What it is
Concepts do not sit on their own, and terminology work recognizes three families of relation between them, two of them hierarchical. In a generic relation the subordinate carries every characteristic of the superordinate plus at least one that delimits it, so that a coniferous tree is a kind of tree. In a partitive relation the superordinate is a whole and the subordinates are its parts, so that a branch is part of a tree. The third family is associative, which ISO 704 characterizes as non-hierarchical links established between concepts through experience.
The test separating the first two is mechanical and worth applying every time. Characteristics are inherited down a generic relation and not down a partitive one: everything true of a tree is true of a coniferous tree, while almost nothing true of a tree is true of a branch. The standard states this itself, and it is a firmer diagnostic than any intuition about whether something feels like a type or a component.
Where the authorities stand
The three-way scheme is standardized, and the standard is candid that it is a floor rather than a ceiling. ISO 704's 2009 edition requires that at least hierarchical relations, generic and partitive, and associative relations be used in modelling a concept system. Nothing forbids a richer scheme, and the treatment of the associative family is openly illustrative: the 2009 edition lists pairings such relations may involve, among them action and actor, quantity and unit, and raw material and product, then acknowledges that others turn on time or on cause and effect. That is an example set, not a taxonomy.
The 2022 edition renumbers the material, placing hierarchical and associative relations in separate subclauses of clause 5.5, and its foreword records that the clauses on associative relations were extended. What the extension contains is not publicly readable, so nothing should be attributed to it.
The dissent is a matter of granularity rather than principle. Nuopponen's position, in her own words, is that terminology work and terminological resources often use only the basic relation types, while ontologies, automatic term extraction and advanced terminological knowledge systems benefit from a larger set. Her own scheme is correspondingly richer: alongside generic relations she sets a family of ontological ones, with contiguity, which subsumes the partitive case, and activity, origination, developmental, interactional and causal relations beside it. Three relation types is what has been standardized, which is not the same as the claim that there are three.
Suonuuti supplies the drawing conventions, free to consult: a tree diagram for generic relations, a rake diagram for partitive ones, an arrow diagram for associative ones.
Consequences for translation
Deciding which relation is in play changes the definition, the diagram and often the equivalent.
- The definition follows the relation: a generic concept is defined from its immediate superordinate plus delimiting characteristics, a partitive one by naming what it is part of, which the standard notes tends to show in the opening words.
- Where two languages lexicalize at different levels, the translator is forced into generalization or particularization, and the choice is not reversible. Moving up a generic relation discards a characteristic that moving back down will not recover.
- Associative relations are where term-record notes earn their place. A note that the source names the actor and the target the action beats a second candidate equivalent.
- A term base with more than three relation types has not departed from the standard, which sets a floor. Saying so ends an argument that runs on assertion.
Examples
IT>DE
- Source: custodia
- Target: Verwahrung / Beaufsichtigung
- Comment: One legal system, two co-official languages, and a generic relation present in only one of them. Chiocchetti, Lušicky and Wissik report that in Italian law of obligations custodia covers animate and inanimate entities alike, while the official German designations in the province of Bolzano split it, Verwahrung for objects and Beaufsichtigung for living creatures. Italian has no designation at the German subordinate level, so the translator must supply from context a characteristic the source never expressed.
FR>EN
- Source: juridiction
- Target: court / tribunal
- Comment: The mirror case, where the superordinate is missing. Weston's analysis, quoted by Cao, is that juridiction stands above both cour and tribunal: any of them may be described as a juridiction, while some juridictions are cours and others tribunaux. English lexicalizes the coordinates and not the concept above them, so a French sentence speaking deliberately at the general level has no English designation to speak at.
DE>EN
- Source: höhere Gewalt
- Target: force majeure
- Comment: Inclusion rather than identity. Cao records the German concept as the narrower of the two, which makes the pair usable in one direction and an over-generalization in the other. The asymmetry is a fact about the relation between the concepts, and no amount of source context repairs it.
References
- ISO 704:2009. Terminology work: Principles and methods, 3rd edition. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, clause 5.5, and clause 6 on the formulation of generic and partitive definitions.
- ISO 704:2022. Terminology work: Principles and methods, 4th edition. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, clause 5.5 and Foreword.
- Suonuuti, H. (2001). Guide to Terminology, 2nd edition. Nordterm 8. Helsinki: Tekniikan Sanastokeskus, sections 1.4.1 to 1.4.3, pp. 14 to 19.
- Nuopponen, A. (2022). "Conceptual relations: From the General Theory of Terminology to knowledge bases." In P. Faber and M.-C. L'Homme (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology: Explaining terms, concepts and specialized knowledge, Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice 23, 63 to 86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Chiocchetti, E., Lušicky, V. and Wissik, T. (2023). "Multilingual legal terminology databases: Workflows and roles." In Ł. Biel and H. J. Kockaert (eds), Handbook of Terminology, Volume 3: Legal Terminology, 458 to 484. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, at p. 461.
- Cao, D. (2007). "Legal Terminological Issues in Translation." Ch. 4 of Translating Law, 53 to 73. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, at p. 56 and pp. 59 to 60.