• Proceedings of the Korea Society of Information Technology Applications Conference
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.103-104
• /
• 2001

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.109-143
• /
• 2016

This article examines distinctive linguistic shifts of translational English in an effort to verify the validity of the translation universals hypotheses, including simplification, explicitation, normalization and leveling-out, which have been most heavily explored to date. A large-scale study involving comparable corpora of translated and non-translated English newspaper texts has been carried out to typify particular linguistic attributes inherent in translated texts. The main findings are as follows. First, by employing the parameters of STTR, top-to-bottom frequency words, and mean values of sentence lengths, the translational instances of simplification have been detected across the translated English newspaper corpora. In contrast, the portion of function words produced contrary results, which in turn suggests that this feature might not constitute an effective test of the hypothesis. Second, it was found that the use of connectives was more salient in original English newspaper texts than translated English texts, being incompatible with the explicitation hypothesis. Third, as an indicator of translational normalization, lexical bundles were found to be more pervasive in translated texts than in non-translated texts, which is expected from and therefore support the normalization hypothesis. Finally, the standard deviations of both STTR and mean sentence lengths turned out to be higher in translated texts, indicating that the translated English newspaper texts were less leveled out within the same corpus group, which is opposed to what the leveling-out hypothesis postulates. Overall, the results suggest that not all four hypotheses may qualify for the label translation universals, or at least that some translational predictors are not feasible enough to evaluate the effectiveness of the translation universals hypotheses.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2024

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology is recognized as a key technology that will determine future national competitiveness, competition for AI technology and industry promotion policies in major countries is intensifying. This study aims to present implications for domestic policy making by analyzing the policies of major countries on the start-up of AI companies, which are the basis of the AI industry ecosystem. The top four countries and the EU for the number of new investment attraction companies in the 2023 AI Index announced by the HAI Research Institute at Stanford University in the United States were selected, The United States enacted the National AI Initiative Act (NAIIA) in 2021. Through this law, The US Government is promoting continued leadership in the United States in AI R&D, developing reliable AI systems in the public and private sectors, building an AI system ecosystem across society, and strengthening DB management and access to AI policies conducted by all federal agencies. In the 14th Five-Year (2021-2025) Plan and 2035 Long-term Goals held in 2021, China has specified AI as the first of the seven strategic high-tech technologies, and is developing policies aimed at becoming the No. 1 AI global powerhouse by 2030. The UK is investing in innovative R&D companies through the 'Future Fund Breakthrough' in 2021, and is expanding related investments by preparing national strategies to leap forward as AI leaders, such as the implementation plan of the national AI strategy in 2022. Israel is supporting technology investment in start-up companies centered on the Innovation Agency, and the Innovation Agency is leading mid- to long-term investments of 2 to 15 years and regulatory reforms for new technologies. The EU is strengthening its digital innovation hub network and creating the InvestEU (European Strategic Investment Fund) and AI investment fund to support the use of AI by SMEs. This study aims to contribute to analyzing the policies of major foreign countries in making AI company start-up policies and providing a basis for Korea's strategy search. The limitations of the study are the limitations of the countries to be analyzed and the failure to attempt comparative analysis of the policy environments of the countries under the same conditions.