Phraseological study and

translation of technical metaphor translation of technical metaphor

in architecture and construction

engineering

Ana ROLDÁN-RIEJOS & Paloma ÚBEDA Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

• Background: research project EMPHRASE (Electronicmultidata bank of phraseological specialised language)

• LC+ Phraseology • Technical phraseology: collocations and genres• Figurative language in C/A• Figurative language in C/A• Criteria to identify figurative language:

metaphor/metonymy• Metaphorical configurations: linguistic, image,

conceptual• Cross-linguistic correspondences: translation• Conclusions

• To gather and analyse technical linguistic corporalinguistic corpora.

• To determine lexical units from different technical genres through corpus analysis.

• To measure the phraseological degree phraseological degree of lexical units in corpora: frequency values.

• To consider the structural composition of lexical groups • To consider the structural composition of lexical groups (morpho-syntactic features).

• To verify occurrence of figurative language figurative language (metaphor/metonymy) in technical lexical units.

• To examine metaphorical correspondences between source/target domains.

• To study cross-linguistic correspondences: translation in English and Spanish.

• Advantages• Contextual

• Authentic

• Academic+professional

• Genre-based

• Limitations• Phraseological units: tricky to establish

• Barriers

A STRONG TEAM:

• Corpora provide frequencies of occurrence and co-occurrence: word clusters/n-grams, and co-occurrence: word clusters/n-grams, concordances, collocations.

• With phraseology: a bottom-up (engineering lexicon) & a top-down (technical genres) approach.

• Firth: ‘You Shall Know a Word by the Company It Keeps’.

• Clusters of words that tend to appear together (genre dependent). (genre dependent).

• Lexical combinations that have become (or are becoming) entrenched in a discourse community.

• Statistically Salient: can be electronically quantified.

• Lexical combinations that co-occur frequently.

• Binary, ternary or more elements.

• Mostly noun phrases: “building site”; “flood water”; “reinforced concrete”, but .water”; “reinforced concrete”, but .

• Frequency variation according to genre.

• Having a complete, interrelated meaning.

• In our case, we consider “empirical collocations” (from Firth 1957), that “can directly be observed in corpora”.

• at least twice in a corpus is a potential • at least twice in a corpus is a potential collocation according to this view. It is common to apply higher frequency thresholds, however, such as a minimum of 3, 5 or even 10 co-occurrences. Corpora and collocations. Stefan Evert 2007.

GENRE:RESEARCH ARTICLES

• beam flange

• beam profile

• beam structure

• beam to column joints

GENRE: TECHNICAL REPORTS

• structural failure

• structural irregularity

• structural steel

• structural strengthening• beam to column joints

• beam-column

• bearing resistance

• bed elevations

• bed shear behavior

• behavior of concrete

• self-compacting concrete

• structural strengthening

• general structural designissues

• design requirements

• design codes

• design spectra

• design intention

• steel bars

• Image metaphors: triggers an image rather than a concept: perceptual resemblance.

• Linguistic metaphors: semantic-based, emerge from language use, mostly based on from language use, mostly based on functional/formal resemblance.

• Conceptual metaphors: thought-based, independent of language, although conceptual underlying structure for some examples of linguistic metaphor.

Let us consider: ‘‘ToTo improveimprove concrete concrete bleedingbleeding’

- Source domain:

MEDICAL: improve, bleedingMEDICAL: improve, bleeding

- Target domain:

ENGINEERING: concrete/water loss

Transferred mapping: Concrete is not right.

Inference: bleeding occurs due to excessive waterloss.

• MIV (Cameron 2003): Contrast between thevehiclevehicle term and the topictopic: “diagonal rib”;“sandwich construction””.. Result: a transfertransfer ofofmeaningmeaning (based on an image or comparison)..meaningmeaning (based on an image or comparison)..

• MIP (Pragglejaz Group 2007): Basic meaningof the term in other contexts (dictionary use).

“dressed stone”; “slurry shield”.

• 1) Read the entire text

• 2) Determine the lexical units

• (a) For each lexical unit, establish its contextual meaning

• (b) For each lexical unit, determine if it has a more basic contemporary meaning

• (c) Decide whether the contextual meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it

• 3) If yes, mark the lexical unit as metaphorically used

adolescent river

ageing hardness

alligator cracking

anchor pile

angle dozer

angle jib

(hydrol) [civil eng] río joven

(matr)[civil eng] envejecimiento por endurecimiento

(highways)[civil eng] fisuración, pavimento fisurado

(struct) [civil eng] pilote de anclaje

(constr) [civil eng] hoja empujadora angulable

(constr) [civil eng] brazo acodado (grúa)angle jib

arbour collar

arm file

armour units

arterial road

auger stem

autogenous healing

back cutting

back props

balance beam

(constr) [civil eng] brazo acodado (grúa)

