A PROPOSED METHOD AND TOOLS FOR ANALYZING CONCEPTS
By Fred W.
Riggs
CONTENTS
* 2. FOUNDATIONS: WORDS, TERMS AND LEXICONS
* 3. A TERM-CHECKER: THE BASIC TOOL
* 4. A TERM-LAUNCHER: THE STRATEGIC WEAPON
* 5. FEASIBILITY, FUNDING AND SPONSORSHIP
* ENDNOTES
* GLOSSARY
The stars marking each chapter heading are hyperlinks to the text below.
In this paper, the conceptual problems that we seek to solve by means of an electronic nomenclator are explained; followed by a discussion of the foundations of our thinking as reflected in words, terms and lexicons; an explanation of how a term-checker can provide basic data; how a term-launcher can arm us with the necessary resources; and finally how some practical problems of implementation can be handled. A number of new concepts and terms are proposed in this paper - they can be found in a list posted under Glossary at the end of the paper. As posted here it is a hyper-glossary -- i.e., a glossary in hyper-text. Links to a particular term are possible in hypertext -- but on paper one can only hope to find the printed text and then search it for the desired information.
This draft will, of course, be printed out for use at the COCTA panel in Brisbane . Consequently, the URLs are all quoted as hyperlinks. In the screen, as a hyper-document, however, the links will take the form of key words as hyperprompts -- the URLs will vanish. The theoretical framework for this proposal has been developed by the author under the heading of Onomantics , an orientation that reverses the familiar semantic paradign -- instead of asking what words mean, it inquires into the ways we identity, use and refer to concepts.
1. THE PROBLEM: NEEDED CONCEPTS
Theoretical and practical problems of research and theory in Sociology are hampered by our lack of a tool that would clearly identify new concepts, provide unambiguous terms to represent them, and help writers know when they needed help with these concepts. Both a speller and a thesaurus, as now made available to writers using Microsoft WORD, and Correl WORDPERFECT, illustrate the type of tool that could be made available to help writers, on demand, solve these conceptual problems. An electronic-nomenclator (nomen) could provide such assistance.. The currently available tools (the spell-checker and the thesaurus) focus on words, not their meanings. By contrast, the proposed new tool would focus on concepts. The basic distinction we have in mind is semantic. To explain this distinction, we need to consider the difference between words and terms, and explain what dictionaries and glossaries already do for us. In that context, we can focus on electronic nomenclators and learn what role they can play.
But first, before taking up these questions, let us consider the word, nomenclator. What does it mean? The word is old - it was used in ancient times by the Romans to refer to a slave who helped his master remember the names of acquaintances when he met them on the street. In Medieval usage, books listing the words used in a special field, like gardening, cooking, and carpentry were called nomenclators. In the Encarta Electronic Dictionary (ED), the word is defined at http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=nomenclator as somebody who assigns names to objects or items in a scientific classification system . Here we are extending the term to use it for a resource that will help authors find and use the terms they need to represent concepts that are important in their research and analysis. On a marginal note -- when words are defined, they are printed in bold face, but when they are referred to or quoted from a text or definition, they are italicized.
Ordinary nomenclators, to be sure, are printed on paper, but for our purposes we need a computer-based tool that can be used in cyberspace. To be quite clear, we can call it an electronic nomenclator, but for short, in this paper, we will contract this term to nomen - and nomina in the plural. Nomina will use an interactive technology like that employed in a spell-checker and thesaurus, but their functions are more complex, more semantic, and they depend heavily on bottom-up support from scholar-users who will use them interactively.
#1.1. Words are not Concepts: What's in a Term?
In casual conversation we might say The White House is resisting Congress on some policy. Yet we all understand that the white house is just a building - it is the president and his staff that acts on policies. Similarly, words are not concepts - but they are the forms or vehicles used to refer to concepts. This connection is revealed in dictionary entries. To understand the connection, let's look more closely at their structure.
Every dictionary entry has two parts: a headword followed by the entry text. Word is used in headword to refer to any lexical item or lexeme - including not only orthographic words (bounded by spaces) but also phrases and affixes. A headword is often also called an entry word. Words, in this sense, normally represent one or more concepts, and a few words, exceptionally, represent only one concept. Many words do not represent any concept. For example, names (like Washington) represent a person or a place, not a concept. Moreover, function words, such as articles, conjunctions, and prepositions (e.g. a, the, and, to) are said to have no semantic content. Only content words represent concepts. In this paper, I shall use word in the extended sense found in headword (or entry word), and we shall be talking only about content words. When it is important to refer only to orthographic words (what we usually mean by "a word") we may use this cumbersome phrase. However, it will scarcely ever appear in this paper.
Words. As used in this paper, then, word includes not only orthographic words but also phrases and affixes. Of course, most words are orthographic words, but we need to remember that lexical units include affixes and certain phrases. The phrases that are treated like words are closed, which means that they cannot be understood syntactically, simply by combining the meanings of their components. They are sometimes called multi-word lexical items or, incorrectly, collocations or synthemes. Here we will refer to them as set phrases. They cannot be understood if one considers only the meanings of their components - index number is such a phrase, but even number is not. Many of the terms glossed in a special language are set phrases: examples are field theory and plural society. We should keep set phrases in mind whenever we speak about words. It is easy to spot them in dictionaries where set phrases are entered as headwords. They are put in boldface. Open phrases are not entered as headwords in a dictionay -- their meanings are construed syntactically. Set phrases abound in computer language where many of them are entered as capitalized acronyms: for examples HTML: hyper text markup language and URL: uniform resource locator.
Concepts are described in the text that follows the entry word. We can call it the entry text. The semantic part of the text contains a set of concept descriptions. These are called definitions because they define one of the meanings of a word. Taken by themselves, these texts describe a concept - they are not definitions. One can define a word or a situation but not a concept - to characterize a concept clearly we need a text that describes it. In a dictionary entry, of course, such a text serves to define the entry word. This is an important but elusive point - think about it!
Each entry text also contains non-semantic information about the entry word, such as a key to its pronunciation and spelling, its history or etymology, and other background information. The entries for content words - i.e. those that have a meaning - provide semantic information in numbered definitions, each of which describes a concept - lexicographers refer to each such concept as a sense of the entry word. Each sense of a word is a concept, but sense, like definition, pertains to a property of the entry word. A concept is not a sense, but each sense of a word identifies a different concept.
Terms. To find a concept in a dictionary, we have to look for one of the senses of a word that describes the concept. When a word is used in such a way as to refer unambiguously to this concept, then it becomes a term. The form taken by a term is that of a word, but each entry word may house several terms. For example, the ED entry for mouse at http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861679152&wwi=65638" reads:
Referring to this entry, one might use numbers to identify the three concepts described here: mouse(1) for rodent, mouse(2) for coward, and mouse(3) for a computer device. In practice, we assume that, in context, the relevant concept can be understood and so we act, carelessly, as though there were just one concept of mouse. Ordinarily this practice causes little harm, but here it is important to distinguish the words (as lexical units) and the terms (for a concept) that are included in dictionary entries.
The word term is a polyseme that can represent 13 different concepts as they are listed in the ED at: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=term. Ignoring the other 12, note that the first senses of term, as defined in the ED, is: a particular word or combination of words, especially one used to mean something very specific or one used in a specialized area of knowledge or work. Actually, this is the sense of term used here. It clearly means that mouse is not a term, but a word that houses three terms. Taken literally, a word would be a term only if it had just one sense. Taken more seriously, the definition says that a word is a term when it is used for one of its possible senses, e.g. when mouse means a computer device. Mouse is a different term when it means a rodent. Our tendency to use word and term as synonyms masks this fundamental distinction.
Since a nomen is designed to identify concepts rather than to explain lexical items, it must have a different structure from a dictionary. Its purpose is to help scholars find and use the terms they need to represent concepts used in their thinking, especially about scientific theories. Glossaries, like the Sociological Dictionary, bridge the gap between dictionaries and a nomen. We need, therefore, to take a look at them. What, then, is a glossary?
#1.2. Lexicons and Glossaries: What's the Difference?
Our project requires a sharp distinction between two types of dictionary. We can distinguish between general dictionaries that record the comprehensive lexicon of a language (English, French, Spanish, Chinese, etc.) and special dictionaries whose coverage is restricted to the terms used in a special language (Sociology, Computing, Chemistry, Art, etc.). For convenience I shall refer to a general dictionary as a lexicon, and a special dictionary as a glossary. Even these words have some connotations that are not relevant here: lexicons often focus on ancient languages, and glossaries may be no more than the appendix of a book. However, because this paper is structured around the distinction made here, it is necessary to keep it in mind in order to understand what follows and to disregard these unintended connotations.
