dc.contributor.author | Innselset, Kai | |
dc.contributor.author | Kristiansen, Marita | |
dc.contributor.author | Øvsthus, Kari | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-09-05T07:31:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-09-05T07:31:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.identifier.citation | SYNAPS - A Journal of Professional Communication 21(2008) pp.73-89 | nb_NO |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2404135 | |
dc.description.abstract | In this article we will address some pitfalls and shortcomings related to semi-automatic term extraction and an
uncritical reliance on translational equivalents in parallel texts. After a short description of the KB-N project
and its corpus material and semi-automatic term extraction tool, we shall go on to give examples of faulty
equivalents in translated texts resulting from adaptations to an external context. Next, succeeding a comparison
of different views of “termhood”, we shall give examples of how even highly domain-focal terms can go
unnoticed by an extraction tool. Finally, we shall present two case studies: verbalisation and clipping. The
former study shows how semi-automatic extraction may fail completely and manual extraction be impeded
owing to linguistic choices made by a translator in representing certain key concepts. The latter study shows
how the absence of full-term realisations in a text can cause confusion as to which concepts are involved if the
text is handled exclusively by an extraction tool. The overall conclusion is that there are characteristics of texts
which are beyond the control of regular semi-automatic extraction tools, and that human intervention is
indispensable. | nb_NO |
dc.language.iso | eng | nb_NO |
dc.publisher | NHH | nb_NO |
dc.title | Looking back to move forward. Challenges related to deceitful parallel texts and slippery terms | nb_NO |
dc.type | Journal article | nb_NO |
dc.source.pagenumber | 73-89 | nb_NO |
dc.source.volume | 21 | nb_NO |
dc.source.journal | SYNAPS - A Journal of Professional Communication | nb_NO |