Terminology from the Cognitive Integrated Perspective

doi:10.12339/j.issn.1673-8578.2022.03.003

Abstract

Abstract:

In the knowledge-driven study of terminology, scholars have successively put forward a series of conceptual models with regard to knowledge representation of terminology in different specialized fields. However, these studies have not explicitly taken into account the existing definitions and actual usage contexts of terms, nor have they fully explored the cognitive structures and constructions related to terms beyond the conceptual framework. The newly proposed Cognitive Integrated Model (CIM), which is built upon the basis of Frame Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics, is an attempt to supplement such two weaknesses. CIM takes into consideration both the existing professional definitions and actual usage contexts in which the terms are applied, examining not only the Event-Domain Cognitive Model but also conceptual metaphors, metonymies and blending. The use of CIM in analyzing Chinese green tea names demonstrates that the model can effectively enrich the knowledge representation and construction of terms.

Key words: terminology, the Cognitive Integrated Model (CIM), knowledge representation and construction, green tea naming

CLC Number: (术语学)

PENG Yi, ZHANG Xueying, XIAO Chenxing. Terminology from the Cognitive Integrated Perspective[J]. China Terminology, 2022, 24(3): 16-26.

Figures/Tables 11

References 30

[1]	L’HOMME M-C. Maintaining the balance between know-ledge and the lexicon in terminology: A methodology based on frame semantics[J]. Lexicography, 2018, 4 (1): 3-21. doi: 10.1007/s40607-018-0034-1 URL
[2]	FABER P. The dynamics of specialized knowledge representation: Simulational reconstruction or the perception-action interface[J]. Terminology, 2011, 17 (1): 9-29.
[3]	FABER P, LINARES C M, VEGA EXPÓSITO M. Framing terminology: A process-oriented approach[J]. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 2005, 50(4):121-146.
[4]	PENG Y. The event-domain cognitive model perspective on terminology: A case study of atmospheric environment terms[J]. Lexicography, 2019, 6 (1): 43-67. doi: 10.1007/s40607-019-00054-w URL
[5]	TEMMERMAN R. Towards new ways of terminology description: The sociocognitive approach[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
[6]	FABER P. A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012: 15.
[7]	GAMONAL M A, TORRENT T T. The linguistic-computational modeling of metonymy in the FrameNet Brasil lexical database: A case study[J]. LinguíStica, 2016, 12 (1): 82-94.
[8]	DA COSTA A D, GAMONAL M A, PAIVA V M R L, et al. FrameNet-based modeling of the domains of tourism and sports for the development of a personal travel assistant application[C]// Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 2018: 6-12.
[9]	FABER P, LEÓN-ARAúZ P. Designing terminology resources for environmental translation[M]// MENGJ C, LAVIOSAS (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Translation and Social Practices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021:587-616.
[10]	PENG Y, LUO B, XIAO C. Enriching knowledge representation of terminology: A cognitive integrated perspective[J]. Lexicography, 2022, 9 (1): 1-35.
[11]	王寅. 事件域认知模型及其解释力[J]. 现代外语, 2005(1): 17-26.
[12]	LAKOFF G, JOHNSON M. Metaphors we live by[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980.
[13]	LAKOFF G. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[14]	SWEETSER E. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphoric and cultural aspects of semantic structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[15]	GIBBS R W, STEEN G. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
[16]	EVANS V, GREEN M. Cognitive linguistics: an introduction[M]. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2006.
[17]	KÖVECSES Z. Metaphor in media language and cognition: a perspective from conceptual metaphor theory[J]. Lege Artis, 2018, 3 (1): 124-141. doi: 10.2478/lart-2018-0004 URL
[18]	KÖVECSES Z. Extended conceptual metaphor theory[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
[19]	LAKOFF G, TURNER M. More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[20]	CROFT W. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies[J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1993, 4 (4): 335-370. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 URL
[21]	DE MENDOZA I F J R. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy[C]// BARCELONA A (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
[22]	BARCELONA A. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective[M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
[23]	GEERAERTS D. Theories of lexical semantics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
[24]	FAUCONNIER G, TURNER M. The way we think[M]. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
[25]	TURNER M. Compression and representation[J]. Language and Literature, 2006, 15 (1): 17-27. doi: 10.1177/0963947006060550 URL
[26]	陈宗懋. 中国茶经[M]. 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1992.
[27]	陈宗懋, 杨亚军. 中国茶经[M]. 上海: 上海文化出版社, 2011.
[28]	陈宗懋. 中国茶叶大辞典[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2000.
[29]	施海根. 中国名茶图谱绿茶篇[M]. 上海: 上海文化出版社, 1995.
[30]	王广智. 绿茶名品图鉴[M]. 香港: 万里机构·万里书店, 2013.