033_2002_V1_Anthony P. Cowie_Harmonising the Vocabulary of Risk

8/18/2019 033_2002_V1_Anthony P. Cowie_Harmonising the Vocabulary of Risk

1/6

REPORTS

ON

LEXICOGRAPHICAL

AND

LEXICOLOGICAL PROJECTS

Harmonising the Vocabulary

of isk

Anthony P . Cowie

School ofEnglish

University ofLeeds

Leeds LS2 9JT

United Kingdom

[email protected]

Abstract

At meeting eld n Novembe r 001 ithin he ramework

of

th e Council of Europe's

Major

Hazards

Agreement, th e

need

was

expressed

fo r

an

improved

harmonisation

ofthe

vocabulary

of'risk',

and

specifically

fo r a

dictionary

of

ke y terms within th e

field. he

present

paper argues that an

effective

approach to meeting

these needs would benefit

from

having a basis in frame semantics. he

theory

would

enable

lexicographers

to

indicate recisely

imilarities

nd ifferences etween elated erms, o roduce

n

ntegrated emantico-

syntactic

analysis,

and to

classify

relevant collocates. Th e paper seeks to

demonstrate

th e

applicability offrame

theory,

focusing on

certain 'risk' terms

and

drawing on

data

from th e

BNC.

Introduction

At

th e

Strasbourg

Forum,

organised

from

19-21

November

2001

within

th e

framework

ofthe

Council

of Europe's

EUR-OPA

Major

Hazards

Agreement,

umber

of

environmental

scientists

and other

specialists including

terminologists and lexicographers

were invited

to

address

th e problems of

reducing

scientific

ncertainty'

n

th e

ield

of

environmental

security

nd

mproving

ommunications etween

cientific xperts nd ecision makers.

One

issue

singled

out fo r particular

attention

at th e

Forum

was th e

need

to harmonise th e

terminology

of 'risk' cience. he

resent

aper

im s o et ut ome

of

th e

roblems

entailed

by

such

a task,

and

in particular

to

consider proposals

fo r

a

multilingual

dictionary

ofkey terms

in

th e

vocabulary

ofrisk.

Terminological

dictionary

of

risk

terms

Calls

or

uch

ictionary

ame

rom he

inguist

nd

hraseologist

Gertrud

Gréciano

[2001],

supported by a

group oflexicographers and computational

linguists specialising

in

terminology.

he

ictionary

would

rovide or

ncoding

s

well

s

ecoding,

nclude

references to

semantic

role categories

and

phraseology and take account of differences of

denotation

nd

onnotation

etween

he ses

f

terms

n pecialist

nd

on-specialist

contexts.

Existing

technical eference

works and

(especially)

corpus

data accessible

on th e nternet

were th e resources chiefly considered

as

uitable

y

th e group.

ome

elpful

upport

is

already

provided

by

th e

draft

glossary

Terminology

on

Disaster

Reduction

compiled

by

th e

Secretariat

f

he

nternational

trategy

or

Disaster

Reduction

ISDR).

hough

he

definitions

of key

terms,

which

may

in

any

given

case

be

drawn

from tw o

or

more

different

documents,

re

ot

lways

models of precision,

he upporting ocumentation s

ften

extensive,

and

provides

many

contextual aids

to

defining.

The

entry fo r

vulnerability,

fo r

325


2/6

ElIRALE-X

2002

PROCEEDINGS

example,

ffers etailed omparison

f

three ossible efinitions, ach elating o

specific

scientific

discipline.

he explanations

shown

at

(1) ,

(2 )

and

(3 )

reflect

the

usage

of

natural

and

physical cientists, engineers,

and

social

scientists, respectively.

t

is

arguable

that uch variety-based differences might ll e eflected n he ame dictionary

of

the

vocabulary

ofrisk.

(1 )

natural

andphysical

scientists)

'vulnerability

is

defined

as

proximity

or

exposure

to

natural

hazards, or

the

probability ofadisastrous

occurrence'

(2 ) engineers) vulnerability is

efined]

s

he

nability

of

a

built

tructure and/or

infrastructure) to

resist

the

strain

o r

force

exerted

by

natural

or

other disaster

agents'

(3 )

social

scientists) 'vulnerability

[is

defined] as

the

amount

ofcoping

capacity,

or

the

degree

to which social ,

cultural,

political and economic

factors

influence

the

ability

to

prepare

for,

respond

to ,

or

recover

from disaster'

These examples

lso

llustrate he point hat he accuracy of

a

definition n his domain

depends

in

part

on

the precision

with

which

key

associated terms

are

used

in that

definition.

For

example, the word hazard, a

key

term in

the vocabulary

of

risk, appears (appropriately)

in

the first

definition

oïvulnerability. imilarly, in

one definition

of

hazard

itself,

we find

the

words

'damaging

physical

events

which

...will

lead

to

economic

and social

loss that may

reach

the

scale ofa

disaster

..',

a clear

recognition

that

disasters

are

at

the

end-point

ofa

scale of 'damaging events'.

