1 http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~atn/AnitaNuopponen/ConceptSys.html Concept Systems For Terminological Analysis - Summary in English Nuopponen, Anita (1994). Begreppssystem för terminologisk analysis (Concept systems for terminological analysis). Acta Wasaensia No 38, 266 p. CONCEPT SYSTEMS FOR TERMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS - Summary Introduction The main purpose of this study is to devise a framework for the classification of concept systems and concept relations and in this way to develop the current basic conceptual apparatus for terminological analysis. Concept systems constitute in many respects a particularly interesting object of research. They are of interest not only to terminology science but also to philosophy, the general theory of science, psychology, artificial intelligence, lexicology, semantics, pedagogy, information science, classification theory, database development, etc. All these disciplines represent different views of concept systems. Concept systems are fundamental to human existence. They are part of man's mental activity, of his ability to structure experience and knowledge. The organization of concepts and the linguistic coding of experiences, observations, etc. are especially important to the specialist, since more exacting demands are made on concept formation and classification in special subject fields than in everyday life. The concepts required in everyday communication are vague and more or less unconscious in comparison with those in special fields. The specialist needs a sophisticated conceptual apparatus and a system of terms to cope with his professional duties. He is also frequently faced with the task of developing, revising, defining, standardizing, structuring, classifying and naming concepts. Researchers in the field of terminology science are concerned with the conscious structuring of concept systems as carried out in different special fields, while, for instance, psychologists also investigate unconscious structures. The importance of concept systems to special languages was stressed by Eugen Wüster (18981977), who laid the foundations of the theory the General Theory of Terminology which serves as the theoretical basis for the present study. Wüster's successors have also stressed the importance of concept systems to terminological analysis and terminology work, but no comprehensive investigation has been produced in this domain. In many quarters, not least among those concerned with the development of term banks, further development of terminological theory in this respect has been wished for. Thanks to the computer, the graphical representation of concept systems is no longer equally circumscribed as earlier. It is now possible to illustrate quite complex systems comprising different types of concept relations and to retrieve these when needed. However, this makes certain demands on the accuracy of theory and methods, which means that a more sophisticated conceptual apparatus is required for the work. Besides, attention has been drawn to the need for a theoretical framework which could also be used in other special fields than those of science and technology. Thus both the inadequate current theory and practical demands have given an impetus to undertaking the present investigation.
Concept Systems For Terminological Analysis - Summary in English
Nuopponen, Anita (1994). Begreppssystem för terminologisk analysis (Concept systemsfor terminological analysis). Acta Wasaensia No 38, 266 p.
CONCEPT SYSTEMS FOR TERMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS - Summary
Introduction
The main purpose of this study is to devise a framework for the classification of conceptsystems and concept relations and in this way to develop the current basic conceptualapparatus for terminological analysis.
Concept systems constitute in many respects a particularly interesting object of research. Theyare of interest not only to terminology science but also to philosophy, the general theory ofscience, psychology, artificial intelligence, lexicology, semantics, pedagogy, informationscience, classification theory, database development, etc. All these disciplines representdifferent views of concept systems.
Concept systems are fundamental to human existence. They are part of man's mental activity,of his ability to structure experience and knowledge. The organization of concepts and thelinguistic coding of experiences, observations, etc. are especially important to the specialist,since more exacting demands are made on concept formation and classification in specialsubject fields than in everyday life. The concepts required in everyday communication arevague and more or less unconscious in comparison with those in special fields. The specialistneeds a sophisticated conceptual apparatus and a system of terms to cope with his professionalduties. He is also frequently faced with the task of developing, revising, defining, standardizing,structuring, classifying and naming concepts.
Researchers in the field of terminology science are concerned with the conscious structuring ofconcept systems as carried out in different special fields, while, for instance, psychologists alsoinvestigate unconscious structures. The importance of concept systems to special languageswas stressed by Eugen Wüster (18981977), who laid the foundations of the theory the GeneralTheory of Terminology which serves as the theoretical basis for the present study. Wüster'ssuccessors have also stressed the importance of concept systems to terminological analysisand terminology work, but no comprehensive investigation has been produced in this domain. Inmany quarters, not least among those concerned with the development of term banks, furtherdevelopment of terminological theory in this respect has been wished for. Thanks to thecomputer, the graphical representation of concept systems is no longer equally circumscribedas earlier. It is now possible to illustrate quite complex systems comprising different types ofconcept relations and to retrieve these when needed. However, this makes certain demands on
the accuracy of theory and methods, which means that a more sophisticated conceptualapparatus is required for the work. Besides, attention has been drawn to the need for atheoretical framework which could also be used in other special fields than those of science andtechnology. Thus both the inadequate current theory and practical demands have given animpetus to undertaking the present investigation.
