Schlagworte
natural language processing
dependency relations
thematic relations
computational linguistics
Zitationsvorschlag
Abstract
This study explores the interface between syntax and semantics by examining the distribution of thematic roles across different text genres through computational means in the context of translation as a form of linguistic mediation. The research sets out to evaluate the accuracy of mapping syntactic categories (in particular those of subject and object) onto semantic roles of Agent and Patient using Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches such as named entity recognition, CQL query and machine learning. The analysis is conducted across three distinct corpus samples: legal discourse, literature, and media publications. The results point to the very complex, non-isomorphic nature of the syntax-semantics interface, which may be interpreted as indicative of the application of deliberate mediatory techniques aiming to achieve a desired level of hybridity in the translated text.
Literaturhinweise
Aixelá J.F. (1996), Culture-specific items in translation. “Topics in Translation,” No. 8, pp. 52–78.
Alishahi A., Stevenson, S. (2010), A computational model of learning semantic roles from child-directed language. “Language and Cognitive Processes”, No. 25(1), pp. 50–93.
Assmann A. (1997), Translation as transformation, (in:) Hilfrich-Kunjappu, C., Moses, S. (eds.), Zwischen den Kulturen: Theorie und Praxis des interkulturellen Dialogs. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp. 21–33.
Bassnett S., Lefevere A. (eds.) (1990), Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter Publishers.
Bhabha H. K. (1994), The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Chesterman A. (2016), Memes of translation: the spread of ideas in translation theory. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
de Marneffe M.-C., Dozat T., Silveira N., Haverinen K., Ginter F., Nivre J. and Manning C.D. (2014), Universal Stanford Dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology, (in:) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 4585–4592.
Dendrinos B. (2006), Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing. “Journal of Applied Linguistics”, No. 22, pp. 9–35.
Dendrinos B. (2024), Mediation and Plurilingualism, (in:) Dendrinos, B. (ed.) Mediation as Negotiation of Meanings, Plurilingualism and Language Education. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–26.
Dowty D. (1991), Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. “Language”, No. 67(3), pp. 547–619.
Ferreira F. (2002), The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. “Cognitive Psychology”, No. 47, pp. 164–203.
Goldberg A.E. (1995), Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gruber J.S. (1976), Studies in lexical relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Halliday M.A.K., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004), An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
Hejwowski K. (2004), Translation: a cognitive-communicative approach. Olecko: Wydawnictwo Wszechnicy Mazurskiej.
Jackendoff R.S. (1972), Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaunisto M. (2024), Named entities as potentially problematic items in corpora, (in:) Kaunisto, M. and Schilk, M. (eds.), Challenges in Corpus Linguistics: Rethinking corpus compilation and analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–54.
Kieraś W., Kobyliński Ł., Ogrodniczuk M. (2018), Korpusomat — a tool for creating searchable morphosyntactically tagged corpora. “Computational Methods in Science and Technology”, No. 24(1), pp. 21–27.
Kipper K., Korhonen A., Ryant N. and Palmer M. (2008), A large-scale classification of English verbs. “Language Resources and Evaluation”, No. 42(1), pp. 21–40.
Li Y. (2016), On the postcolonial hybridity theory in translation studies, (in:) Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities). Paris: Atlantis Press, pp. 400–403.
Newmark P. (1988), A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
Pantuchowicz A., Warso A. (eds.) (2018), Culture(s) and authenticity: the politics of translation and the poetics of imitation. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Petrov S., Das D. and McDonald R. (2012), A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset, (in:) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 2089–2096.
Phanthaphoommee N. (2023), Arundhati Roy in Thai: compromising the linguistic hybridity in translation. “Brno Studies in English”, No. 49(1), pp. 55–75.
Polezzi L. (2024), Translation and Mediation. From theoretical models to self-awareness and pedagogy, (in:) Dendrinos B. (ed.) Mediation as Negotiation of Meanings, Plurilingualism and Language Education. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 173–191.
Price C., Grossman M. (2005), Verb agreements during on-line sentence processing in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. “Brain and Language”, No. 94, pp. 217–232.
Saeed J.I. (2016), Semantics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seuren P. (1998), Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Toury G. (2012), Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Venuti L. (ed.) (2000), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.
Laver, J. and Mason, I. (2018) A dictionary of translation and interpreting. Available at: http://fit-europe-rc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Dictionary-of-translation-and-interpreting-Mason-Laver.pdf [Accessed: 23 March 2026].
Lizenz
Copyright (c) 2026 Marcin Szwed
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.
Autoren:
Die Autoren der zur Veröffentlichung in der Zeitschrift Neofilolog angenommenen Texte sind verpflichtet, den Vertrag über die Erteilung einer kostenlosen Lizenz für die Werke mit der Verpflichtung zur Erteilung einer Sublizenz CC auszufüllen, zu unterzeichnen und an die Adresse der Redaktion zurückzusenden.
Gemäß Vertrag erteilen die Autoren auf die in der Zeitschrift Neofilolog veröffentlichten Texte der Adam-Mickiewicz-Universität in Poznań eine nicht exklusive und kostenlose Lizenz und erlauben die Verwendung der Sublizenz Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Die Autoren behalten das Recht zur weiteren freien Verfügung über das Werk.
Benutzer:
Interessierte Onlinebenutzer dürfen die seit 2017 veröffentlichten Werke unter folgenden Bedingungen nutzen:
- Anerkennung der Urheberschaft - die Verpflichtung, zusammen mit dem verbreiteten Werk Informationen über die Urheberschaft, den Titel, die Quelle (Links zum Originalwerk, DOI) und die Lizenz selbst bereitzustellen;
- ohne Schaffung abgeleiteter Werke - das Werk muss in seiner ursprünglichen Form erhalten bleiben, ohne Zustimmung des Autors dürfen keine Studien, beispielsweise Übersetzungen, verbreitet werden.
Die Urheberrechte aller veröffentlichen Texte sind vorbehalten.
Sonstige:
Die Adam-Mickiewicz-Universität in Poznań behält das Recht auf die Zeitschrift als Gesamtheit (Layout, Grafik, Titel, Umschlagsprojekt, Logo usw.).