Enriching Knowledge Representation of Terminology
A Cognitive Integrated Perspective
Keywords:terminology, integration, cognitive linguistics, knowledge representation
Whereas a number of studies have been conducted towards representing knowledge linked with terms, terminological knowledge still demands further exploration due to its diversity and intricacy. Although much recent cognitive terminological research has examined either frames or event structures based on specialized contexts and hence has helped improve the clarification of relevant knowledge representation, other types of knowledge structures tied to terms like metaphoric and metonymic structures as well as conceptual blending processes of terms have not yet been adequately investigated. In view of this gap, we put forward a cognitive integrated model (CIM), attempting to integrate cognitive structures and construction of terms in a holistic manner. In this study, we mainly center on integration of the decontextualized part: the adapted (ECM1), conceptual metaphor (CM1), conceptual metonymy (CM2), and conceptual blending (CB1) in light of terminological definitions without context, acting as offline knowledge of terms. Integration of the contextualized part is briefly discussed, merely about the adjusted ECM within context (ECM2) as online knowledge. The tentative incorporation of both offline and online knowledge of terms derives at least five particular variants of the CIM: ECM1+ECM2, ECM1+CB1+ECM2, ECM1+CM1+CB1+ECM2, ECM1+CM2+CB1+ECM2, ECM1+CM1+CM2+CB1+ECM2. Accordingly, both definition-based and usage-based methods are exploited, respectively backed up by dictionaries or professional works and corpora, etc. We subsequently apply the five variants to representing Event-Domain Cognitive Model knowledge of international trade terms previously seldom explored in terminology. It turns out that the cognitive integrated perspective contributes to enriching knowledge representation of the terms by exposing diverse knowledge structures and conceptual construction.
Baisa, V., Ulipová, B., and Cukr, M. (2015). Bilingual terminology extraction in Sketch Engine. In A. Horák, P. Rychlý, and A. Rambousek (Eds.), Ninth Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, pp. 61–67. Brno: Tribun EU.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cabezas-García, M. and León-Araúz, P. (2020). Term variation in terminographic resources: A review and a proposal. In Z. Gavriilidou, M. Mitsiaki, and A. Fliatouras (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIX EURALEX International Congress, pp. 405–414. Alexandroupolis: Euralex.
Cabré, C. and Teresa, M. (1999). Terminology Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.1
Cabré, C. and Teresa, M. (2003). Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation. Terminology, 9(2), 163–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/ term.9.2.03cab
Coetzee, J. (2010). INCOTERMS as a Form of Standardisation in International Sales Law: An Analysis of the Interplay Between Mercantile Custom and Substantive Sales Law with Specific Reference to the Passing of Risk. PhD Thesis, University of Stellenbosch.
Cremades, A. (2020). How to effectively determine your market size. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrocremades/2018/09/23/how-to-effectively-determineyour-market-size. Accessed 14 February 2020.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370.
Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Terms of Trade: Glossary of international economics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Diniz da Costa, A., Gamonal, M. A., Paiva, V. M. R. L., Marção, N. D., Peron-Corrêa, S., Almeida, V. G., Matos, E. E. S., and
Torrent, T. T. (2018). FrameNet-based modeling of the domains of tourism and sports for the development of a personal travel assistant application. In ELRA (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), pp. 6–12. Japan: Miyazaki.
Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Faber, P. (2011). The dynamics of specialized knowledge representation: Simulational reconstruction or the perception-action interface. Terminology, 17(1), 9–29. https:// doi.org/10.1075/term.17.1.02fab
Faber, P. (Ed.) (2012). A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110277203
Faber, P. (2015). Frames as a framework for terminology. Handbook of Terminology, 1(14), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/hot.1.fra1
Faber, P., León-Araúz, P., and Reimerink, A. (2016). EcoLexicon: New features and challenges. In I. Kernerman, I. Kosem Trojina, S. Krek, and L. Trap-Jensen (Eds.)., GLOBALEX 2016: Lexicographic Resources for Human Language Technology in Conjunction with the 10th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pp. 73–80, Slovenia: Portorož.
Faber, P., Linares, M., and Vega Expósito, M. (2005). Framing terminology: A process-oriented approach. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50(4). http://id.erudit.org/ iderudit/019916ar
Faber, P., León-Araúz, P., Velasco, J. A. P., and Reimerink, A. (2007). Linking images and words: The description of specialized concepts. International Journal of Lexicography, 20(1): 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecl038
Faber, P. and Cabezas-García, M. (2019). Specialized knowledge representation: From terms to frames. Research in Language, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.2478/ rela-2019-0012
Faber, P. and León-Araúz, P. (2021). Designing terminology resources for environmental translation. In C. Meng Ji and S. Laviosa (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation and Social Practices, pp. 587–616. New York: Oxford University Press. https:// doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067205.013.7
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80038-X
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books. Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2006). Conceptual integration networks. In D. Geer-
aerts, R. Dirven and J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, pp. 303–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fu, H. (2015). Theory and Practice of International Trade. Beijing: University of International Business and Economics Press.