A

connected point

s

hat

f

terms

uch

s

isk, azard,

anger, ulnerability,

isaster,

damage,

re

ndeed

elated

emantically,

nd f heir

efinitions

re

o e igorously

harmonised, then

damaging

event'

say)

must

be

used

consistently

in all the

definitions n

which

it

appears. The

evidence

of the

SDR

document, drawing

s t

does

n

a

variety

of

specialist

glossaries,

indicates

that

this

is

fa r

from

being

the

case

across

many definitions of

the

vocabulary

of

risk.

We

need

to ask, too ,

whether

precision

n

defining

can

be

achieved

without

the

support

ofa

theoretical

framework.

Defining terms in the

light

of frame theory

In

y

wn ontribution o

he orum, rgued

hat

n nformed pproach o he

harmonisation of

the

ey

terms

nd

he

ruitful

analysis of concordances o r

purposes

of

compiling

a multilingual

dictionary,

would

benefit

from

having

a basis

in

'frame semantics'.

In

such

an

approach, according

to

Fillmore

and

Atkins,

speakers

can

be

aid to

know

the

meaning

of

a

word

nly

by

irst

understanding

he

background

frames o r

knowledge

schemata ]

that motivate

the

concept that

the

word

encodes' Fi l lmore Atkins 992; f.

Atkins

994;

Cowie

998].

ithin

the

theory, semantically

inked

words (such

as

hazard

and

vulnerability, fo r

example)

are

no t

related

to

each other directly

(in

terms of

synonymy

or hyponymy,

say),

but

by

means

oftheir

connections

to

partly shared,

semantic

elements'

in

a

given f rame.

n

the semantics of

the

key

term risk

already the subject of

a

detailed

study

by

Fillmore Atkins

1992 ]

various

choices

and possibilities, and

negative

and

positive outcomes, give rise to elements

in

the

basic

f rame,

including uncertainty about

the

future (the element

CHANCE)

and

a

potential

unwelcome development

(the element HARM).

326


3/6

REPORTS

O N

LEXICOGRAPHICAL A N 1 > LEXICOLOGICAL

PROJECTS

According

to

th e

study,

these

tw o

categories

alone

make

up

th e

core

of our

understanding

of

several

ther

erms

within

he

ield,

ncluding

peril,

anger,

enture,

azard.

otice

specifically,

as

is

shown

by

th e

elaboration

(at 4) ofa definition

originally found in

th e

ISDR

document,

th e

elements R I S K Y

S IT U A T I O N

( 'event

or

state

of

affairs

threaten[ing]

to

cause

...'),

A R M

'physical

amage r conomic

oss'),

nd O N T E X T

an re a

f nown

settlement,

etc' are crucial to

our understanding

oîhazardas

well

as

risk:

(4 ) azard: a natural

or

man-made

event

or

state ofaffairs

which

threatens to

cause

physical damage

or

economic

loss,

or endangers

human

life

and

well-being

(perhaps

to th e

extent

ofcausing a

disaster),

ifit

occurs

in or

close

to an area

of

human

settlement,

or

agricultural

or

industrial

activity.

Opportunities and

challenges of the approach

Semantic rame heory, elieve, ffers number

of

opportunities

to

terminologists nd

lexicographers in treating th e vocabulary

of'risk'. irst,

as

we

havejust briefly

shown,

th e

theory

nables

s o ndicate ery

recisely

oints of

similarity

etween

losely

elated

terms. f

undoubted

value,

too, s

th e ac t that th e model rings ogether

semantic

nd

syntactic

nsights,

n

that

th e one-to-two

(or

one-to-many) relations

between

elements

and

lexico-syntactic

structures

are

clearly

demonstrated.

In he

ollowing

xamples

ncorporating

he oun

hreat,

or nstance, we an ee

hat

aggressor

is

ealized

irst as

a

grammatical

ubject

and

second

as

a

prepositional

hrase

introduced

by from:

(5 )

ggr

{the

dolphins} were

a

threat

VO {to

th e local

fishing

industry}

(6 ) n

imagined

threat

Aggr

{from

th e few remaining ex-revolutionaries}

One

ofthe

useful

lessons

here

fo r

lexicographers

is

that

many

prepositional

phrases

relate

to

core elements

n

a given

frame,

and are no t

to

be

consigned

to

an

adverbial

waste-paper

basket.

A

third

way

in

which

frame theory

can

benefit

lexicographers is

by throwing

light on

th e

structure

of

various

syntactic

units,

including

complex

noun

phrases,

and

their

relationships

with

other constructions.

Of

th e

tw o

examples

at (7 )

and

(8),

th e

first

is

a complex

NP,

th e

second,

a clause.

espite

th e

superficial differences,

th e

units

are

semantically

inked

by

virtue

ofthe

presence in both ofVALUED OB 3ECT -theplant s

existence:

(7)

he

threat

VO

{to

th e

plant's existence}

(8)

O {the plant's existence}

is

under

threat

3 7


4/6

EURALEX

2002

PROCEEDINGS

These

comments

form

part

of

a

smal l

exploratory

study.

