Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Translation — translation and its theory — equivalence and its kinds (formal, dynamic, functional), interpretive resemblance, register and quality assessment, translation as skopos-driven action, intersemiotic translation between media, and what a translation preserves or changes (ADR-033).
5 of 52 ARG documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARG-014 | Agreement with TV Tropes labels validates the structural account of tropes | A155 presents TV Tropes as “the clearest large-scale empirical setting” for the structural account of tropes (CLAIM-147). Trope descriptions are written from their examples, and examples are added that fit the descriptions, so a measure that predicts the labels predicts editorial agreement. Rejected for labels used as the test. A178’s Study B control would answer it; A218 drops the control. | Rejected |
| ARG-017 v2 | A constant kernel fits any one source–target pair, so one pair does not identify the procedure-level fidelity score | The derivation behind CLAIM-228: for one source–target pair a constant kernel makes the per-item term zero, so one pair does not identify the procedure-level score. It holds for CLAIM-228’s version 2 title. As an inference to version 1’s title, that observational fidelity “is not defined” for a single rendering, it failed, and CLAIM-200 granted that. | Proposed |
| ARG-026 | Judged pragmatic observables that predict human judgements of fidelity or shared kind better than text similarity support the central theses of the pragmatic-transport line | The four thesis-level defeat conditions of the line share one test, CASE-184, and a pass on it was to support the theses. Rejected: two critical questions fail. Every rival account the record names also predicts a pass, so “surviving them would not tell the thesis from the functional and relevance-theoretic accounts”; and predictor and criterion share a method the baseline does not, so “the theory’s measures can win by shared method variance alone”. CASE-055 is the repair. | Rejected |
| ARG-031 v2 | In the discriminating study, transport measures that beat the static pragmatic profile would show what the line adds to functional and relevance-theoretic accounts | CLAIM-202 says what the line adds is measured structure beyond a static pragmatic profile, and CASE-055 is the study that would test it. The open question is whether beating the static profile tells the thesis apart from its rivals: functional and relevance-theoretic accounts need not fix one context, so “an empirical victory may establish that context matters without establishing that the transport formalism makes a distinctive contribution”. Rejected on 2026-10-30: its undercutter CLAIM-205 is held. | Rejected |
| ARG-040 v2 | In use, an utterance is interpreted by its contrast with the alternatives its speaker could have used, so what a translation must let a receiver reconstruct is those contrasts, not the wording or the proposition | A second line to CLAIM-115, independent of Saussure, filed at the owner’s direction from ARG-033’s note that CLAIM-242 “could be the premise of a second line”. It starts from contrast in use, the rational-speech-act premise (THEORY-172) and Bergen, Goodman and Levy’s finding (LIT-809), not from value in the language system. Proposed: the reference games and the alternatives they model are much narrower than translation. | Proposed |