A further distinction is needed between dictionaries on the Web and those printed on paper. When these words are used without qualifiers, they include both forms. However, since this project requires the use of electronic dictionaries, we may use hyper-dictionary and hyper-glossary for the format that is more useful in the development of an electronic nomenclator.
Glosses vs. Entries. A lexicon contains entries for words as we have noted above. Can we now say that a glossary contains glosses for terms? If so, the distinction between the two types of dictionary becomes even sharper. Using gloss for information about a term in a glossary underlines this point. 1 Fortunately many if not most glosses define only one concept making them truly term records. Unfortunately, as we shall see, many glosses, like dictionary entries, combine two or more concept descriptions in a single paragraph, often without a clear distinction between the two senses. The design of a glossary would be more pure and effective if there were a separate gloss for every concept, even if the same word is used equivocally to identify them. If glossarists were to refer to the headword of a gloss as an entry term rather than an entry word, they would be reminded to write separate entries for each concept represented by that term-form.
Interestingly, lexicographers are too modest to include their own terms in a lexicon. Consider the definition of entry as found in the ED: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=entry It contains 8 different concepts among which we find: an item or piece of data included in a list or a book. This idea clearly includes diaries, catalogs, and glossaries as well as lexicons. In a glossary for lexicography one might expect to find terms for these three dictionary concepts:
The word entry, curiously enough, is used equivocally to mean either #1 and #3. Several terms are available for #1, including entry word and headword. However, the information given after a headword, #2, seems to lack any term - here I refer to it as the entry text. Since in many dictionaries the entry text is written as a single paragraph, one might think of #2 as the entry paragraph. However, this term would apply better to #3 - moreover in some dicdtionaries, as in ED, every sense of an entry word is written as a separate paragraph.
Term Entries. If the terminology used by lexicographers were more widely available, glossarists would more easily understand when the dictionary model is inappropriate for use in a glossary. One important point involves the design of entries. Dictionary entries present all the meanings of a word. By contrast, glossaries focus on the concepts used in a field of knowledge. It would be helpful if each concept could be presented in a separate entry, regardless of what it is called. To distinguish these entries from those found in a dictionary, they might be called term entries. If every term defined only one concept, it would soon become apparent that when two terms have the same form, confusion is possible. Glossarists might then borrow a useful practice found in the ED, namely provide a quick definition (in bold face capitals) in front of the full definitions. These QDs might be viewed as secondary terms available to disambiguate a term.
For illustrative purposes, consider a sociological example. The entry for society in the ED, at:http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=society contains this sense of the word as no.3 among 7 different concepts: structured community of people: a structured community of people bound together by similar traditions, institutions, or nationality Other meanings of society listed in the ED entry include: customs; prominent people; companionship; and interest groups. Strangely, Iverson's Sociology Dictionary (SD), http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology contains no definition of society. However, the UNESCO Dictionary of the Social Sciences contains an extended article on his term, with many references to work by leading sociologists. It reports three main conceptual streams in this literature: society may mean: 1. All social relationships among people; 2. An aggregation of human beings interacting with each other; and 3. The institutions and cultural practices of such an aggregation. Readers may well disagree or suggest additional concepts. The point here is that in a glossary for Sociology each of these concepts could be recorded as a separate term entry for Society, followed by a QD like #1 social relationships; #2 social community; #3 social practices. The goal would be to provide a separate entry for every concept needed by sociologists and to make sure that when one word is used to represent several such concepts, a supplementary word or phrase is provided to distinguish each concept from the others.
Homogaphs At the lexical level, lexicons actually provide a model for separate entries headed by the same word form. Consider a simple example: there are two different words (homographs) spelled fast. One refers to speed of movement, the other to abstention from eating. These are not different senses of the same word - they have different origins and were once pronounced differently. Each is entered as a headword followed by a superscript number that distinguishes fast1 from fast2. A different kind of example can be found in the ED where there are two entries for mouse. I quoted above from only one of them - it was marked as mouse2. Interestingly mouse1 is a completely different word - actually an acronym for Minimum Orbital Unmanned Satellite of the Earth - see: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=mouse Had it been written in caps, as MOUSE, its structural difference would have been transparent. For example, WAN appears in the ED as a word standing for Wide Area Network.
The lexicon/glossary
distinction enables us to make a sharp contrast between
lexiconized and glossed-terms. The
former provide information about headwords; the latter enable us to find
concepts used in a discourse community and to identify terms for them. As
we will see below, our ability to list glossed-terms will provide the
foundation for creating a nomen. We need to recognize a trap, however,
that arises because some of the terms entered in any glossary are also
lexiconized. We need to identify and eliminate them because they are
redundant. If the relevant sense of a word can be found in a dictionary,
there is no need to repeat that information in a nomen.
This means that we need to hyperlink to a nomen only those terms
appearing in a hyper-glossary that are not also lexiconized. No doubt
glossaries on paper would also serve this function, but because of the
time required to find and search them, we cannot assume they would be
available to all users. The great advantage of relying on a
hyper-glossary is that everyone using a nomen will have equal and prompt
access to it.
Glossed-Terms. In order to simplify our discussion of the problems this causes, it is useful to make a distinction between all the terms in a glossary, whether or not they are lexiconized, and the glossed terms that cannot be found in a dictionary. For convenience, I shall refer to all the terms in a glossary as glossary terms. Among them, those that are not lexiconized will be called glossed-terms. Hyphenating this term may help us notice the difference. We can refer to the glossary terms that have been entered in a dictionary as its lexiconized terms - they are not glossed-terms. The distinction is useful because it enables us to create the foundation of an electronic nomenclator by hyperlinking glossed-terms while ignoring all lexiconized terms (even those appearing in a hyper-glossary)
To illustrate the difference, consider first the definition of aggregate offered in the Sociology Dictionary (SD) http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/aggregate.htm: A number of individuals that have temporary physical proximity and no lasting pattern of interrelations or organization... crowds, mobs, rioters, and audiences. To determine whether or not this term has been lexiconized, we turn to thewhere, at http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=aggregate we learn that this entry word can represent seven lexiconized concepts among which is the following: forming a total, collected together from different sources and considered as a whole. This is a generic concept that includes an aggregate of rocks, a pile of books, or a crowd of people. The sociological concept of aggregate, as glossed above, is more specific and refers only to temporary collections of people. We may conclude that the glossed-term, aggregate, is not lexiconized. It has been glossed in a special sociological sense not found in its ordinary dictionary definition.
As noted above, some glossary terms are lexiconized - they are therefore not glossed-terms. An example in the SD is anarchistic, to be found at: http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/anarchistic.htm as The position that any organized form of control (usually governmental) is unnecessary and undesirable. The same meaning can be found in the definition of anarchistic found in ED at: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=anarchistic: somebody who rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition. No doubt subtle differences can be found between these two concept descriptions but I judge them to be substantially identical. We may conclude that the concept stipulated in the glossary is almost the same as the one found in the dictionary.
Neologisms. The concept of an unlexiconized term is closely related to the notion of a neologism. However, it is more precise and easy to operationalize.. Moreover, we often speak carelessly of neologisms as though they were only newly coined words. However, as defined in the ED at http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=neologism a neologism is a: new word or meaning: a recently coined word or phrase, or a recently extended meaning of an existing word or phrase. Consequently neologisms include both new words (coinages) and old words with new meanings (metaphors). Many people do not recognize metaphors as neologisms because the words in use are familiar. The definition also recognizes newly coined phrases as neologisms even though the words in a phrase are well established. To operationalize this criterion one must clearly distinguish between set and open phrases, not always easy to do.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this definition is the use of recently: it raises unanswerable questions about when a new word or usage arose. Many lexiconized terms were recently added to the lexicon. We need not include them in a nomen even though they are neologisms. Moreover, most of the special terms used by sociologists have the form of words found in a dictionary but they add one or more meanings not given in the lexicon. We need to include them in a nomen for Sociology even though they might not be viewed as neologisms.
Our goal, then, is to improve our ability to use unlexiconized terms by developing a tool, the term-checker, that will automatically highlight glossed-terms (by definition, they have not been lexiconized). To operationalize this concept, we may conveniently use the Encarta Electronic Dictionary (ED) http://dictionary.msn.com. 2 We can exclude lexiconized terms on the assumption that writers can easily find the definitions they need by consulting the dictionary. Providing a tool that hyperlinks any word to its definition in the ED is a feasible supplementary function that can be provided by a nomen, but there would be no need to highlight lexiconized words. The only words to be highlighted by the nomen, therefore, would be those that lack a dictionary definition, i.e., the unlexiconized words.
