Re[2]: [topicmaps-comment] multilingual thesaurus - language, scope,and topic naming constraint

[Gennadi Bedjanian <gbedja@dsnet.net>]

It's been long since I've read anything as intellectually refreshing.
Not counting my recent zazen in Japan ;-)

BV> The only sustainable viewpoint is that there is no such thing as a
BV> *concept independent of its representation by a term in a certain language*. Every
BV> attachment of a term to a concept is always asserted in the scope of a certain language,
BV> and every other language conveys a slightly or radically different view of the world and
BV> organisation of concepts, and that's why lingual diversity is so precious, and translation
BV> so difficult ...
An unassailable statement in terms of linguistics.

BV> So we have to go back to basics: one subject = one topic.
BV> (DAN : økonomi), (DUT : economie), (ENG : economy), (FRE : économie), (GER : Wirtschaft),
BV> (SPA : economía) convey a priori six different concepts and views of the world, that
BV> someone familiar with all those languages could certainly feel, even if the differences
BV> are subtle. Hence they are six different subjects, and therefore have to be represented by
BV> six different topics. They are not six names of the same topic in different scopes, and
BV> definitely not variants.
BV> And they are not even representations of a same descriptor in different languages. The 7th
BV> topic, standing in the middle of nowhere outside of any language scope, does not make
BV> sense, because it has no meaningful subject. Note that if you give a definition of the
BV> descriptor, you always give it in some default language ...
one subject = one topic
Isn't that the only way to interaction between topic maps? Of course,
on a gradual scale.

BV> So what is a descriptor, putting together those six concepts for the purpose of
BV> cross-language communication and translation?
BV> What do you do when you gather topics? Obvious - you build an association. And what is the
BV> scope of that association? The scope of the language viewpoint from which you assert this
BV> association, that means the default language of the thesaurus ...
BV> This association asserts that those topics can be considered as "equivalent", allowing a
BV> translation which makes sense, maybe in a certain scope. Note that the scope is not on the
BV> names, but on the association. And that the associations are not necessarily the same if I
BV> stand from another language viewpoint. So if I edit the thesaurus with a different default
BV> language, I will certainly have to change the set of associations.
The role of viewpoint is often overlooked. Are associations the main
tools to handle viewpoints?

BV> That approach is deeply respecting the diversity of *concepts* conveyed by the different
BV> languages. All previous approaches are in fact killing the linguistic diversity, if you
BV> look at them closely, because the default language of the descriptor imposes the set of
BV> concepts, and the other languages are to find willy-nilly a name for it.

BV> And this is really enabled by the topic map representation.

BV> Think about it. I've got to put all that in XTM now.

Thank you, Bernard

Gennadi Bedjanian, MA(Transl.), MSLIS
translator, information specialist