Wüster provides the point of departure for the development of my theory, but I endeavour topresent a synthesis of several different approaches, modifying them and supplementing themwith concepts and divisions of my own. I rely for the most part on terminological literature, butalso on linguistic, semantic, philosophical and other literature in which concept systems and
concept relations or similar matters are dealt with. The terminological literature consists mainlyof terminology standards, handbooks, textbooks, articles, conference papers, etc. Someunpublished material is also included, for instance notes from the Wüster Library at Infoterm inVienna.
The study first deals with general aspects of concept systems qua systems and their properties.Next the theory of terminology is contrasted with different methods and theories and conceptstructures used in studying and structuring the data and concepts of several other disciplines. Inthe third and fourth chapters I consider the components connected with concept systems, i.e.concepts and concept relations, and work out a preliminary classification of concept relations.This classification serves as a point of departure for the classification and description of conceptsystems in the fifth chapter.
Concept Systems
The concept of concept system, which is one of the most central theoretical notions in thetheory of terminology, is usually defined in terminological literature as a system of relatedconcepts which form a coherent whole. Starting from the idea of system, concept systems couldbe regarded as systems consisting of several components (concepts) and their relations(concept relations). They are mental, i.e. abstract, artificial, theoretical, man- made systems.They are static because they represent the conceptual apparatus reflecting the knowledgewhich exists at a particular time. New data result in new concepts, and the emergence of newconcepts changes existing concept systems as has repeatedly happened for instance in thehistory of biology.
It is important for terminology research to distinguish between ontical systems, concept systemsand term systems. These three levels have their analogues in the classical semantic triangle,which relates object, concept and designation to one another. The ontical level represents theworld and material and immaterial things; at the conceptual level we find concepts and at thelevel of expression there are the linguistic and other symbols, which are used to refer toconcepts. This study is mainly concerned with the first two levels.
I distinguish between macro and micro concept systems. The concept system at macro levelencomprises all the concepts within a special subject field or a clearly-defined sectionregardless of the relations between them. A macro system consists of several micro conceptsystems in which the concept relations are more homogeneous. These micro systems are what
terminology science has normally been concerned with, and they will not be unimportant in thefuture either. All the possibilities of organizing concepts at micro level have not yet beenchartered, nor have all types of relations been defined. I focus for the most part on the microlevel, but at the end of the fifth chapter I propose models for mixed concept systems which cancover several different types of micro concept systems.
Concept relations and concept systems are inseparable, since without relationships there wouldbe no system, and since relationships depend on the systemic context. Concept relations maybe strictly logical connections or freer associations between one concept and another. They aremental entities which link concepts to one another. Concept relations are thus one type of
concept, concepts of relationship, and, like other concepts, they are the result of abstraction.Their referents are the relations between individual entities, whether it is a question of similarityor other relations.
In terminological literature concept relations are classified in many different ways, which at leastpartly seems to depend on the point of view adopted. Nor is there any agreement concerningthe terms used for concept relations. In connection with concept relations it is also important todistinguish the ontical from the conceptual level because it is sometimes difficult to keep thesetwo levels apart, especially as far as ontological concept relations are concerned. Ontologicalconcept relations are namely based on ontical relations and they are simplifications ofrelationships which can be observed among individual real-world phenomena.
The difference between the various types of concept systems depends on what kinds ofrelationships exist between the concepts which they encomprise. I distinguish between threedifferent points of view from which concept relations can be viewed and classified: a) conceptrelations which determine the type of concept system (qualitative relations), b) relationshipsconcerned with the intension or extension of the concepts (quantitative relations: intensional andextensional) and c) formal relations which obtain between the concepts in a concept system(systemic relations) (see fig. 136). It is difficult to draw a line between these as all three groupsof relations are intertwined in diverse ways. The purpose of this classification is on the one handto bring together the different ways of viewing concept relations which are represented interminological literature and on the other hand to create new concepts of relations and modifythe old.
Figure 136. Concept relations.
The classification above is based on the hypothesis that a concept analysis is carried out inthree stages: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis and system-oriented analysis. The firststage establishes which one of the three basic types of relation is involved; in the second stagethis relation is further scrutinized, and in the third the position of the concepts in the conceptsystem is defined. This is, of course, only a model; in reality it is difficult to keep these threephases apart.
Qualitative aspects of concept relations and concept systems
The qualitative classification of concept relations is fundamental and forms the basis for theprimary division of the concept system as presented here. The division is not based on a singlecriterion but is among other things determined by what type the concepts represent, e.g.whether they are object or process concepts. In accordance with Wüster I divide both concept
relations and concept systems first into logical and ontological categories and then further intotheir subcategories. It is stated that the essential difference between logical (or generic) andontological concept relations is that logical concept relations are immediate relations betweenconcepts while ontological concept relations between concepts arise indirectly (see Wüster1985: 9, 12).