#1.3. Nomenclators: Do you mean what you say?
When sociologist write up their research they use many familiar words in a metaphorical sense that may not be understood by readers who are not part of their special discourse community. To outsiders and even some other sociologists they may seem to be speaking a kind of Aesopian language in which words don't quite mean what one expects of them. The purpose of a nomenclator is to help writers express themselves in a way that is not only intelligible to insiders but may enable them to reach a wider audience. This is a special problem for scholarly writing. In ordinary conversation, as in novels and poems, ambiguity and word plays are normal and even prized -- meanings hinge as much on context as they do on the precise meanings of words.
Contemporary authors need such a reference tool because of the rapid escalation of new concepts that are now being generated by our increasingly complex globalized world-system. Unfortunately, the terminology needed to identify and refer clearly to these concepts lags far behind. Normally, in the social sciences, we use many metaphors to refer to these concepts. Although it is easy enough to remember these words, it is difficult to remember their new meanings. By contrast, in the hard sciences, it is more common to coin new words for new concepts, but this often means that it is hard to remember them. Moreover, when strange words and acronyms with unknown meanings are used, one scarcely knows where to start when looking for a concept - having a classified logical schema becomes doubly necessary.
New concepts are often proposed by creative and imaginative scholars who recognize the need for them in the context of their research and theorizing. Although they may clearly explain what they have in mind when they introduce new terms, they often forget that their readers may not remember what a concept was called when it was introduced. Consequently, we often appear not to be saying what we mean when we use metaphors. By contrast when we use coinages, uninformed readers will simply be baffled.
New Technology. For an audience to understand what we have in mind, they need to know as fully as possible what we mean by the words we use. The Internet and hypertext now enables us to use the same kind of technology that we find in WORD or WORDPERFECT when calling up a spell-checker or a thesaurus. However, instead of the lexical information these existing tools provide, a nomen will explain the semantic content of the unfamiliar words we use, and help us find or propose terms for new concepts.
The rise of the Internet and hypertext communications on a global scale enables us to invent the new tools recommended here. It is also a major force propelling conceptual innovation. Not surprisingly, the Internet already gives us access to many new hyper-glossaries that facilitate access to new concepts and terms.. Some of them, including the SD, are listed at: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/sites.htm#net. However, they only provide part of the solution to our problem. We need to supplement these tools with new ones that can be provided on an electronic nomenclator. However, available hyper-glossaries will help us jump-start the creation of a nomen by supporting hyperlinks to the definitions of terms that have already been posted on the Internet in them.
A nomen will have two parts or tools which are called a term-checker and a term-launcher. In *3 below, on Term-Checkers we will look at how they can be developed and used. Similarly, in *4 on Term-Launchers we will describe their design and functions. Here, however, let us briefly note the purposes served by these tools. A term-checker will offer its users three services: first, the ability to find the ED entry for any lexiconized word by double-clicking the mouse - as explained above. Second, and more importantly, it will list the unlexiconized (glossed) terms that have been defined in a hyper-glossary like the Sociology Dictionary (SD), and it will highlight these terms when they are first used by an author. The highlighting will remind the writer that the word has a special meaning not given in its dictionary definitions. Third, as the project evolves, new unglossed terms will be added to the list in the term-checker on the basis of recommendations generated by means of the term-launcher
Macro vs. Micro Levels. Term-launchers, by contrast, will promote the distribution and use of new concepts and terms as they are proposed by members of a scholarly discourse community, such as the members of an ISA Research Committee. This point underlines a broad difference: there may be just one term-checker for all sociologists, whereas there will be many term-launchers, perhaps one for each committee. Consequently whereas the scope of a term-checker is discipline wide, the scope of each term-launcher will be restricted to the special concerns of a research group. This difference also dictates a managerial distinction: the ISA as a whole should take responsibility for the term-checker, but each term-launcher should be controlled by its research committee or group. Of course, the two resources need to be coordinated. The nomen project links both micro and macro levels in continuous interaction.
Before we can talk meaningfully about the nuts and bolts of how to develop term-checkers and term-launchers, we need to be clear about some foundational premises that are discussed next in a section on words, terms, and lexicons. The following two sections will focus on the problems involved in designing and using our two main tools, and the final section will deal with some practical problems involving the technical feasibility, the financing, and the organization and sponsorship of this new resource.
*2. FOUNDATIONS: WORDS, TERMS AND LEXICONS
Providing a link, on demand, to the dictionary entry for a word should be a foundational service that can be provided very easily by a term-checker. The service should be provided by agreement with the owners and managers of the dictionary. Several are available and they are listed at: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/sites.htm#gen. Among them, the most convenient to use and the most reliable seems to be the Encarta Electronic Dictionary (ED) http://dictionary.msn.com, for reasons explained in note #2 . The electronic version can be augmented by the hard copy text that was published in 1999. This resource gives us reliable and ready access to information about all the lexiconized words used in English around the world.
#2.1. Words in our Lexicon
A term-checker will focus on unlexiconized terms. In order to explain the meaning of this phrase, we need to be clear first about unlexiconized words. This notion, in turn, hinges on the meanings of word and lexiconized. Turning to the ED at http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=word we find that word is a polyseme with ten defined senses (concepts) -- it is, therefore, ten terms. Among them, the first sense (term) is: a meaningful sound or combination of sounds that is a unit of language or its representation in a text. This definition is broad enough to include not only orthographic words (the everyday understanding of this term) but also phrases (like entry word) or affixes (like pre- and -ing). I shall use word in this sense, but to avoid possible misunderstanding, I shall also use lexical item as a synonym. I shall avoid lexeme, however - although it often means the same thing, it has other possible meanings that could be misleading. In most contexts, word can include phrase and affix. In very few contexts, where word refers only to an orthographic word, we will use this cumbersome phrase.
Every entry in a dictionary, then, is headed by a word - its presence there shows that it has been lexiconized - as explained above in #1.1 , a word is lexiconized if it is entered in a dictionary, and the ED will be used to operationalize this concept. Anyone who wants to know if a word has been lexiconized can look it up in the ED. This information provides a foundation or starting point for a nomen. It augments the speller found on every Microsoft WORD program: this tool highlights all un-lexiconized words (including misspelled words!), a process that presupposes the existence of a list of all lexiconized words in the program. A term-checker will transform this process. Instead of highlighting unlexiconized words, it will highlight unlexiconized terms, giving the writer instant access to their definitions. The difference between lexiconized words and terms is explained below. In both cases, lexiconized refers to the existence of an entry in a lexicon (e.g., the ED) as this concept was explained above in #1.2.
#2.2. Terms in our Thinking
Viewing a lexiconized word entry enables us to see whether or not a term has been lexiconized. We need to make a fundamental distinction here between words and terms. A word, as noted above, is a lexical item with one or more meanings. By contrast, a term is a semantic vessel that contains only one concept. Most dictionary entries contain several terms. For example, to take an extreme case, head http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=head is a word that, as a noun, can represent 34 different concepts, according to the ED. That means this word is 34 terms! As a verb, head has 6 more senses! To see whether or not a term is lexiconized, therefore, we need to find its definition in a dictionary definition. Consequently, retrieving a word's dictionary entry is only the first step in a quest to discover whether or not a term has been lexiconized. If the intended sense of the retrieved word is substantially equivalent in meaning to the concept a writer has in mind, then the term has, indeed, been lexiconized. Anyone who brings up the ED entries for word and term will discover that the concepts of word and term, as used here, have been lexiconized.
Relying only on the resources now available, finding a lexiconized term in a dictionary requires two steps: first, find the lexiconized word and second, discover its sense definition. It is easy to confuse terms with the words that represent them. To maintain the distinction, it is helpful to use term-form to refer to the written form of a term, and use term to refer to the semantic content of such a form. Please note that term is a polyseme - its dictionary entry in ED lists 13 separate concepts: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=term. Among them only the first is relevant here. It reads name or word for something: a particular word or combination of words, especially one used to mean something very specific or one used in a specialized area of knowledge or work
In this article, term will always refer to this concept, but if ambiguity is possible, we could use a suffix - for example termID could be used to mean a term that identifies (ID) just one concept. Because term is often used carelessly as a synonym for word, we could coin termLEX to represent that concept - note that a term-form is a termLEX that hosts one or more termsID. Among the other meanings of term that might be intended, consider using termMATH to refer to an item in mathematical expressions, and termLOG for the elements found in logical propositions. Admittedly awkward forms like this will be unnecessary in most contexts where the intended meaning of term is quite apparent.
