Cover not available
Article published In:
Reflections on Constructions across Grammars
Edited by Martin Hilpert and Jan-Ola Östman
[Constructions and Frames 6:2] 2014
► pp. 170–201

On the universality of frames

Evidence from English-to-Japanese translation

| University of California, Berkeley and International Computer Science Institute
This paper investigates the cross-linguistic applicability of the concept of frame as developed in the Berkeley FrameNet project. We examine whether the frames created for the annotation of English texts can also function as a tool for the assessment of the accuracy of English-to-Japanese translations. If the semantic structure of a source text is analyzed in terms of the frames evoked by its constituent words and the ways in which the elements of those frames are realized, then those frames, their constituent elements, and their interconnections must somehow be present in the translation. The paper concentrates on passages involving causation, as causal relationships are considered by many to exhibit the most salient differences in rhetorical preference between the two languages.
Keywords: translation assessment, causation, parallel-text corpora, rhetorical structure, Frame Semantics, FrameNet, noun-centered vs. verb-centered typology, topic-worthiness, transitivity
Published online: 30 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.03has
References (34)
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, 91, 55–66.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.Google Scholar
. (1994). The hard road from verbs to nouns. In M. Chen & O. Tzeng (Eds.), In honor of William S-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change (pp. 105–129). Taipei: Pyramid Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Atkins, B.T.S. (1992). Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Baker, C.F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Johnson, C.R., & Petruck, M.R.L. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 149–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y. (1996). A study of Japanese clause linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications; Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
. (2011). The Routledge course in Japanese translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hawkinson, A., & Hyman, L. (1974). Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona. Studies in African linguistics, 51, 147–170.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (1981). “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku: gengo to bunka no taiporojii e no shiron [The linguistics of “do” and “become”: An essay on the typology of language and culture]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
. (1982). Kotoba no shigaku [The language of poetics]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
. (1988). What we see when we see flying cranes: Motion or transition. The Japan Foundation Newsletter, 151, 1–9.Google Scholar
Koller, W. (1972). Grundprobleme der Übersetzungstheorie [Basic problems of translation theory]. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Kondo, M. (1986). Eigo ni okeru museibutsu shugo no yoohoo to shakai kagaku no hoohooron [Inanimate subjects in English and the methodology of Social Science]. Daito Bunka Daigaku Kiyo [Bulletin of Daito Bunka University], 241, 1–21.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1986). Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Langacker, R. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language, 631, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, S. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. New York: Prentice Hall. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Reiß, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik [Translation criticism — The potentials and limitations]. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
. (1971/2000). Type, kind and individuality of text: Decision making in translation. In Lawrence Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (translated by Susan Kitron) (pp. 160–171). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reiß, K., & Vermeer, H. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie [Towards a general theory of translational action]. Tèubingen: M. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidensticker, E., & Anzai, T. (1983). Nihonbun no hon’yaku [Translating Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Tokieda, M. (1950). Nihon bunpoo: Koogo hen [Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Toyama, S. (1987). Nihongo no ronri [The logic of Japanese]. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha.Google Scholar
Uchimura, H. (1991). Problems caused by word order when interpreting/translating from English into Japanese: The effect of the use of inanimate subjects in English. Meta, 361, 404–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, H. (1978). Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie [A framework for a general theory of translation]. Lebende Sprachen [Living Languages], 231, 99–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Jehlička, Jakub & Eva Lehečková
2020. Multimodal Event Construals: The Role of Co-Speech Gestures in English vs. Czech Interactions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68:4 ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018. Chapter 9. Aligning constructicons across languages. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.