Figure 137. Qualitative concept relations.
In agreement with Wüster I further divide the ontological concept relations into concept relationsof contiguity and concept relations of influence. Among concept relations of contiguity I includepartitive concept relations (house roof, door); accessorial concept relations (camera tripod, film);local concept relations (lake fish, algae); material concept relations (beer alcohol); attributiveconcept relations (wool warmth); temporal concept relations (pre-wash washing); and conceptrelations of rank (president vice- president).
Concept relations of influence I divide into causal concept relations, developmental conceptrelations, functional concept relations and interactional concept relations. They relate to
processes of influencing and causing and have a more or less marked causal component. Incausal concept relations the causal component is the most prominent. They can all formconcept systems.
Developmental concept relations comprise phylogenetic concept relations (the development of aspecies), genealogical concept relations (e.g. father son), ontogenetic concept relations(chrysalis butterfly), material developmental concept relations (e.g. crude oil petrol), andconcept relations of role change (e.g. accused guilty). They can all form more or lesscomprehensive concept systems.
Functional concept relations I divide into concept relations of activity and concept relations oforigin which, especially in terms of concept systems, resemble each other. The primary conceptin a functional concept system constitutes the point from which the other concepts are viewed(Haarala 1981: 25). Concept relations of activity obtain between a concept of activity and oneor more concepts linked with it, e.g. concepts referring to object, instrument, material, etc. Theelement which relations of origin have in common is the concept of a concrete or abstract entitywhile the other concepts refer to the origin of the object (e.g. original material, producer,instrument, manufacturing method, manufacturing process, place of origin, etc.). The term'function' is here used in a very broad sense.
Interactional conceptual relations are based on an interplay of referent phenomena. I dividethem into concept relations of transmission, dependency and representation. The first one is
based on the relation between agents in a process of transmission in which A gives / sends / transmits something to B (e.g. transmitter receiver, coder decoder) while the other is based onvarious types of economic, legal and other similar relations which may obtain between differentparties (e.g. employer employee), and the third refers to the relation between an entity and itsrepresentative (e.g. concept term, people parliament).
Table 37. Concept systems based on the qualitative concept relation
Concept systems
logical concept systems ontological concept systems
o concept systems of contiguity partitive concept systems accessorial concept systems local concept systems material concept systems attributive concept systems temporal concept systems: with concept systems of succession or
process concept systems of rank
o concept systems of influence causal concept systems (stress on cause effect) developmental concept systems (stress on change)
functional concept systems (stress on activity/origin of an object) interactional concept systems (stress on interactivity of participators)
Quantitative aspects of concept relations and concept systems
Formerly only the logical concept relations were described from a quantitative point of view, butI assume that this kind of approach could be extended and the same criteria applied whenanalysing other types of relations to the extent that this is feasible and expedient. I make use of
quantitative classification in this context, however, mainly when dealing with logical and partitiveconcept relations. As regards logical concept systems, quantitative analysis is fruitful and, inconjunction with systemic analysis, leads to a classification of these types of system (seebelow).
With reference to the classification of logical concept relations it is expedient to regard the
intension of a concept as comprising its characteristics and the extension of a concept ascomprising a number of subordinate concepts or referents and to deal with them quantitatively.Therefore I divide quantitative relations into intensional and extensional and distinguish bothintensional and extensional identity, inclusion, disjunction, intersection and conjunction.When comparing the concepts in a partitive concept system, it is not possible to use extensionor intension as criteria in the same way as in connection with logical concept systems, but thecomparison is made in terms of the sum of components. It would thus also be possible toanalyse the partitive concept systems at least to some extent in terms of quantitative relations(identity, inclusion, overlapping, disjunction) and not only restrict these to logical conceptsystems. The study of further possibilities of applying quantitative criteria in other conceptsystem is left for future research.
Systemic aspects of concept systems
The last category of concept relations is the system-oriented one, which at the same time is analternative way of classifying all concept systems. The starting-point is the formal properties ofconcept systems, for instance the direction of the relation and the position of the concepts inrelation to each other. On the basis of such criteria it is usual to distinguish between hierarchicand non-hierarchic concept relations.
The types of concept system that have been classified on the basis of qualitative criteria seemto fall into three different structural categories. Two of them are hierarchic and sequentialconcept systems. The characteristic property of hierarchic concept systems is that they have asuperordinate concept to which the other concepts are subordinate.
The logical concept systems are hierarchic and they can be divided into different categoriesaccording to their structure: mono/polyhierarchic systems, mono/polydimensional systems andcombinatory and non- combinatory systems (see table). The concept systems with contiguityrelations belong more or less distinctly to hierarchic concept systems.