The discovery that a termID has been lexiconized has an important implication. It reassures us that readers can, indeed, understand our intentions if they are willing to use a dictionary. The overwhelming majority of all words used in any text are, in fact, lexiconized terms that require no comment or further explanation. That knowledge is foundational and requires no further comment.
The focus of our work, and the goal of a nomen as a term-checker involves the project of determining the meanings of unlexiconized terms, starting with the glossed-terms found in specialized glossaries. This project calls for a new kind of tool, the term-checker proposed here as the first part of an electronic nomenclator. The sections that follow will show how a term-launcher can arm us with the resources needed to expand the term-checker; and finally we will talk about how some practical problems of implementation can be handled.
*3. TERM-CHECKER: THE BASIC TOOL
NOTE: Since writing the following segment I have changed my mind about the design but not the goals of a "term-checker." A different strategy based on the use of techniques that enable a writer to call up a thesaurus will be employed. This technique can be used, as in a metacrawler, to search a set of dictionaries to find entries for the marked word. To identify this approch, the term lexisaurus has been proposed as a blend of lexical and thesaurus The logic and goals of a lexisaurus are described in a new paper written to supplement this one. The text that follows will be revised to take this new idea into account. Readers interested in the details can find them at lexisaurus .
As explained above, a term-checker will support the ability of authors to hyperlink to the dictionary definition of any word; and it will highlight unlexiconzed terms at two levels: first those that are glossed-terms in a hyper-glossary sponsored by the nomen will be linked, and subsequently, as term-launchers progress, the terms they recommend will be added to the term-checker. Of course, any glossed-term may eventually be lexiconized so this status is only temporary and provisional. For our purposes, however, this is fundamental: if someone wants to use a glossed-term, the term-checker will highlight it, reminding its users to make sure that their intended readers will understand what they have in mind. In effect, authors will be prompted by a highlight (like the one we see on misspelled words) to ask themselves whether any words of explanation or clarification are needed to make their intentions clear to a broader audience. It may not be necessary to copy definitions into the term-checker, however, if it uses a list of hyperlinks to jump users to glosses carried in a hyper-glossary like the Sociology Dictionary. Users of the term-checker will need only use a mouse click to open the linked definition.
#3.1. Loading the Database.
A nomen for Sociology sponsored by the ISA would need to be launched with a set of hyperlinks to the definitions for all the terms glossed in the SD, whether or not they are lexiconized. This is a simple procedure and could be done quickly with little cost. The resulting set of links could immediately be used by any sociologist who wanted to use it. It would be programmed to recognize every term-form in the list (just as a speller does now) and it would highlight the word whenever it is typed onto the computer screen. Writers would be able to double-click on the term and promptly open its definition in the SD Just as a reminder, using aggregate as an example, click on: http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/aggregate.htm.
To see what terms are already available in the SD, go to: http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/a.html. This link opens the first segment of the SD list. It gives words that start with the letter a: from absentee landlord to avant garde. All of them are terms in this hyper-glossary. But should they be retained in the term-checker? If their glossed meanings are substantially the same as a meaning provided in the dictionary entry for the same word, then should they not be pruned from the list?
If many terms appearing in the SD list have been lexiconized, users of the tool might consider it redundant and a waste of time to view their entries. However, if they knew that all the terms appearing in the list of glossed-terms had not been lexiconized, then they would be more likely to want to consider their special meanings in Sociology. It is easy enough to delete terms from the preliminary list posted on the term-checker, but to decide whether or not to eliminate a term will require scrutiny of the dictionary entry where it might be found. For example, someone would have to read the definition of aggregate in the ED to compare it with the definition of this term offered in the SD. 3
Because it may not be easy to decide whether a glossed-term is the same as a lexiconized term, it may be useful to offer an example. Let's consider the word alienation. As defined in the SD, at: http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/alienation.htm, this terms refers, in Sociological usage, to: ... social structural - social processual forces that accentuate and create "the false separation of individual and society" or do not promote the dialectical interrelation of individual and society.
Has this meaning been included in the dictionary definition of alienation as reported in the ED? Here is the text one will find at: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=alienation. Alienation can mean:
Most of the terms found in the SD listing are metaphors, using only lexiconized words. However, a few are not. Consider, for example, the term color-caste system offered at: http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/color.htm. It reads: race relations governed by segregation, prohibition of interracial marriage, and various other forms of discrimination by color distinctions. This word (phrase) is not entered in the ED - consequently it is an unlexiconized word as well as an unlexiconized term. A term-checker will not find it if anyone writes this phrase. There are special problems involving coinages like this, but they are better discussed below under *4 on term-launchers.
Other examples could be taken from the SD list, and they might well be more persuasive than these cases. However, perhaps enough has been said to clarify the main function of a term-checker. It would remind an author that the highlighted term has a special meaning in the writer's discourse community that has not been entered in an ordinary dictionary, or even that the word has not been lexiconized. The author could ignore the prompt, turn it off so that it would not recur, or decide to enter some clarifying information that would make h/er intentions clear to any reader. This process should be helpful by itself. However, it can be greatly enhanced by two further steps: sensing, and entailing, as explained next:
#3.2. Separating the Senses
All lexicons (general dictionaries) clearly distinguish the different concepts a word can represent by numbering them as separate senses. Most glossarists know their special subject field very well but they are not trained as lexicologists. Consequently, when they write glosses, they often fail to distinguish between the different senses of a term-form. One result is the confusion sometimes referred to as contested concepts. The phrase is misleading because it is not the concepts as such that are contested but, rather, the terms used to represent them that cause confusion. Suppose, for example, that one had a definition of head that referred to a body part and a leadership role as a single concept. In its dictionary entry, however, we clearly see that head sometimes refers to a body part, and sometimes to a leadership role - two quite different concepts. We can symbolize this by saying that conceptual confusion arises when a term, T, is equated with concepts A and B. Lexicographers would disambiguate this equation by saying that T can mean A or B.
We can find confusions like this in some glosses posted in the SD. Consider, for example, the entry for methodology - The procedures involved in the investigation of facts and concepts. Methodology is how observers go about their observations and explanations of social reality. The "norms" of scientific investigation. Methodology is not concerned with increasing the numbers of facts or accumulating data but is concerned with inquiry into the explication of the procedures by which observations are made, how concepts are utilized, and how and to what extent explanations are made from a particular stated point of view.
Does this definition identify one or several concepts? To find an answer, one might go to the article on methodology in the Dictionary of the Social Sciences (SS). Here one will find distinctions between the (1) principles guiding inquiry, (2) the study of research tools or techniques, and (3) the evaluation of basic assumptions guiding scientific research. No doubt this is an oversimplification of an extended article but it suggests that sociologists are, in fact, using methodology to refer to a number of different overlapping concepts.
A comparison of these glossed definitions with the entry posted in ED would also be helpful. It reads, at: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=methodology:
An important benefit of the addition of sense definitions to SD entries would be to enable users of the term-checker to see which terms are equivocal and which are unequivocal. As noted above, terms are equivocal when, within the same discourse community, they can represent two or more concepts. Methodology, for example, is highly equivocal. When the record for a term as defined in the SD is put promptly and automatically on the screen of an author using this word, the writer will be helped to decide which of the designated concepts s/he wants to use and make sure that readers will clearly understand h/er intentions. Indeed, it would be even more helpful if, instead of following the lexicographic model by writing three sense of methodology in a single word entry the SD could adopt a model more appropriate for glossaries in which there would be three glosses for methodology, one for each of the concepts it can precisely signify. The concept of a term entry was introduced above in #1.2.
#3.3. Entailing the definitions.
The process of entailing a definition involves
hyperlinking the terms used in a definition that are defined elsewhere.
Thus an entailment is a kind of hyperlink. Most dictionaries and
glossaries fail to mark entailed terms, but a few do, including Iverson's
Geology Dictionary. If you go to: "A" you will
find the first segment, starting with "A". Here you will see that each
definition contains hyperlinked terms -- if you click on one, the
definition of that term will promptly appear. For example, here is the
definition of ablation - As applied to glacier ice,
process by which ice below snow line is wasted by
evaporation and melting. Here the underlined terms are links to
entries where they are defined.
Another excellent example of a glossary with hyper-entails
-- a term we could use for entailed terms in a definition that are
posted as hyperlinks -- can be found in the Online Computing
Dictionary (CD). Consider the definition of agent found at:
http://www.instantweb.com/D/dictionary/foldoc.cgi?query=agent&action=Search
on behalf of a client or server.
