Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper proposes to study the contrastive syntax of French and Chinese through the lens of syntactic mismatches, and by making use of parallel treebanks. A syntactic mismatch is the non-similarity between the syntactic structures of one linguistic unit and its translation. Syntactic mismatches are formalized using the notion of paraphrase from the Meaning-Text Theory, which allows for capturing mismatches at different levels of the linguistic description (e.g. Semantic, Deep-Syntactic, and Surface-Syntactic). In this paper, we report in details on the types of paraphrases found in the seed corpus used, demonstrating that the Deep-Syntactic paraphrases constitute the best starting point for our study. Then, we show how, starting from the seed corpus, we semi-automatically constructed a multi-layer parallel treebank with the alignment and annotation of paraphrases.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barnett, J., Mani, I., Martin, P. and Rich, E.
    1991 Reversible Machine Translation: What to Do When the Languages Don’t Line up. Proceedings of the Workshop on Reversible Grammars in NLP (ACL ’91). Berkeley, USA, 17June 1991 Association for Computational Linguistics. 61–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bohnet, B.
    2010 Top Accuracy and Fast Dependency Parsing is not a Contradiction. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’10). Beijing, China, 23–27August 2010 Tsinghua University Press. 89–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buch-Kromann, M., Korzen, I. and Müller, H.
    2009 Uncovering the ‘Lost’ Structure of Translations with Parallel Treebanks. InMethodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process Research, F. Alves, S. Göpferich and I. Mees (eds), 199–224. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Choi, J. D., Tetreault, J. and Stent, A.
    2015 It Depends: Dependency Parser Comparison Using a Web-Based Evaluation Tool. Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the Seventh International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Beijing, China, 26–31July 2015 Association for Computational Linguistics. 387–396.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dorr, B. J.
    1994 Machine Translation Divergences: A Formal Description and Proposed Solution. Computational Linguistics20(4): 597–633.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fradin, B.
    1984 Anaphorisation et stéréotypes nominaux. Lingua64: 325–369. 10.1016/0024‑3841(84)90067‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(84)90067-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. François, J.
    1973 La notion de métataxe chez Tesnière. Analyse critique sur la base de trois travaux de sémantique générative. Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Vincennes (DRLAV)5 : 1–45. 10.3406/drlav.1973.882
    https://doi.org/10.3406/drlav.1973.882 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gast, V.
    2012 Contrastive Linguistics: Theories and Methods. InDictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistics Theory and Methodology, B. Kortmann and J. Kabatek (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 On the Use of Translation Corpora in Contrastive Linguistics: A Case Study of Impersonalization in English and German. Languages in Contrast15(1): 4–33. 10.1075/lic.15.1.02gas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.02gas [Google Scholar]
  10. Granger, S.
    2003 The Corpus Approach: A Common Way Forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies?InCorpus-Based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies, S. Granger, J. Lerot and S. Petch-Tyson (eds), 17–29. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004486638_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004486638_004 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010 Comparable and Translation Corpora in Cross-Linguistic Research. Design, Analysis and Application. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University2: 14–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A.
    2020 Introduction: A Two-Pronged Approach to Corpus-Based Crosslinguistic Studies. Languages in Contrast20(2): 167–183. 10.1075/lic.00014.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00014.int [Google Scholar]
  13. Iordanskaja, L. and Mel’čuk, I.
    2017Le mot français dans le lexique et dans la phrase. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jackendoff, R.
    1990Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. James, C.
    1980Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Johansson, S.
    2007Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kameyama, M., Ochitani, R. and Peters, S.
    1991 Resolving Translation Mismatches with Information Flow. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’91). Berkeley, USA, 18–21June 1991 Association for Computational Linguistics. 193–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Knittel, M.-L.
    2009 Le statut des compléments du nom [de NP]. Canadian Journal of Linguistics2: 255–299. 10.1017/S0008413100001250
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100001250 [Google Scholar]
  19. Koch, P.
    2003 Metataxe bei Lucien Tesnière. InDependent und Valenz. Eininternationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, V. Ágael (ed.), 144–159. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A.
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, F.
    1997 Cross-Linguistic Lexicalization Patterns: Diachronic Evidence from Verb-Complement Compounds in Chinese. Sprachtypologie und Unversalienforschung3: 229–252.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, M.
    1997 Conceptual Basis and Categorial Structure: A Study of Mandarin VR Compounds as a Radial Category. Chinese Language and Linguistics4: 425–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Malblanc, A.
    1968Stylistique comparée du français et de l’allemand. Paris: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mel’čuk, I.