(mach)[civil eng] collarín de eje

[civil eng] lima áspera

(ports) [civil eng] muro de contención

(highways)[civil eng] carretera troncal

(geotech)[civil eng] vástago de perforación

(concrete) (matr)[civil eng] cierre y curación de fisuras

(struct)[civil eng] terraplén añadido/secundario

(cons)[civil eng] puntales provisionales de refuerzo

(hydrau)[civil eng] viga de apertura de compuerta

Crocodile/alligator cracking

pavement. Pavimento fisurado

Cause /effect metonymy inferredfrom the metaphor.

dead man (struct)[civil eng] macizo de anclajemanhole (constr) boca de inspección

a) a) AnthropocentricAnthropocentric

b) Anatomic

ribs and lagging (tnls) sistema de apoyos y entablonados en túnelesstressed-skin construction

(struct) revestimiento unificado knee bracing (constr) tirante, escuadraelbow discharge (hydrau) codode descarga

Dead man

c) Clothing

urban fabric [arch] tejido urbano

coupling shoe (geotech) [civil eng] zapata de acoplamiento

spillway apron (hydrau)[civil eng] paramento exterior de spillway apron (hydrau)[civil eng] paramento exterior de vertedero

sleeve anchor (constr)[civil eng] manguito de anclaje

pile shoe (struct)[civil eng] azuche

sock lining (constr) [civil eng] revestimiento textil de tuberias”

d) Zoomorphici. Typology

cubierta de mariposa (constr)[arq] butterfly roof

cuello de cisne (bajantes) [arq] swan neck

derrick gooseneck (constr)[civil eng] pinzote del puntal de carga derrick gooseneck (constr)[civil eng] pinzote del puntal de carga

pony truss bridge (struct)[civil eng] puente de armadura rebajada

ii. Arrangementbreasting dolphin (ports) [civil eng] poste de amarre

clamshell grab (constr)[civil eng] grúa excavadora de almeja

camelback truss (struct)[civil eng] armadura de media luna

caterpillar gate (hydrau) [civil eng] compuerta de oruga

e) Pathology :autogenous healing (concrete) (matr)[civil eng] cierre y

curación de fisuras

spontaneous fracture (struct)[civil eng] fractura espontáneaespontánea

fatigue strength (struct) [civil eng] resistencia a la fatiga

impact stress (struct)[civil eng] esfuerzo de choque

endurance failure (struct)[civil eng] rotura por fatiga

occult bleeding (hydrau)[civil eng] derrame oculto

sensitivity ratio (geotech)[civil eng] índice de sensibilidad

Butterfly roof

Caterpillar gate

•Pile cap and pile shoe

“encepado” “azuche” Urban fabric “tejido

urbano”

Breasting/mooring dolphin

Functional analogy

Camelback truss

Shape resemblance

• Language corpora and technical phraseology are a goodtandem.

• Phraseological units as lexical flexible collocations.

• Use of collocations in genres.

• Figurative language is part of phraseology.

• Image and linguistic metaphors are widespread. Theycan co-occur.

• Potential for learning and also dictionary, databasecollection.

• Research to be extended to other specialised domains.

• Boers, F. & S. Lindstromberg (eds.) (2008) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

• Cameron, L. (2006). MetNet Group: The Metaphor Analysis Project. Retrieved from http://creet.open.ac.uk/projects/metaphor-analysis/index.cfm

• Cuadrado-Esclapez, G., Argüelles Álvarez, I., Durán-Escribano, P., Gómez-Ortiz M-J., Molina-Plaza, S., Pierce-McMahon, J., Robisco-Martín M., Roldán-Riejos, A. and Úbeda-Mansilla, P. (2016). Bilingual Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Metaphors and Metonymies. Spanish-English/English-Spanish. London: Routledge.

• Evans, V. (2013) “Metaphor, Lexical Concepts and Figurative meaning Construction”. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, V (1-2): 73-107.Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, V (1-2): 73-107.

• Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55. In: Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 1–32. Oxford. Reprinted in Palmer, F. R. (Ed.) (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59, 168–205. London: Longman.

• Manning, C. D., & Schutze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press

• Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.

• Roldán-Riejos, A. & Úbeda, P. (2018) “El léxico de la ingeniería y su aprendizaje: estudioexploratorio”. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages E-JournALL, Volume 5, Issue 2, July 2018.

THANK YOU!

ana.roldan.riejos@upm.esana.roldan.riejos@upm.espaloma.ubeda@upm.es