In this example, agent is
the defined term, client-server, client, and server are, the
entailed terms and all the terms found in the definition may be
called defining terms. On paper, entailed terms can be marked but
not hyperlinked. On the Web, as in the CD text, all the entailed terms
are posted as hyper-entails. As a generic process, entailing can occur on
paper or in hypertext. Here our interest is primarily in hyper-entailing
on the Web.
Hyper-entailing enables readers to jump immediately to their
definitions. Some of these definitions contain additional hyper-entailed
terms that link to glosses for the related concepts. Although following
these links may seem tedious, the result is powerful concept enhancement.
It assures consistency insofar as all the key terms used in this discourse
are consistently defined - not having entailments leads to fuzzy thinking
because the important terms used in definitions may not be lexiconized,
and their meanings as glossed-terms are not transparent. Moreover,
systematic hyper-entailment of the glossed-terms used in concept
definitions identifies their systematic relationships to each other.
Incidentally, all of the
hyper-entailed terms used in this example are familiar lexiconized words -
they are entered in all dictionaries. However, a reader who tried to
understand their meanings in a computing context would be utterly baffled
although, interestingly, some of them are in the process of lexiconization
and relevant definitions can already be found in the ED. For example, it
contains this defining text for agent at: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=agent:
computer program: a program that works
automatically on routine tasks specified by a user, for example, sorting
e-mail or monitoring the Internet.
The ED also offers definitions for the use of client and
server in computing, but overwhelmingly, other dictionaries have
not yet lexiconized these terms. Moreover, note that the ED definitions
are not entailed - hence even though Encarta gives us definitions
for agent, client, and server, if fails to link them
electronically as hyper-entailments of each other. A comparison between
the definitions offered in the CD and those found in ED will clarify this
point. The definitions given in the glossary below are
all hyper-entailed.
When definitions have been hyper-entailed, as they are in the CD, the systematic links they reveal can be used to create a preliminary classification of related terms. To see how this might be done, start with any terms defined on the CD and copy its entailed terms to a list. If one started with agent, its definition will reveal client-server, client, and server as entailed terms. In general, all the entailed terms in a definition are related to the defined term. We can list them as related terms (RT) as follows:
The definition for client-server brings up distributed system and protocol so we add them as follows:
The definition of protocol adds these hyper-entailed terms:
Let us not continue this process, but note that it generates a matrix of linked terms that can, then, be systematized, starting with hierarchies of more general and specific (genus-species) relations, and continuing with cause-effect, entity-property, dimensions, contexts, locations, and other systemic relationships. The most general relationships is simply related - any term that is seen as having a relation of any kind to another term is an RT. However, subsequent analysis can establish more specific relationships such as those mentioned above. Study of these linkages can enable one to find points in the matrix where any new concept (without respect to what it is called) could be plugged in. Classification theory and practice have well established tools and concepts for use in creating classification systems and using them to locate new concepts in relation to old ones. Some of the more useful materials in this literature are hyperlinked at: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/sites.htm#sch. In general, any concept can be searched for in such a schema by its logical features, not by its term. Such a search should also enable one to discover whether or not a concept is already in the scheme, and hence to discover if it is new.
It seems unnecessary to say more here about how to establish a useful classification of concepts for use in sociological research. Some examples from established classification schemes might be instructive but because they were designed initially to locate books at a unique place on library shelves, their utility for multi-faceted classification as required for concept analysis is limited. However, a summary of the Bliss Classification for SOCIETY can be viewed at: http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/bca/Outlines/Class%20K.htm. It provides an overview of categories that could be used to establish systemic links between concepts.
Development of a classification matrix for all the concepts used in Sociology would be a formidably large undertaking, but the task can be handled much more easily at the micro-level if it is limited to the range of concepts that are a focus of attention within a sub-field. We can, perhaps, dis-aggregate the discipline into sub-fields such as those cultivated by ISA Research Committees. A list of them can be found at: http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/rc.htm. Imagine, now, that we are talking about a schema for classing the concepts in any one of these sub-fields, but only in one of them. Creating such a matrix paves the way for the development of a term-launcher. Let us turn, then, to the next step in our proposed implementation process.
*4. A TERM-LAUNCHER: THE STRATEGIC WEAPON
NOTE: Since writing this paper I have revised my ideas about how best to achieve the goals set forth in the following paragraphs. A new kind of tool referred to as a term list has been described in a separate paper that can be found at term list . The paragraphs that follow will be revised to take into account this different approach.
The basic tool for registering new concepts and promoting the dissemination of the terms used to represent them is a term-launcher. Here we will discuss the formation and utilization of this tool. It presupposes an understanding and acceptance of conceptual innovation. It is not enough to list and define new terms - unless they are used in fruitful ways, this is a sterile exercise. Hence the theoretical framework, the practical applications which led innovators to coin and propose new concepts and terms needs to be supplied. However, the literature of the field - really the sub-field for which a term-launcher is designed - cannot be included in the text of this tool. Rather, it can and should be made available to anyone using the tool by means of hyperlinks to relevant papers and reports. In them one will find the rationale for proposing new concepts and the contexts in which they have been used. New concepts cannot be evaluated intrinsically as though they were stand-alone ideas. Rather, they are cells in a complex tissue of linked ideas. It is only when potential users see the value of a new term as a building block in the work they want to do that they will be motivated to embrace it.
Experience shows that there are many creative scholars who have seen the need for new concepts in order for their work to succeed - they fill a need in the development and testing of theories or the explanation of puzzling phenomena. The term-launcher will enable them to share their experience. Others can and will benefit from such innovations if they learn about them. The greatest obstacle to the development and use of concepts can be found at the frontier where knowledge about them is spread. Many new and useful concepts have been proposed but they remain largely unknown and unused. The goal of a term-launcher is to make information about these innovative ideas more readily available and to provide enough supporting evidence to enable potential users to recognize their value - in short, a term-launcher is intended to promote but not to invent new concepts. Invention will remain a function for individuals, for creative scholars who, alone, have the imagination and insight needed to visualize the unknown and bring it into being. All of us, however, can benefit by learning about and using any new concepts relevant to our own concerns.
#4.1. Identifying a Field's Terms
Let us start with the premise that the members of an ISA Research Committee are already using a set of special terms. They can be identified in two steps:
Basic List. First, some of them will have been compiled on the term-checker as explained above in #3 . Committee leaders can go through this list and check the terms they think are especially relevant in their sub-field. The resulting basic list provides the starting point for developing their own term-launcher.
Additions Second, identifying a field's terms involves going beyond this basic list and adding the terms that active members of any ISA/RC or other research community will, assuredly, have already evolved. They will include concepts and terms that have not yet been glossed in the SD or included in the term-checker list. Accordingly, members should be invited to submit information about proposed additions to the basic list.
This can be done simply by
filling out a proposal form in the computer program that
will ask them to describe any terms they use that belong to their field,
and provide hyperlinks to texts in which they have been used and
evaluated. In principle such texts can be on paper as well as on the Web
-- but for present purposes, documents on the Web are far more useful
since they can easily be hyperlinked. In fact, for the recommended process
to work effectively, we need to think primarily about
hyper-documents posted on the Internet. It would sound logical
to call them hyper-texts but since this term already refers to the
system of linking documents, we need a different form to refer to
documents containing hyperlinks.
To support this process, members should be encouraged whenever they
write a paper to compile a mini-glossary of the key terms they have used
in it and post the material as a hyper-document. They should then use the
term-checker to see if the terms are new, and they should then hyperlink
them if they think they are indeed new. At any time after they have
posted their hyper-document on the Web, they can submit their new terms to
their term-launcher in the form of proposals. To start with, they should
be urged to review their past work and pick up the new terms they have
already introduced. Gradually, the distinction between past and future
work will dissolve - any concepts and terms used by a group member that
are not yet entered in the term-launcher should be welcomed.
Evaluation. Whenever someone proposes a new term, questions about its true originality will quite properly arise. Any concept that one person thinks is new may already exist in the literature but the author has just not discovered it. How can one discover earlier uses of the same concept when one does not know what anyone else might have called it? Some important concepts have accumulated a long list of synonymous terms because they were co-invented by different people who were unaware of each other's work. Of course, innovators should be urged to be careful and to hunt for earlier uses of a concept as best they can. However, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to prove the originality of a proposal.
It is practical and expedient, therefore, to accept new concept proposals at face value. The evaluation of new concepts will then become a group activity. During a pilot period they will all be subject to evaluation. The group should use a listserv to call the attention of members to the proposal. Indeed, the proposing author should use the list to announce the posting of a hyper-document and call attention to the new concepts contained in it. Any members who wish to comment would be invited to express their opinions. If they know of other work in which the same concept has already been used, they would be urged to report on it. Of course, any member who sees value in the proposal should also be urged to use it and let other members of the group know about their work. In due course a group of members using the new concept will evolve and lend credibility to its value.
