View More View Less
  • 1 Centre for Special Language Studies and Communication Department of Applied Linguistics, Erasmus University College Brussels Pleinlaan 5, B-1050, Brussels, Belgium
Restricted access

Summary

In this article, we will discuss why terminological resources should be dynamic. This insight has an impact on the practical task of compiling and managing terminological resources. Dynamicity is an ambiguous term that can be used to express the ability to present terminological data in different ways, customized to specific user needs and it can also refer to terminological resources that are constantly updated in order to reflect the many conceptual and terminological changes in a domain. In the process of developing dynamic terminological resources, the ability to deal with different types of variation is of key importance. In this article, we will deal with both lexical variation (i.e. the fact that several terms may express a similar idea) and semantic variation (i.e. meaning differences between terms, synonyms and translation equivalents). We will focus on the PoCeHRMOM project in which a dynamic terminological resource of competency-based occupation profiles is developed for Flemish small and medium-sized enterprises. We will explain how different types of variation in occupation profiles are ‘managed’ and represented, using our own terminology management practices and tools.

  • 1. Aussenac-Gilles, N.Condamines, A.Szulman, S. 2002. Prise en compte de l'application dans la constitution de produits terminologiques. Actes des 2e Assises Nationales du GDR I3. Nancy–Toulouse: Cépaduès Editions. 289302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Baer, P. deKerremans, K.Temmerman, R. 2006. Bridging Communication Gaps between Legal Experts in Multilingual Europe: Discussion of a Tool for Exploring Terminological and Legal Knowledge Resources. In: Corino, E. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the XII Euralex International Congress. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso. 813818.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Bowker, L.Hawkins, S. 2006. Variation in the organisation of medical terms. Exploring some motivations for term choice. Terminology 12 (1), 79110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Byham, W. C. 1996. Developing dimension-/competency-based human resource systems. Pittsburgh, PA: DDI Press.

  • 5. Daille, B.Habert, B.Jacquemin, C.Royauté, J. 1996. Empirical Observation of Term Variations and Principles for Their Description. Terminology 3 (2), 197258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Dubuc, R. 1997. Terminology: A Practical Approach. Quebec: Linguatech.

  • 7. Evans, N. 2004. The Need for an Analysis Body of Knowledge (ABOK) – Will the Real Analyst Please Stand Up? Proceedings of Informing Science and Information Technology. Rockhampton.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Kerremans, K.Temmerman, R.Tummers, J. 2003. Representing multilingual and culture-specific knowledge in a VAT regulatory ontology: support from the termontography approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2889. 662674.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Meyer, I. 2001. Extracting knowledge-rich contexts for terminography: A conceptual and methodological framework. Recent Advances in Computational Terminology. Amsterdam–Philadephia: John Benjamins. 279302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Sharifian, F. 2003. On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3 (3), 187207.

  • 11. Sure Y. Studer, R. 2003. A methodology for Ontology-based Knowledge Management. In: Davies, J.Fensel, D.Van Hamelen, F. (eds.) Towards the Semantic Web. Ontology-Driven Knowledge Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 3346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • 13. Temmerman R. 2007. Sociocultural situatedness of terminology in the life sciences: The history of splicing. In: Frank, R.Dirven, R.Zlatev, J.Ziemke, T. (eds.) Body, Language and Mind. Vol II. Interrelations between Biology, Linguistics and Culture. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 327360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Bertels A. 2006. Les Spécificités en contexte: comment étudier la polysémie dans un corpus technique? In: Blampain, D.Thoiron, P.Van Campenhoudt, M. (eds.) Actes des septièmes Journées scientifiques du réseau de chercheurs Lexicologie Terminologie Traduction. Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines. 371380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Cabré M. T. 1999. La terminología: representación y comunicación. Elementos para una teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Barcelona: IULA.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Collet, T. 2004. What is a term? Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series (3), 99112.

  • 17. Desmet I. 2006. Variabilité et variation en terminologie et langues spécialisées: discourse, texts et contexts. In: Blampain, D.Thoiron, P.Van Campenhoudt, M. (eds.) Actes des septièmes Journées scientifiques du réseau de chercheurs Lexicologie Terminologie Traduction. Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines. 235247.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Felber, H. 1984. Terminology Manual. Vienna: Infoterm.

  • 19. Freixa, J. 2006. Causes of denominative variation in terminology. A typology proposal. Terminology 12 (1), 5177.

  • 20. Gaudin, F. 1993. Pour une socioterminologie. Des problèmes sémantiques aux pratiques institutionelles. Rouen: Publications de l'Université de Rouen.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Grefenstette, G. 1994. Explorations in Automatic Thesaurus Discovery. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • 22. Jouis, C. 1994. Contextual approach: SEEK, a linguistic and computational tool for use in knowledge acquisition. in: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference in Cognitive Science Industry. Luxemburg: Centre de recherche public. 259274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Kerremans, K. 2004. Categorisation Frameworks in Termontography. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series (3), 263278.

  • 24. Lerat, P. 1995. Les langues spécialisées. Paris: PUF.

  • 25. Montemagni, S. 1995. Subject and Object in Italian Sentence Processing. Manchester: IMIST.

  • 26. Picht, H.Draskau, J. 1985. Terminology: An Introduction. Guildford: University of Surrey.

  • 27. Rayson P. Wilson, A. 1996. The Acamrit semantic tagging system: progress report. In: Evett, L. J.Rose T.G. (eds.) Proceedings of AISB-96 Workshop on Language Engineering for Document Analysis and Recognition. Nottingham: Trent University. 1320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Reinert, M. 1986. Un logiciel d’ analyse lexicale (Alceste). Cahiers de l'Analyse des Donnees (4), 471484.

  • 29. Riloff, E.Lehnert, W. 1992. Classifying texts using relevancy signatures. in: Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language. New York: Harriman. 224229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Temmerman, R. 1997. Questioning the Univocity Ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology. Hermes 18, 5190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Wilms G. J. 1996. Using a hybrid system of corpus- and knowledge-based techniques to automate the induction of a lexical sublanguage grammar. In: Meyers, A.Yangarber, R.Grishman, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Vol. 2. 11631166.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Wüster, E. 1979. Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und in die terminologische Lexikographie. Ergon: Würzburg.

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Nov 2020 3 2 0
Dec 2020 0 0 0
Jan 2021 3 0 0
Feb 2021 8 0 0
Mar 2021 2 0 0
Apr 2021 0 0 0
May 2021 0 0 0