    1988Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. New-York: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1997Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon Inaugurale. Paris: Collège de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2009 Dependency in Natural Language. InDependency in Linguistic Description, A. Polguère and I. Mel’čuk (eds), 1–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.111.03mel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.111.03mel [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol.1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.129
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.129 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol.2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.135
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.135 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2014 The East/South-East Asian Answer to the European Passive. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana10(3): 451–472.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mel’čuk, I. and Milićević, J.
    2014Introduction à la linguistique. Vol.1. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mel’čuk, I. and Savvina, E.
    1978 Toward a Formal Model of Alutor Surface Syntax: Predicative and Completive Constructions. LanguageSpecial Issue: 5–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mel’čuk, I. and Wanner, L.
    2001 Towards a Lexicographic Approach to Lexical Transfer in Machine Translation. Machine Translation16(1): 21–87. 10.1023/A:1013136005350
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013136005350 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 Syntactic Mismatches in Machine Translation. Machine Translation20(2): 81–138. 10.1007/s10590‑006‑9013‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-006-9013-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Miao, J.
    2012 Approches textométriques de la notion de style du traducteur. PhD Thesis, University of Sorbonne Nouvelle.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Milićević, J.
    2006 A Short Guide to the Meaning-Text Linguistic Theory. Journal of Koralex8: 187–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2007La paraphrase: Modélisation de la paraphrase langagière. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0096‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0096-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mille, S., Belz, A., Bohnet, B. and Wanner, L.
    2018 Underspecified Universal Dependency Structures as Inputs for Multilingual Surface Realisation. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG ’18). Tilburg, Netherlands, 5–8November 2018 Association for Computational Linguistics. 199–209. 10.18653/v1/W18‑6527
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-6527 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nguyen, V. T. É.
    2006 Unité lexicale et morphologie en chinois mandarin. Vers l’élaboration d’un Dictionnaire Explicatif et Combinatoire du chinois. PhD Thesis, Montreal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M.-C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajič, J., Manning, C. D., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., Silveira, N., Tsarfaty, R. and Zeman, D.
    2016 Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’16). Portorož, Slovenia, 23–28May 2016 European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 1659–1666.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Peyraube, A.
    2006 Motion Events in Chinese: A Diachronic Study of Directional Complements. InSpace in Language: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds), 121–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.08pey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.08pey [Google Scholar]
  41. Poiret, R. and Liu, H.
    2019 Les dépendants adnominaux prépositionnels en français : Relations syntaxiques de surface dans le syntagme N→SP. Le français moderne87(2): 259–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Polguère, A.
    2011 Perspective épistémologique sur l’approche linguistique Sens-Texte. Mémoires de la Société Linguistique de ParisXX : 79–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2014 Rection nominale : Retour sur les constructions évaluatives. Travaux de linguistique68(1): 83–102. 10.3917/tl.068.0083
    https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.068.0083 [Google Scholar]
  44. Samuelsson, Y. and Volk, M.
    2006 Phrase Alignment in Parallel Treebanks. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (LTT ’06). Prague, Czech Republic, 1–2December 2006 91–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmied, J.
    2004 Translation Corpora in Contrastive Research, Translation and Language Learning. Tradterm10: 83–115. 10.11606/issn.2317‑9511.tradterm.2004.47047
    https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.tradterm.2004.47047 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2009 Contrastive Corpus Studies. InCorpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), 1140–1159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schubert, K.
    1987Metataxis. Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation. Distributed Language Translation 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110876062
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110876062 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shi, W. and Wu, Y.
    2014 Which Way to Move: The Evolution of Motion Expressions in Chinese. Linguistics52: 1237–1292. 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shi, W., Yang, W. and Su, H.
    2018 The Typological Change of Motion Expressions in Chinese Revisited: Motion Events in Old Chinese and its Modern Chinese Translation. Studies in Language42(4): 847–885. 10.1075/sl.18010.shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18010.shi [Google Scholar]
  50. Sun, Y.
    2012 Étude contrastive des ordres des mots et des propositions en français et en chinois. PhD Thesis, Wuhan University.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Talmy, L.
    2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tesnière, L.
    1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tiedemann, J.
    2012 Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’12). Istanbul, Turkey, 21–27May 2012 European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 2214–2218.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Xiao, R. and McEnery, T.
    2010Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Yin, H.
    2010 The So-Called Chinese VV compounds: A Continuum between Lexicon and Syntax. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA ’10). Montreal, Canada, 29–31May 2010 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese/French; Meaning-Text Theory; parallel treebank; Paraphrase; syntactic mismatch
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error