Term-Forms. The structure of term-forms is often discussed and makes for good table conversation. In general, there are two main possibilities: coin a new word (a coinage) or add a new meaning to an established word (a metaphor). There are pro's and cons for each choice. Coinages will be less ambiguous but may be harder to remember. By contrast, metaphors may be more memorable and even transparent, but they are likely to be ambiguous because of the meanings they already have. Moreover, metaphors cause confusion when readers unfamiliar with the new meaning assigned to a term assume that they understand what the author meant because the word is familiar. Unless the author explains the new usage, it may be difficult for the reader to discover precisely what the author had in mind.
A kind of mixture or hybrid format links familiar words in a phrase that is treated as a single new word (a multi-word lexical item). Such phrases are often so long they are awkward to use and hard to remember. Consequently, many of them are abbreviated (a shortened form) or made into acronyms (a pronounceable abbreviation). Some acronyms come to be viewed as coinages: radar is an acronym based on the phrase: Radio Detecting And Ranging. However, the term has become so familiar that it is now entered in ED as a word without any indication of its acronymic origins - see: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=radar A list of acronyms in current use on the Internet can be found at: http://users.erols.com/amato1/AC/Tech.acr.html.
Some acronyms are so well established that no one remembers their origins. An example is byte. It is treated as a word of uncertain origins in the ED. However, in the CD we find this entry: http://www.instantweb.com/D/dictionary/foldoc.cgi?query=byte: In the early days IBM taught that a series of bits transferred together (like so many yoked oxen) formed a Binary Yoked Transfer Element (BYTE). Words sometimes evolve as blends formed by combining two words - an example is bit which is sometimes explained as an acronym for Binary digIT. According to the CD, http://www.instantweb.com/D/dictionary/foldoc.cgi?query=bit&action=Search it seems to have been coined by early computer scientist John Tukey... it evolved over a lunch table as a handier alternative to "bigit" or "binit". A more apocryphral etymology may be that of tip which is said to have been formed as an acronym for To Insure Promptness, posted long ago in saloons on a box for gratuities.
In practice, this is a false antithesis -- there is no need to choose between metaphors and coinages. To develop a new concept, it is useful to consider both term-forms as possibilities. Inventive minds should contemplate not only coinages and metaphors, but also phrases and acronyms, offering users a variety of options. The ultimate choice of forms to represent new concepts will not be made by their inventors but by those who use the concepts. Their usage, including additional term-forms they may also propose, will determine what eventually becomes the normal way of representing a concept.
However, there is a further consideration that arises in the context of a term-launcher. Coinages are more visible than metaphors, and acronyms are virtually opaque. Consequently, anyone proposing a coinage or acronym will feel constrained, at first, to explain its meaning and post links to a source where it is explained. This is awkward , however, and writers soon fall into the habit of assuming all readers will know what they mean. Unfortunately, they will not. A term-launcher can help both writers and their audience by facilitating links to the explanation of coinages. By highlighting the neologisms, they will also remind authors they may still need to help their readers understand what they mean.
By contrast, metaphors seem to be transparent but are, at best, translucent. They immediately suggest associated ideas that may resemble yet differ significantly from what the author has in mind. After metaphors are glossed in a term-checker, they will automatically be highlighted to remind authors that these terms may require a word of clarification. Until that happens, however, metaphors can be hidden shoals ready to imperil unwary readers. This makes it doubly important for innovators using a metaphor as a term-form to post their proposal on a term-launcher.
Summary. As soon as possible, new terms tested on a term-launcher should be nominated for addition to the list found on the term-checker. This suggestion underlines a significant point about the coordination of term-launchers and term-checkers as two components of a nomen. Anyone proposing a new concept should have the right to post it in a term-launcher and, after evaluation within the discourse group, to recommend it for inclusion in the term-checker. In fact, we may visualize a three-stage process for conceptual innovations:
The third stage raises questions that will be discussed below under #4.4 Before we come to them, let us look at some problems of internal design in a term-launcher that can be considered in the context of hyper-entailments.
#4.2. Classifying concepts by their entailments
Whether or not technical terms have been glossed or lexiconized, many of them are still not well known and we will not readily recall them. To find them, we need increasingly to be able to rely on systematic classification of concepts. This should be done initially at the level of scholarly communities like the members of each ISA/RC -- not for Sociology or the social sciences in general -- for reasons that have been discussed in #1.3 at "Macro vs. Micro".
Following the procedure for checking the hyper-entailments in a definition outlined above, some committee members and their graduate students should check the definitions for all the terms listed in their group's term-launcher, following the procedure outlined above in #3.3. The resulting miniature classification scheme should then be posted on the internet and included in the term-launcher, in tandem with the alphabetical list of terms (index). This device will work like a thesaurus - any innovator wishing to register a new concept will be able to call up the schema and the list in order to decide what links to create to earlier entries. Terms will not be seen as free-floating entries that can only be arranged alphabetically. Instead, as in double-entry bookeeping, every term should be entered both alphabetically and in a classification schema. In the latter context, users will be able to see how new concepts are related to others that were entered earlier.
Although it was designed long before the idea of a term-launcher was imagined, I have prepared a mini-schema for concepts relating to nationalism and the state. It can be found at: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/tan-f.htm#[tanF]. One will see here a basic distinction between entities, properties, and activities. Under entities, one will find micro/macro sub-categories for individuals and collectivities. Each term in this schema is hyperlinked to a record in which the concept is defined, equivalent terms are listed, and links to a supporting text are provided. Moreover, the hyper-entailed terms in a definitions provide links to related concepts. As this small example shows, individual scholars can create their own personal matrix of related concepts with links to the relevant literature. A term-launcher will enable them to share such efforts with other members of their group - and it will also help them develop their own set of linked concepts.
After a text-launcher has become available for a group, its members will be able to go promptly to this shared resource, decide how they want to link their own new ideas to others that have already been reported, and then enter the text and hyperlinks needed to enable users to find, read and utilize what they have contributed to the development of their shared body of knowledge and theory.
#4.3. Reflexivity and Feed-back
As a term-launcher develops, some member of the sponsoring group needs to take responsibility for maintaining it - a kind of Webmaster who might be called the TL-master for the sponsoring group. A hyperlink to the term-launcher should then be posted on the Research Committee's Home Page so that anyone can view and comment on it. The Webmaster for the Home Page could perform this added function, but it seems preferable to ask a different person to manage the development of the term-launcher, in close cooperation with the Webmaster for the group's Home Page. In addition to its Home Page, every Research Committee needs to have it own listserv managed in close liaison with the term-launcher. No doubt members will want to discuss many theoretical and practical problems of their field on this list, but the group's TL-master should also use this resource to publicize new postings.
Of course, any originator of new concepts and terms should also use the listserv to share thoughts with other members of the group. Ideally, anyone writing a paper, as for presentation at an ISA panel, would post it as a hyper-document on the Web and inform colleagues about its availability, seeking comments. This should surely happen before and after the face-to-face meeting at which the paper is presented. An important feature of the hyper-document would be its list of key terms attached as an appendix - like the one posted below for this paper. If we had a term-launcher now, these terms would be entered right away!
Discussing new ideas on the listserv should supplement posting them on the term-launcher. Moreover, it should be possible to archive relevant comments in such a way that anyone using the term-launcher would not only find the author's proposal but also read comments by other members of the group. This discourse provides the context in which new concepts and terms will be introduced, evaluated, and gain acceptance more rapidly and effectively than is now possible.
This proposal presupposes an evolving cybernet of scholars who take advantage of the new resources created in cyberspace to support the development of research and knowledge. Increasingly, ISA/RC members will have their own home pages on which they can post their personal research findings. They will also have their own term-launcher to help them identify and develop the terms they need to use as fundamental elements in their research and thinking processes. The homepage and term-launcher will ground the listserv, and continuing discourse by e-mail will greatly enhance the value of traditional face-to-face conversations at professional meetings - especially the panels and roundtables sponsored by the RCs at periodic ISA congresses.
#4.4. Enriching the discipline
As a group's term-launcher improves its contents and its members gain confidence in their own growing vocabulary, they will want to share their experience with the whole discipline, i.e. with all sociologists. They should start to recommend new terms to be added to the list contained in the discipline's term-checker. This should be an incremental cumulative process. It should occur after a testing period during which members of the RC have satisfied themselves that each proposed innovation is a useful addition to their vocabulary. They might want to establish a review procedure whereby several members would endorse recommendations for the addition of new concepts to the ISA term-checker.
