Specialized Knowledge Representation and the Parameterization of Context

Though instrumental in numerous disciplines, context has no universally accepted definition. In specialized knowledge resources it is timely and necessary to parameterize context with a view to more effectively facilitating knowledge representation, understanding, and acquisition, the main aims of t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in psychology Vol. 7; p. 196
Main Authors Faber, Pamela, León-Araúz, Pilar
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 23.02.2016
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Though instrumental in numerous disciplines, context has no universally accepted definition. In specialized knowledge resources it is timely and necessary to parameterize context with a view to more effectively facilitating knowledge representation, understanding, and acquisition, the main aims of terminological knowledge bases. This entails distinguishing different types of context as well as how they interact with each other. This is not a simple objective to achieve despite the fact that specialized discourse does not have as many contextual variables as those in general language (i.e., figurative meaning, irony, etc.). Even in specialized text, context is an extremely complex concept. In fact, contextual information can be specified in terms of scope or according to the type of information conveyed. It can be a textual excerpt or a whole document; a pragmatic convention or a whole culture; a concrete situation or a prototypical scenario. Although these versions of context are useful for the users of terminological resources, such resources rarely support context modeling. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy of context primarily based on scope (local and global) and further divided into syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic facets. These facets cover the specification of different types of terminological information, such as predicate-argument structure, collocations, semantic relations, term variants, grammatical and lexical cohesion, communicative situations, subject fields, and cultures.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Edited by: Marco Cruciani, University of Trento, Italy
Reviewed by: Elisabetta Lalumera, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italy; Rita Temmerman, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Belgium; Pius Ten Hacken, Universität Innsbruck, Austria
This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
ISSN:1664-1078
1664-1078
DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00196