Gamonal, M.A. and Torrent, T. T. (2016). The linguistic-computational modeling of metonymy in the FrameNet Brasil lexical database: A case study. LinguíStica, 12(1), 82–94.
Gaudin, F. (1993). Pour une Socioterminologie: Des problèmes pratiques aux pratiques institutionnelles. Rouen: Publications de l’Université de Rouen. https://doi. org/10.7202/002116ar
Gaudin, F. (2003). Socioterminologie: Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Bruxelles: Duculot. https://doi.org/10.7202/009359ar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbs, R. W. and Steen, G. (1999). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gorjanc, V. (2009). Terminology resources and terminological data management for medical interpreters. In D. Andres and S. Pöllabauer (Eds.), Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich. Is everything all topsy turvy in your tummy? Healthcare Interpreting, pp. 85–95. München: Meidenbauer.
Kerremans, K. (2004). Categorisation frameworks in termontography.” Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series, 3, 263–277. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
Kerremans K., Temmerman, R., and Joep, T. (2003). Representing multilingual and culture-specific knowledge in a VAT regulatory ontology: Support from the termontography method. In R. Meersman and Z. Tari (Eds.), Proceedings of On The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: OTM 2003 Workshops, pp. 662–674, Heidelberg, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39962-9_68
Kilgarriff, A., Jakubí?ek, M., Ková?, V., Rychlý, P., and Suchomel, V. (2014). Finding terms in corpora for many languages with the Sketch Engine. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 53–56. Gothenburg, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/ E14-2014
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2018). Metaphor in media language and cognition: A perspective from conceptual metaphor theory. Lege Artis, 3(1), 124–141.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Descriptive Application, Vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226700000177
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar.
Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857733 León-Araúz, P. and Cabezas-García, M. (2020). Term and translation variation of mul-
tiword terms. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, (Special Issue 6), 210–247. http://lexicon.ugr.es/cabezas
León-Araúz, P., Cabezas-García, M., and Arianne, R. (2020). Representing multiword term variation in a terminological knowledge base: A corpus-based study. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pp. 2351–2360. Marseille, Paris: ELRA.
L’Homme, M. (2018). Maintaining the balance between knowledge and the lexicon in terminology: A methodology based on frame semantics. Lexicography, 4(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-018-0034-1
Lu, J. (2011). Language memes and the event-domain cognitive model: With special reference to the “Renrou Hunt” event. Modern Foreign Languages, 34(3), 254–261.
Malfliet, J. (2011). Incoterms 2010 and the mode of transport: How to choose the right term. In Management Challenges in the 21st Century: Transport and Logistics: Opportunity for Slovakia in the Era of Knowledge Economy Proceedings, pp. 163–179. Bratislava, Slovakia: City University of Seattle Bratislava.
Panther, K. and Thornburg, L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English grammar. In K. U. Panther and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, pp. 333–357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. https://doi. org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
Peng, Y. (2019). The event-domain cognitive model perspective on terminology: A case study of atmospheric environment terms. Lexicography, 6(1), 43–67. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40607-019-00054-w
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, pp. 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 151–157. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphoric and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, and K. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, pp. 293–337. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Tang, G. and Gu, J. (2017). An ECM+-based study on the naming model of dishes. Foreign Language and Literature, 33(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn. 1674-6414.2017.02.013
Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards New Ways of Terminological Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3
Temmerman, R. (2017). Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive terminology and traditional terminology. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 10(18), 51–90. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication.
Temmerman, R. and Kerremans, K. (2003). Termontography: Ontology building and the sociocognitive approach to terminology description. In E. Hajicová, A. Koteovcová, and J. Mírovský (Eds.), Proceedings of CIL 17, pp. 1–10, Prague: Matfyzpress.
Ureña Gómez-Moreno, J. M. and Faber, P. (2020). What the analysis of extended meaning of terms can reveal about verb semantic frame structure. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 40(1). 1–21. http://lexicon.ugr.es/faber
Wang, Y. (2005). The event-domain cognitive model. Modern Foreign Languages, 28(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-6105.2005.01.003
Wüster, E. (1976). International activity in Terminology: 75 years of research – foundations and challenge for the rest of the century. In International Co-operation in Terminology: First Infoterm Symposium: Vienna, 9 to 11 April 1975, Infoterm Series 3, pp. 32–36. München: Verlag Dokumentation.
Business Dictionary, www.businessdictionary.com. Accessed 14 January 2020.
Economic Glossary, https://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/international+trade. Accessed 14 February 2020.
Glossary of International Trade Terms: 2016 Guide, http://www.latradeconnect.org/ wp-content/uploads/documents/International_Trade_Terms_2016.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2020.
The Sketch Engine, https://the.sketchengine.co.uk. Accessed 23 December 2019.