At the higher level of the discipline's term-checker, its manager (possibly with the help of an advisory committee) would probably review all the recommendations of the research committees. To avoid unnecessary delays, however, the benefit of the doubt should be applied so that, in principle, all of them should be accepted, subject to something like a veto power that might be needed to safeguard the whole process from possible abuse.
The manager of the term-checker should have the authority to question proposals that seem inappropriate and call for their sponsors to reconsider them. Perhaps they should have the right to override the "veto" if they feel sufficiently convinced of the merits of their proposal. The general philosophy of the nomenclator proposal is that it should encourage bottom-up initiative and innovation while retaining some reasonable degree of overall supervision and control.
The ultimate sanction for both the term-launcher and the term-checker will be the general membership of the ISA - or, indeed, of the interested world community. The individuals using these tools will ultimately be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept and use any new concept. Like the users of any dictionary, they possess the final power to use or ignore the information offered to them by a group of lexicographers. However, the ultimate users cannot make informed choices unless they have the basic information. Thus, like any scholarly journal or newsletter, the nomen will just provide information that all users will be free to accept or reject. This proposal does not contemplate any effort to standardize terminology. No doubt there are contexts in which standardization is appropriate, but it is quite inappropriate for the project recommended here.
Channels of Communication. To support the dissemination of new conceptual information to its members, the ISA should regularly call their attention to the availability of the new resources created by its nomen. It can use its computerized membership list for this purpose. By agreement with the Secretariat, a special service could be launched that would inform members of new concepts proposed by the Research Committees. Just as these committees now provide information on this list about the panels they are planning for a Congress, so they could also announce developments on the term-launchers they control. Such announcements could be very short, providing hyperlinks to enable interested members to find the substantive information.
Moreover, if this plan is implemented, the ISA could post a link to the term-checker on its Home Page. It could also establish columns for new concepts in International Sociology, Current Sociology, and its Bulletin. It would be useful if the ISA could name someone as its official Terminologist. This officer would be responsible for monitoring and supporting all the activities involved in the development of the Association's term-checker and the term-launchers sponsored by its Research Committees. The Terminologist might also provide some intellectual guidance and advice for all these activities, but h/er main function would be to disseminate information about them to all ISA members.
Bottom-Up. The basic approach recommended here does not involve the top-down design and marketing of a massive engine, such as Roget's Thesaurus or the Encarta Dictionary, nor the centralized management seen in the Spell-checker and Thesaurus now offered on WORD or WORDPERFECT. Rather, this proposal is for a bottom-up strategy which assumes that the members of a user community will be willing and able to implement the development of a term-launcher by themselves once the necessary tools and framework for creating an electronic nomenclator is available. They would also provide inputs for the term-checker after their term-launcher had become established.
Innovative sociologists will continue to propose new concepts as they see the need for them, but the proposed term-launchers will enable them to register their ideas in a terminological database sponsored by an ISA research committee, and this practice will also support the evaluation and use of their ideas. By posting their papers as hyper-documents, they will easily hyperlink their contributions to other documents posted on the Web in which their concepts are used in the development of relevant theories. Moreover, after a testing period, the innovations proposed by individual members will be recommended for addition to the overall Sociological data base provided by the term-checkers. This will broaden the audience to include all ISA members.
Published Reference Works. Finally, one may hope
that the authors of published glossaries and dictionaries will make use of
information made available by the sociological nomen to enrich the
contents of their own publications. We might designate liaison persons to
facilitate this process but, of course, every existing publication is
independently managed and financed. We do not see any need or possibility
of creating an organic connection between the nomen and the general
community of glossarists and lexicographers. However, cooperation based on
mutual interest should be quite feasible.
Fortunately, the Sociology Dictionary is an open
hyper-glossary. Because it is not printed on paper, new glosses can be
added as they are proposed. Since the SD accepts contributions from
cooperating sociologists and provides an input form that can be opened at:
http://www.iversonsoftware.com/sociology/dir-add.asp.
Innovative minds, having offered proposals to a term-launcher and
benefitted from collegial comments, will eventually want to offer their
proposals not only to their term-checker but also to the SD. Thereby they
will make a double contribution: first to their colleagues in Sociology,
especially members of the ISA, and then to the broader global public.
Indeed, through this methodology, our members will be able to enrich the
vocabulary of all social scientists and help them in their main teaching
and research activities.
Ultimately, we should also be able to add terms to the global English-language vocabulary. It is impressive to see how quickly the Encarta Electronic Dictionary accepts innovations from modern technology. We will find, for example, an entry for compact disk in the ED, plus entries for related concepts - see: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=CDR, There are entries for CD, CDE, CDI, CDR,. CDV, and CD-ROM - all are quite recent innovations that require explication to be intelligible. One will also find in the ED such newly coined words as cyberspace, cybernetics, and cybercafe. Is it asking too much to expect the editors of this great dictionary to review and add to their lexicon new terms coined by sociologists to help them think about and solve some of the most pressing problems now facing humans on earth?
*5. FEASIBILITY, FUNDING AND SPONSORSHIPIs all of this idle talk? Are there any real possibilities for a nomen, with supporting term-checker and term-launcher capabilities, to be organized, implemented and established? The ISA and its Research Committees provide an ideal incubation site -- hopefully, based on our pioneering experience, the basic principles can be extended in various global directions. Here let us focus on some of the specifics involved in turning a dream into reality.
#5.1. Feasibility. Recently reported developments
involving ontologies, the semantic web, and related computing technologies
support the hope, perhaps the expectation, that the kind of tools for
concept analysis and dissemination of relevant terms discussed above is
now quite feasible. At least, recent developments in computing technology
seem to support this hope. One relevant concept is that of the
semantic web -- as explained by a leading expert, James Hendler, http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler/AgentWeb.html,
The Semantic Web, as
I envision it evolving, will not be primarily comprised of nice neat
ontologies that have been carefully constructed by expert artificial
intelligence researchers. Rather, I envision a complex web of semantics
ruled by the same sort of anarchy that currently rules the rest of the
web. Rather than a few large, complex, consistent ontologies, shared by
great numbers of users, I envision a great number of small ontological
components largely created of pointers to each other and developed by web
users in much the same way that web content is currently created.
Some thoughts about
ontology and other terms used in this quotation can be found in
endnote 4 . Here, the point to stress is
that the vision of an electronic nomenclator for Sociology calls for the
nesting of related projects in a way that Hendler's semantic web
anticipates. A
growing number of term-launchers for research communities organized as
Research Committees would all be linked to the term-checker for Sociology
as a whole. Moreover, we can well imagine a growing number of nomens for
Political Science, Economics, Anthropology and other social science
disciplines. Indeed, if the technology proves viable, could it not be
linked with parallel systems in the natural sciences, humanities,
engineering and many other fields of knowledge? Although this
proposal presupposes English, there is no reason in principle why the same
methods could not be extended to other languages, to various regional
variants of English as spoken around the world, and to multi-lingual
glossaries for translators.
This is not the place to explain the technology that Hendler and others have already described in some detail. The specifics will become relevant only when we are able to launch a pilot project - however, anyone interested can find much information and many links by going to: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/sites.htm#sem. The point to be stressed here is simply that it is technically possible and probably not too costly to design the computer software that would enable users to load an engine into their word processers that would support the functions of a term-checker and a term-launcher. The dream of a nomen for Sociology seems technically achievable.
#5.2. Funding. It will, no doubt, be necessary to find some financial support for the initial stages of the proposed development of an electronic nomenclator for Sociology. At this stage, however, it seems foolhardy and even unrealistic to speculate about how much money is involved and who would be willing to fund and administer the proposed project. However, I promise to explore the possibilities informally and, when and if I discover realistic prospects, I'll report on them and add the relevant information to this hyper-document.
#5.3. Sponsorship. The most appropriate parent sponsor for an electronic nomenclator in Sociology would be the International Sociological Association. Perhaps other national and international sociological organizations would also be interested and they should be invited to join a consortium with the ISA for this proposed project. It is premature to say more here - again, after preliminary explorations, I shall report any progress and good prospects here.
However, at the term-launcher level, it would be appropriate for any interested ISA Research Committee to sponsor a component of the project designed to help them develop the specific concepts and terms needed in their sub-discipline. I cannot speak now for any of these groups except for RC35, the Committee on Conceptual and Terminological Analysis. I am confident that it will be able to spearhead the development of the proposed instrument as a general service available to all sociologists and, indeed, all social scientists regardless of discipline. In addition, RC35 should be able to do a pilot project on the concepts and terms needed for conceptual and terminological analysis, its own in-house vocabulary. Further thoughts on these matters will be the subject of a follow-up hyper-document to be presented when the time is ripe.
