Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Rute Costa Christophe Roche
CLUNL – Universidade Nova de Lisboa Équipe Condillac – Université de Savoie
[email protected] christophe.roche@univ-‐savoie.fr
19th European Symposium on Languages for Special Purposes
Viena, 8 – 10 July 2013 1
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Terminology 2 dimensions
conceptual
linguis3c
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Why Rethinking ISO Conceptual Principles?
Why Rethinking ISO Linguis3cs Principles?
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
ISO 704 : 2009 -‐ Terminology work -‐ Principles and methods
ISO 1087: 2000 Terminology work — Vocabulary — Part 1: Theory and applicaWon
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
1 Scope 704
This Interna3onal Standard establishes the basic principles and methods for preparing and compiling terminologies both inside and outside the framework of standardiza3on, and describes the links between objects, concepts, and their terminological representa3ons. It also establishes general principles governing the forma3on of terms and appella3ons and the formula3on of defini3ons. Full and complete understanding of these principles requires some background knowledge of terminology work. The principles are general in nature and this Interna3onal Standard is applicable to terminology work in scien3fic, technological, industrial, administra3ve and other fields of knowledge.
This Interna3onal Standard does not s3pulate procedures for the layout of interna3onal terminology standards, which are treated in ISO 10241
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Scope 1087
This Interna3onal Standard establishes a basic vocabulary for the theory and applica3on of terminology work. It does not embrace the vocabulary dealing with computer applica3ons in terminology work which is covered by ISO 1087-‐2.
The layout is designed according to ISO 10241, unless otherwise specified.
Computer Aided Translation
(Multilingual) Specialized Dictionaries
(Multilingual) Content Management Systems
Semantic Search Engine
Knowledge Capitalization
Knowledge Mapping
e-Learning
Semantic Web
Why Rethinking ISO Conceptual Principles?
✔ Operationalization of Terminology i.e. a computational representation of the Conceptual System
The ISO conceptual principles cannot be operationalized
8
✔ Epistemological and Coherency Problems
Individual versus Individual Concept
-‐ Canada is an instance of Country , not a subordinate concept of Country
-‐ “The President of USA” is a designa@on of an individual not of a concept
DefiniWon versus DescripWon
-‐ Does “having colour” describe or define a concept? -‐ Do “having a ball on its underside” and “having colour” represent knowledge of the same nature?
Why Rethinking ISO Conceptual Principles?
9
Terminology work is mul3disciplinary and draws support from a number of disciplines (e.g. logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, linguis3cs, transla3on studies, informa3on science and cogni3ve sciences)
ISO 704:2009.p.v
✔ Logic: Specification - Consistency
✔ Epistemology: Conceptualization
✔ Knowledge engineering: Representation - Operationalization
➥ Ontology Combining Ontology & Terminology (Ontoterminology)
Propositions
Re-‐Thinking the ISO Conceptual Principles
10
- No individual - Individual concept which corresponds to only one object - General concept which corresponds to two or more objects
Individual
Concept: the definition of a concept does not depend on the cardinality of its extension (1, 2, more, or even 0)
➥ Epistemological and Logical Point of View
Propositions
Knowledge
Individual knowledge Knowledge about a plurality
Concept Individual
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Overview of the item “Designa3on”
1. 704 item 7, from page 34 to 43 2. 1087 item 3.4, from page 6 to 10
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087 7. DesignaWons 7.1 Type of designa3ons 7.2 Terms
7.2.1 Term-‐concept rela3on 7.2.2 Monosemy 7.2.3 Homonymy 7.2.4 Synonymy 7.2.5 Harmoniza3on 7.2.6 Depreca3on of terms 7.2.7 Translitera3on and transcrip3on
7.3 Appella3ons 7.4 Principles for term/appella3ons forma3on 7.5 Symbols
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087 Regarding designa3ons, some points needs to be discussed:
• Rethink the structure both standards • Reanalyse diagrams in 1087 (pag. 26 to 33) • Rewrite some defini3ons • Include or exclude some notes • Inclusion of missing concepts and/or terms • Exclusion of some concept and /or terms • Confirm that the defini3ons match in both standards • Check the internal coherence of both standards
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
1087 designaWon – representa3on of a concept by a sign which denotes it. NOTE In terminology work (3.6.1) three types of designa3ons are dis3nguished: symbols, appellaWons (3.4.2) and terms (3.4.3).
term – verbal designaWon of a general concept in a specific subject field NOTE A term may contain symbols and can have variants, e.g. different forms of spelling.