It s

samples

are

drawn

from

a

broad

range

of BNC

ata,

ot from

pecialized

ub-corpora,

r from

arger

bodies

of scientific

material ccessible n

he

nternet.

ts

onclusions elate o eneral, ncluding

emi-

technical, English

material only.

Semantic

elements

and syntactic structures

Referring

earlier

to hazard and

risk,

I

tried

to show

how

frame

theory

could

bring to

light

close

similarities of meaning. ut equally, it

can

throw

light on fine

differences.

onsider

now

azard

nd hreat.

t

he evel of

semantic

oles,

here

re

ertainly mportant

differences

between

these

nouns.

hile

threat

as

noun occurs freely in contexts in

which

V A L U E D

O B J E C T

is

realized

as

post-modification,

hazard

is

not

found

in

such

a

context.

typical post-modifier fo r

th e latter is one that

realizes th e element

P O T E N T IA L

V I C T IM

(9 )

greater

threat

VO

{to

th e

democratic constitution}

(10) azards

PV

{facing

public

service

workers}.

Let

us

now

turn

to

consider semantic

elements

in

relation

to

syntactic

structures.

e

shall

look

at

threat

and

focus

chiefly

on

th e

first

structural

element

after

it

its

post-modification.

So , a threat to ,

a threat of, a

threatfrom,

and so

on.

The evidence, drawn

from

th e

British National

Corpus,

though no t restricted in

this

study to

any

scientific

domain,

supports

three

major

semantico-syntactic

groupings:

•

ost-modification realises V A L U E D O B J E C T

(VO)

•

ost-modification realises I N T E N D E D viCTlM (iv)

•

ost-modification

realises

H A R M

(

•)

Th e

first

two,

with their

verbal

analogues,

are

shown

at

(11) and

(12),

and

we

can

see

that

only

th e semantic

roles

ofthe prepositional phrases distinguish between

them.

(11)

threat

VO

{to

everything

he

had fought for}

*^

hreaten everything he

had

fought fo r

(12)

he

threat

IV

{to

people who blow

th e

whistle on

their employees}

«^ hreaten people

who

blow

th e whistle on

their

employees.

The

inal

roup

iffers

n

three

espects

rom

th e

irst

two.

s we an

ee,

here s

superficial difference ofpreposition

choice:

(13) hethreat

3 8


5/6

REPORTS

ON LEXlCOGRAPlHCAl,

A N I >

LEXICOLOGICAL PROJECTS

H

{ofaprice

war}


6/6

EüRALEX

2002

PROCEEDINGS

Conclusion

This

has

been

a

small-scale,

exploratory

study,

expressing

the

response of

one member of

a

discussion

group

to

a

number

of

descriptive

challenges. t

concentrates

on

only

two of the

features

se t

out

in

the

dictionary

blueprint

presented

at the

Strasbourg

meeting,

and

addresses

none

of

its

multi-lingual

concerns. erhaps

enough

as

been aid,

however, o show

that

f rame semantics

has

much

to

offer to

the

designer

ofaterminological dictionary.

Semantic

elements such

as

RISKY

SITUATION

and

HARM

as we saw in

the case

of

hazard

are

powerful

upport when

efining

definitions r distinguishing

between

elated tems .

Then oo, ne

an

ook

o he

odel

o

rovide

n ntegrated escription

f

semantic

categories and syntactic

structures,

such a description being of particular value

for

encoding.

Final ly, s

we

have

just een n

he case

of

threat,

he

approach

can

hrow

ight

on

he

semantic

classification

ofcollocates.

References

[Atkins

1994]

Atkins,

B.

T.

S., 1994.

Analysing th e

Verbs ofSeeing:

a Frame

Semantics Approach

to

Corpus

Lexicography,

in:

S.

Gahl

et al . (eds.) Proceedings

ofthe Twentieth Annual

Meeting

of

the Berkeley Linguistics Society.

University

ofCalifornia,

Berkeley.

[Cowie 998] Cowie,

A. P., 998. Semantic

Frame Theory nd

th e

Analysis

of hraseology,

n:

Moscow

State

University

Bulletin, 9

(1),

Moscow

State

University,

Moscow.

pFillmore

Atkins

1992]

Fillmore,

C.

J.

B.

T.

S.

Atkins,

1992.

Towards

a

Frame-Based

Lexicon:

th e Semantics of RISK and its

Neighbours, in: A. Lehrer

E. F.

Kittay

(eds.)

Frames,

ields

and

Contrasts. Lawrence

Erlbaum

Associates, Hillsdale

NJ.

[Gréciano

2001]

Gréciano,

G., 2001 .

L'harmonisation

de

la terminologie

en

sciences

du

risque,

paper

presented

at th e Strasbourg

Forum

on

Environmental

Security, Council

of Europe,

Strasbourg,

19-21

November .

pSDR

2001]

ISDR Secretariat,

2001 .

UpdatedandExpanded

Terminology

on

Disaster

Reduction.

First

Draft Outline and Compilation. Inter-Agency Task Force

on

Disaster

Reduction,

Geneva.

33

Documents

033_2002_V1_Anthony P. Cowie_Harmonising the Vocabulary of Risk