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.

Improving automation in model-driven engineering using examples

Cette thèse a pour but d’améliorer l’automatisation dans l’ingénierie dirigée par les modèles (MDE pour Model Driven Engineering). MDE est un paradigme qui promet de réduire la complexité du logiciel par l’utilisation intensive de modèles et des transformations automatiques entre modèles (TM). D’une façon simplifiée, dans la vision du MDE, les spécialistes utilisent plusieurs modèles pour représenter un logiciel, et ils produisent le code source en transformant automatiquement ces modèles. Conséquemment, l’automatisation est un facteur clé et un principe fondateur de MDE. En plus des TM, d’autres activités ont besoin d’automatisation, e.g. la définition des langages de modélisation et la migration de logiciels. Dans ce contexte, la contribution principale de cette thèse est de proposer une approche générale pour améliorer l’automatisation du MDE. Notre approche est basée sur la recherche méta-heuristique guidée par les exemples. Nous appliquons cette approche sur deux problèmes importants de MDE, (1) la transformation des modèles et (2) la définition précise de langages de modélisation. Pour le premier problème, nous distinguons entre la transformation dans le contexte de la migration et les transformations générales entre modèles. Dans le cas de la migration, nous proposons une méthode de regroupement logiciel (Software Clustering) basée sur une méta-heuristique guidée par des exemples de regroupement. De la même façon, pour les transformations générales, nous apprenons des transformations entre modèles en utilisant un algorithme de programmation génétique qui s’inspire des exemples des transformations passées. Pour la définition précise de langages de modélisation, nous proposons une méthode basée sur une recherche méta-heuristique, qui dérive des règles de bonne formation pour les méta-modèles, avec l’objectif de bien discriminer entre modèles valides et invalides. Les études empiriques que nous avons menées, montrent que les approches proposées obtiennent des bons résultats tant quantitatifs que qualitatifs. Ceux-ci nous permettent de conclure que l’amélioration de l’automatisation du MDE en utilisant des méthodes de recherche méta-heuristique et des exemples peut contribuer à l’adoption plus large de MDE dans l’industrie à là venir.