Criteria for the Validation of Specialized Verb Equivalents: Applications 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