The sequential concept systems make reference to temporal connections between phenomenaand consequently contain simultaneous and consecutive concept relations. They thus forinstance contain concepts that refer to the beginning and the end (if applicable) and tointermediate stages. Sequential concept systems are usually presented as a type of non-hierarchic concept systems without distinguishing any other subcategories.
In addition, in my classification there are systems in which no particular hierarchy nor anydefinite temporal order between concepts can be perceived. To this group belong functional andinteractional concept systems as described above. Causal concept systems constitute aborderline case as they contain sequential relations but other relations as well (e.g. relationsbased on co-ordination of cause). Some of the relations in functional concept systems couldalso be considered sequential. The individual functional concept systems at micro level oftenhave an unambiguous primary concept, but if a greater number of concepts are included, asystem with several potential primary concepts will easily develop. Which concept assumes therole of primary concept in a system depends on the angle of approach. In a scheme on a larger
scale, for instance a computer-aided presentation, the question of primary concept may even bequite arbitrary. These concept systems are difficult to classify as either hierarchic or sequential. Isuggest the term 'heterarchic concept system' for this type of concept system. The term'heterarchy' is defined by Collins Dictionary (1989: 719) as "a formal organization of connectednodes, without any single permanent uppermost node". Heterarchic concept systems could thusbe defined as concept systems whose structure instead of displaying hierarchy or sequence
resembles a network with several possible points of departure or primary concepts.
Table 38. Concept systems according to the formal structure.
Concept systems
hierarchic concept systems (the concepts in a hierarchy, usually with a superordinateconcept):
logical concept systemsmonohierarchic logical concept system (one superordinate for
each concept) polyhierarchic logical concept system (several superordinates for a concept) monodimensional logical concept system (one criterion of division on each node) polydimensional logical concept system (several criterion on one node) combinatory logical concept system (concepts can be combined with each other) non-combinatory logical concept system (concepts cannot be combined) concept systems based on contiguity (except temporal concept system)
sequential (concepts in a sequence or in parallel alternative or coordinate chains)
temporal concept system causal concept system (mostly) developmental concept system
heterarchic (several concepts can function as superordinates depending on viewpoint)
o (causal concept systems, partly)o functional concept systemso concept systems with interactional relations (purely heterarchic systems)o satellite systems
In addition to the concept systems mentioned above I also include mixed conceptsystems in my classification. They can be mixed hierarchic systems and mixed systemscomprising relations from different systemic categories. Heterarchic concept systems arevery often mixed by nature. Both types of functional concept systems can thus bedivided into homogenous and heterogeneous systems; the former including only onetype of functional concept relations while the latter include several types of relations. Asa model for a macro concept system I introduce a concept system that I call 'satellite
system' (see fig. 130133). The idea of a satellite system is that the most importantconcept or a title is placed at a node and its different aspects or most closely relatedconcepts are arranged around it. These "satellites" in their turn take their own satellitesetc. until, finally, the whole subject field is covered. The satellite systems can be used indifferent phases of terminological analysis: first they serve as an ordering device whencollecting concepts and terms, in the second phase they connect different micro concept
systems to each other and finally they provide the macro concept system of the subjectfield under scrutiny.
Conclusion
There are many possibilities and approaches with regard to the structuring of conceptsystems. In the present study I have summed up several of them and endeavoured todevise a consistent conceptual apparatus and terminology. The classifications ofconcept relations and concept systems presented here are far from exhaustive and final,for the more closely concept systems and concept relations are examined, the moretypes of relations emerge and the more types of concept systems could be included inthe classification. Similarly, with regard to the development of their designations more
work is needed. At this stage I employ terms which are long but give some clue to theconcept.
The classification can be developed and expanded through further research in the field. Ihave aimed at universal applicability but some of the concept relations and conceptsystems described above are of limited use. If the classification is pursued further, onewill soon arrive at categories which are more or less dependent on the subject fieldconcerned. These problems are for other research projects to deal with.
Further efforts are also needed to devise graphic methods of presentation and notationssuited to each type of relation and each type of system. Wüster devoted a great deal oftime to creating a notation system for concept relations, which, however, became socomplicated that it has not been adopted. He used notations which are rather difficult toremember and to reproduce on a screen. In the present study I have instead laidemphasis on describing and exemplifying different types of systems without developinga consistent system for graphic representation or notation.
The aim of this study has been theoretical, and therefore I have not dealt with possibleapplications of concept systems in greater detail. The needs of terminological analysishave however, been, a guiding factor. It is my hope that part of what I have proposedhere can be used for the development of tools for terminological work, especially inconnection with computer applications, but also for the analysis of terms and conceptsfor various other purposes.