Item designation in 704 & 1087-1
designa3on
term appella3on symbol
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087 Problems to solve
(1) Terms and appela@ons are “verbal designa@ons”
(2) “Symbol” is not defined. But it is considered a designa@on! Is it a term?
(3) What about nonverbal representa@on? Is it a term? (4) Are term and designa@on synonyms?
Some@mes it looks like. Some@mes it does not
Item designation in 704 & 1087-1
?
?
term
designa3on
appella3on symbol
verbal
nonverbal representa3on
?
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
704 The designaWon acts as a synthesis of the defini@on. A designa@on is a
representa3on of a concept by linguis3c or non-‐linguis3c means
term is a designa@on consis3ng of one or more words represen3ng a general concept in a special language in a specific subject field. A simple term contains only one root, while a term containing two or more roots is called a complex term.
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087 QuesWons about “designaWon”
1. Is a designa3on a representa3on? 2. “to designate” and “ to represent” are different thinks / acts 3. The designa3on belongs to linguis3c level; the representa3on belongs to
the conceptual level ?
4. Synthesis of a defini3on ? 5. Are “designa3on” and “term” synonyms?
Rethinking terminology standards : 704 & 1087
Terms In 1087 and 704 the defini3ons given are of different nature.
1087 – the act of designate (rela3on between concept and linguis3c level) 704 – forma3on of the words that are designa3ons (morphology: exclusively linguis3c level)
Item designation 704: structure 7. Designa3ons 7.1 Type of designa3ons 7.2 Terms
7.2.1 Term-‐concept rela3on 7.2.2 Monosemy 7.2.3 Homonymy 7.2.4 Synonymy 7.2.5 Harmoniza3on 7.2.6 Depreca3on of terms 7.2.7 Translitera3on and transcrip3on
7.3 Appella3ons 7.4 Principles for term/appella3ons forma3on 7.5 Symbols
Item designation 704: structure
term / designa3on
« funcWon » term formaWon
Meaning relaWon
(« relaWon de sens »)
planifica3on / standardiza3on
22
Item designation 1087-1: structure “funcWon”: designa3on, appella3on, term (include symbol? Nonverbal representa3on?)
Sense relaWons: synonymy, antonymy, monoymy, monosemy, polysemy, homonymy
Term formaWon: simple term, complex term, abbrevia3on, acronym, ini3alism, clipped term, blend-‐term
Planning / StandardizaWon: borrowed term, preferred term, admieed term, deprecated term, obsolete term
Neoterm, terminologiza3on ??
704: structure
meaning rela3ons between terms monosemy is the rela3on between designa@ons and concepts in which one designa@on represents only one concept.
Designa@ons in such a rela3on are called monosemes. polysemy: missing. But it is defined in 1087 synonymy: shouldn’t “quasi-‐synonyme” be 7.2.5? Very important
phenomena in medicine, for instance
Language phenomena, not conceptual phenomena
Item designation 704: structure
704 Monosemy is the rela3on between designa@ons and concepts in which one designa@on represents only one concept. Designa@ons in such a rela3on are called monosemes. 1087 Monosemy: rela3on between designa3ons and concepts in a given language in which one designa3on only relates to one concept.
Note: the designa3ons in the rela3on of monosemy are called monosemes
Item designation 704: structure
seme = seman3c feature
1. Content element having a dis3nc3ve value and marking oien binary opposi3ons; 2. seme is the minimal seman3c unit, that cannot be independent and is always produced inside a seman3c configura3on
monosemy 1. univoke and stable sens in every use 2. Proprety of a word to have only one meaning
Item designation 704: structure
Polysemy rela3on between designaWons (3.4.1) and concepts (3.2.1) in a given language in which one designa3on represents two or more concepts sharing certain characterisWcs (3.2.4)
Item designation 704: structure
Polysemy
Polysemy is the propriety of a sign that has many meanings
Item designation 704: structure
An reorganiza3on of the structure, has implica3ons on the defini3ons
Why don’t we introduce the term of mono-‐referen3ality to designate the rela3on between a term and a concept, and leave monosemy for a language as a discourse property?
Item designation 704: structure
A reorganiza3on of the structure, has implica3ons on the defini3ons
Meaning rela3on Rela3on between designa3on
and concept
Monosemy mono-‐reference Polysemy poly-‐reference
Item designation 704: structure
The imprecisions and some3mes some lack of coherence in the defini3ons has consequences for terminologists work: The standards must have:
1. Good defini3ons from the conceptual and the linguis3c point of view;
2. Cannot confuse the 2 dimensions of terminology; 3. Should not privilege one of the dimensions