ENDNOTES:
1. Note that the term, glossary is derived from gloss which is defined in ED as: to give a short definition, explanation, or translation of a word that may be unfamiliar to the reader. http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?refid=1861675640. This definition focuses attention on the words that are glossed - they are selected because readers are not familiar with them. As in a dictionary entry, a gloss may contain several terms. This generates two different problems: first, how to identify the different terms described in a single gloss; and second, how to distinguish between the terms in a glossary that have been lexiconized and those that have not. As explained in the text, we will use the hyphenated form, glossed-term, for a glossary's terms that have not yet been entered in a dictionary as a lexiconized term. Since many terms in a glossary are lexiconized, only some of them qualify as glossed-terms.
2. This dictionary has three major advantages: first, it is electronic and promptly available for our use at any time; second, because it is electronic, it can be continuously up-dated and third, it is global in coverage by contrast with the OED which reflects British usage and Webster's, grounded in American practice. Incidentally, neither lexiconize nor operationalize are entered in this dictionary. However, there is an entry for lexicon, from which the verb is derived, as explained in detail below. As for operationalize, one can find its meaning by going to a hyper-glossary, The Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems which contains a definition of operationalization at: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/Operationaliz.html. It reads: the specification of measurable empirical referents for abstract definitions, concepts, and hypotheses. Our definition of lexiconized needs to be operationalized by reference to one dictionary because different dictionaries will not consistently provide the same answers - there are discrepancies due to publication dates (older and newer works), size (abridged and unabridged versions) and language of reference (British vs. American usage). Above all, ease of reference by hyperlink is a decisively important criterion.
3. Because the results ought to interest all users of the SD, it might be feasible to interest its editors in supporting this work. Indeed, they should be asked to join the process at the first stage just to make sure they agree to this use of their work. One advantage for the SD might be that they could mark their entries as lexiconized or not. Since the SD is electronic, it might even add hyperlinks to the definition of terms posted in the ED so that their users could readily compare the defined concepts. Going further, they might add a note to their glosses telling their users how the sociological meaning of a term differs from the nearest lexiconized sense. In many of the controversies sociologists have discussed under the heading of "contested concepts" I suspect that a close look at the glossed and lexiconized meanings of a word would be very clarifying.
4. The first sentence of Hendler's paper provides an apt example of the problems an electronic nomenclator should help a writer solve. It reads: The ontology languages of the semantic web can lead directly to more powerful agent-based approaches to using services offered on the web. Embedded in this sentence are four terms: ontology, semantic web, agent, and services. Since all of these words are entered in ordinary dictionaries, will consulting them help us discover what Hendler has in mind? Consider first agent. As defined in the Online Computing Dictionary, the word identifies, In the client-server model, the part of the system that performs information preparation and exchange on behalf of a client or server. My American Heritage Dictionary(1975) lacks any relevant sense for this word, but the Encarta World English Dictionary (1999) has a new sense: (6) a computer program that works automatically on routine tasks specified by a user. To interpret the technical definition found in the Computing Dictionary, we need to understand what client and server mean. Again, Heritage offers no help, but Encarta tells us that a client is (5) a computer program used to contact and obtain data from a program on another computer. With this in mind, we start to understand what Hendler had in mind. However, even Encarta does not explain the meaning of server. The Computing Dictionary, however, explains in a linked definition that a client is a computer system or process that requests a service of another computer system or process.
As for ontology, Encarta (1999) has not added to its traditional Philosophical understandings of this word, nor does it recognize semantic web. However, the Computing Dictionary tells us that an ontology is An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them. But it has not yet learned of semantic web.
Many other examples could easily be mentioned. The point, however, is that even though a word may be well established, its metaphorical or extended meaning in a new context may be unexpected and baffling to the uninitiated. Having an electronic nomenclator available would enable anyone equipped with this resource to discover new meanings as they emerged in the literature - at least, it would be possible to the degree that members of this community made regular use of the tool to make sure that their own communications would be well understood by whatever audience they were attempting to reach.
GLOSSARY
This hyper-glossary lists terms introduced for new concepts in this hyper-document. Links to them are provided when they are introduced in the text but not subsequently. To return to the text from a gloss, just use the BACK button. Technical terms used and defined by others outside this paper are not listed. Definitions offered here are based on text found in this hyper-doc where they may be viewed to see how they are used in context. All bold-face terms found in a definition are hyper-entailed, i.e., they head entries in which they are defined. Since this interlinks the definitions, readers are advised to check the entries for the hyper-entailed terms whose precise meaning they may not recall. A few other terms that are especially important in this hyper-doc have been included.
coinage: : an unlexiconized
word glossed to represent a concept
concept: : a unit of knowledge such as one finds in the
sense definitions of a dictionary entry
electronic nomenclator (nomen): a
nomenclator programmed to run interactively on the
Internet -- it contains a term-checker
and a term-launcher
entailing: marking the terms
used in a definition that are defined elsewhere in the same text or glossary NOTE: Entailments may or may not be
hyper-linked. When specific reference is made to hyperlinked entailments,
they can be called hyper-entailments
entry text: the text that follows the headword in
a lexicon or
glossary
entry
equivocal: property of a
term-form that designates more than one
concept within a given field of knowledge
glossary: a
dictionary with glosses for the vocabulary of a special language. NOTE:
most glossaries are printed on paper, but see
hyper-glossaries
glossary
term: any
term
glossed in a
glossary
glossed-term:
any
glossary term that has not yet
been
lexiconized
hyper-entailment, hyper-entail a hyper-linked term used in a definition that links a user to its
description in another gloss
hyper-glossary an electronic glossary containing hyper-entails in its glosses
hyper-document,
hyper-doc a computerized document posted in a hypertext
system
lexicon: a general
dictionary with entries for the whole vocabulary of a language, such as
English, French, Arabic or Chinese
lexiconized: a property of
terms
with entries in a lexicon
metaphor: a lexiconized word used in an unlexiconized sense
nomen:
(see electronic nomenclator)
nomenclator:
tool that supports the development of new
concepts
and
terms
-- it will highlight
words
whose specialized meanings
within a given subject field require clarification and it helps
specialists introduce and disseminate new
concepts
and
terms
proposal:
a description
(with hyperlinks) by an author of a new
concept
, with
terms
that can be used to represent it
QD, Quick
Definition: a second term-form used to disambiguate a
word
that can
represent more than one
concept
-- in the ED, exceptionally and
very helpfully, they are given at the start of each sense of a word
sensing:
the practice of identifying and defining the different
concepts
that a
word
can represent
spell-checker: a tool in a word processer that
automatically highlights words that are not spelled correctly and support
corrections
term, (termID):a
word used to identify just one
concept
term (termLEX): a
word used
to represent a
term-form
term (termMATH):
a symbol that refers to a mathematical expression
term (termLOG):
an element found in a logical proposition term-checker: a
tool in a nomen that enables users to open the
entry text for any
lexiconized word by double-clicking the mouse; it will also
list glossed-terms and highlight them when they
are first used by an author
term-form (termLEX): a
word used to identify more than one
conceptwithin the same special language
term-forms: the different forms that a
term-form can take: notably new words (
coinages) or new meanings for an established word
(metaphors)
term-launcher: a tool in a
nomen that enables users to register and evaluate new terms and recommend approved items for inclusion
in a term-checker
thesaurus: a tool
in a word processer that automatically identifies synonyms for a marked
word
in an author's text
TL master:
the Web master who manages a
term-launcher (TL)
word: any lexical item including orthographic
words, affixes, and multiword lexemes
Atomz Search this site: sort by date, with annotations, or for
relevance:
Return to top of this page or click here for Sites
Page links:
PEOPLE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ||
U.S. INSTITUTIONS ||
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ||
UNIVERSITIES || INFORMATION
LIBRARIES ||
INTERNET ||
SOCIAL &
POLITICAL Sciences
NEWS & DOCUMENTARIES ||
STATISTICAL DATA THEMES
GOVERNANCE ||
DEMOCRACY||
REPRESENTATION ||
POLITICAL SCIENCE||
PUBLIC ADMIN.
GLOBAL||
GLOCAL ||
DEVELOPMENT||
ETHNIC ||
THEO-LOGIC ||
TEXTS FUNDAMENTALS
CONCEPTS ||
TERMS
|| FUNDING SOURCES
OTHER
SITE MAP || SEARCH
ENGINES ||
HOME PAGE || END OF FILE
Personal
Autobio
PubAd