Multilingual thesauri have the potential to play a key role in a worldwide information exchange process enabling information indexing and retrieval. A key issue identified in their building procedures is the management of the semantics of the terms and of the relationships through the different languages of the multilingual thesaurus. Two possible approaches in developing the semantic structure of the different linguistic versions have been analyzed in the light of selected examples/case studies, acknowledging pros and cons. In a symmetrically structured thesaurus each language version has a same relational pattern and concepts are assumed to be practically identical across different languages. In a non-symmetrical semantic structure, instead, languages, i.e. cultures, are admitted to differ and semantic structures diverge whenever discrepancies are identified, allowing in this way a better language and culture representativeness.
1. Buckley, G. 2001. Semantics. Retrieved 28.06.2007 from the World Wide Web: www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2001/ling001/semantics.html.
2. Dextre Clarke, S. G. 2001. Thesaural Relationships. In: Bean, C. – Green, R. (eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 37–52.
3. Forsman, M. – Keränen, S. 2000. Monikieliset tesaurukset ovat nyt ajankohtaisia. Tietopalvelu 2000 (5), 20–22.
4. Hjemslev, L. 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. København: B. Lunos bogtrykkeri a/s.
5. Hjemslev, L. 1971. Essais linguistiques. Paris: Éd. de Minuit.
6. Hjørland, B. 2007. Semantics and Knowledge Organization. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41, 367–405.
7. Hudon, M. 1997. Multilingual thesaurus construction: integrating the views of different cultures in one gateway to knowledge and concepts. Knowledge Organization 24 (2), 84–91.
8. Hudon M. 2001. Relationships in Multilingual Thesauri. In: Bean C. – Green R. (eds.) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 67–80.
9. Keränen, S. 2002. Content management – concept and indexing term. Equivalence in a multilingual thesaurus. Proceedings of the Informing Science + IT Education Conference, Cork (Ireland) June 19–21, 2002. 795–809.
10. Keränen, S. 2006. Equivalence and focus of translation in multicultural thesaurus construction. In: Budin, G. – Swertz, C. – Mitgutsch, K. (eds.) Knowledge organization for a Global Learning Society: Proceedings of the Ninth International ISKO Conference, Vienna (Austria), Würzburg (Germany) July 4–7, 2006. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag. 183–194.
11. Mazzocchi F. – Plini, P. 2005. Thesaurus classification and relational structure: the EARTh experience. In: Madsen, B. N. – Thomsen H.E. (eds.). Terminology and Content Development: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Copenhagen. 265–278.
12. Svenonius, E. 2000. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge (MA)/London: The MIT Press.
13. Venuti, L. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility. A History of Translation. London/New York: Routdledge.
14. Vossen, P. 1997. EuroWordNet: a multilingual database for information retrieval. Proceedings of the DELOS workshop on Cross-language Information Retrieval, Zurich (Switzerland) March 5–7, 1997. 85–94. Retrieved 28.01.2007 from the World Wide Web http://www.ercim.org/publication/ws-proceedings/DELOS3/Vossen.pdf.
15. Wierzbicka, A. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics Of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Zethsen, K. K. 2004. Latin-based terms: True or false friends? Target 16 (1), 125–142.