Re: [huml] paper: Semiotics and the Description of Stone tools in Ar haeology

[James Landrum <james.landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>]

Thanks, Len, for the feedback.  You are correct, the author, Dr. 
Giovanna Wichkler, is Argentinian (Spanish speaker): see : 
http://www.geocities.com/diccio2002/index.html  and/or the mirror 
http://www.diccionario-litico.com.ar/  for the website for the "Nuevo 
Diccionario de uso para la Descripcion de  Objetos Liticos" (New 
Dictionary for the Description of Lithic Objects). What I was seeking 
you have provided- a basic review of the article and discussion of the 
main points.  There is no "solution" provided by the author; in other 
words there is discussion of issues, etc., but no solution for the 
problems described, and that is in itself exemplary of "dilemma," a 
circumstance without solution.  The Spanish version of the dictionary is 
also exemplary of problems within and across languages, cultures, 
domains, i.e., the problems of dissemination to broader audiences of 
important works. In this case this appears to be exemplary of the 
problems the Semantic Web initiative faces, i.e., a Spanish dictionary 
that addresses Lithic object descriptions, that does not match 
(disconformity) with other Language versions, e.g., English 
terminology.  One of the big problems ( more of exception than rule)  I 
keep encountering is  inability to accurate translate language-specific 
terminology, for example, words that originate in Italian (or other 
language) that do not translate at all, well, or easily,  into other 
languages, because, 1) the word is context specific to a particular 
domain as it fits within the particular society and 2) other contexts in 
other domains within other cultures (societies)  have either no need for 
such description (i.e., the object type does not exist in the culture) 
or there are other term(s) which are not readily translatable to other 
languages, without the meaning of the term becoming either garbled dor 
lost entirely. One solution that has been in place since lithic studies 
were first engaged is to use the native language term, for example use 
of the French term for various artifact types or artifact attributes,


Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>I'm not quite sure what you're after.
>
>1.  The writing itself is tortured.  I suspect English 
>is the author's second language.
>
>2. An informal term for the dilemma described is "semantic  
>drift".  A term or phrase is borrowed from a domain and used 
>in a related but different domain where its meaning begins 
>to diverge from the original.  This is a common problem 
>in common language but of deep concern in scientific work 
>where the assumption of semantic equivalence is made to 
>enable logical deductions.
>
>3.  It is a description of a common problem in living 
>languages. Yes, the usual answer is by reference to 
>specific dictionaries or ontologies.
>
>4.  Maintaining such is a devilishly expensive task 
>in any field that is very active (think keeping track 
>of a single character in a boiling alphabet soup).
>
>A good description of these linguistic problems can be 
>found in John Sowa's work.  If she is looking for a 
>solution, that is one of the reasons for the work on 
>SUO (Standard Upper Level Ontology) and work on the 
>semantic web.   Sowa describes an approach in which 
>any statement is a theory of meaning and theories 
>can be assembled into a lattice work with the empty 
>set as the root.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Landrum [mailto:james.landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu]
>
>I'd appreciate feedback, particularly from Len and Sylvia, as well as 
>any other comments for others on this short paper. For example, I'd like 
>to know if you think it is a good (or poor) discussion of the issues?
>http://www.geocities.com/diccio2002/SAA2001e.htm
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/huml/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>

--