guenthner (2002
Page 343 and 344:
321L‘Homme, M.-C. (2003). ―Capt
Page 345 and 346:
323McEnery, A. and Z. Xiao (2007).
Page 347 and 348:
325Reimerink, A. and P. Faber. (200
Page 349 and 350:
327Searle, J. (1983). Intentionalit
Page 351 and 352:
329Terminologiewissenschaft = Langu
Page 353 and 354:
IIDecisão Texto Integral:Acordam n
Page 355 and 356:
IVAppendix 2. Indexing terms of the
Page 357 and 358:
Appendix 3. A Canadian judgmentVISU
Page 359 and 360:
VIIIof stolen property from six to
Page 361 and 362:
Appendix 4. Indexing terms of the C
Page 363 and 364:
XIIAppendix 6. Partial list of Engl
Page 365 and 366:
XIVFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 367 and 368:
XVIFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 369 and 370:
XVIIIFrame and definition Core Fram
Page 371 and 372:
XXFrame and definition Core Frame E
Page 373 and 374:
XXIIFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 375 and 376:
XXIVFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 377 and 378:
XXVIFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 379 and 380:
XXVIIIFrame and definition Core Fra
Page 381 and 382:
XXXFrame and definition Core Frame
Page 383 and 384:
XXXIIFrame and definition Core Fram
Page 385 and 386:
XXXIVFrame and definition Core Fram
Page 387 and 388:
XXXVIAppendix 8. Partial list of th
Page 389 and 390:
XXXVIIIargue 1 [Argumentation]Charg
Page 391 and 392:
XLdeem 1 [Judging]Irregularity Core
Page 393 and 394:
XLIIManner Non-core impugn 1 [Conte
Page 395 and 396:
XLIVRight Core assert 3 [Right]Text
Page 397 and 398:
Appendix 10. List of common indirec
Page 399 and 400:
Appendix 11. Data validationXLVIIIV
Page 401 and 402:
Appendix 12. Eliminated candidate t
Page 403 and 404:
Appendix 14. List of Portuguese ter
Page 405 and 406:
48. exercer 2 [Disagreement] exerce
Page 407 and 408:
Appendix 15. List of English termsL
Page 409 and 410:
estipular 1 , prescrever 154. grant
Page 411 and 412:
Appendix 16. List of frames groupin
Page 413 and 414:
LXII37. declarar 1 , state 1 [Argum
show all

UniversitÃ© de MontrÃ©al - ThÃ¨se sous forme numÃ©rique

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?