Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
stronger. If the meaning of a descriptor term is opaque (used in a language not
known by the map reader) (Kadmon 2000 ), they had to interpret the features
themselves; this gives more importance to the visual representation of features. If
the meaning of a descriptor term is known, it makes it easier to interpret features,
but since it is an easy task, the map reader does not have to rely on visual
representation and will less notice features shown but not named. Transparent
names help interpreting features whose nature is hard to decipher from its visual
representation.
9.6 Conclusion and Future Directions
Planetary maps are representations of the physical reality but since the
cartographers' representation methods are taking aesthetic and other human factors
into consideration—such as classification, generalization and naming landforms
(selected land areas)—are subjects of cognitive reception therefore their interpreta-
tion by non experts depend on the used visualization and naming methods. This
work showed a survey which was focusing on one variable: the language of the
nomenclature—or, more precisely, the language of descriptor terms. Hungarian (in
this case, transparent) and Latin (opaque) terms were shown to a non expert target
audience.
The survey showed that cartography is indeed a form of art, since just like
literary texts, it is highly dependent on the interpretation and preconception (or,
previous knowledge) of its reader.
The respondents who consulted a planetary map gave a more detailed descrip-
tion of Mars, which was in accordance of the first hypothesis of this work (“first
consulting a planetary map [
] will provide a basis for a more detailed cognitive
map than all previous knowledge on that planet”) but in these new concepts they
ignored several parts of their previous description. It shows that the first encounter
with a planetary map caused a kind of paradigm shift in which they abandoned large
parts of their previous view of the surface, at least, for this description task.
The second hypothesis was that “if the opaque descriptor terms [ ... ] are trans-
lated to a language transparent to its reader, the map reader [
...
...
] will have a more
realistic (cognitive) view of the surface [
]”. This work showed that the situation
in not this simple. Both methods—having an opaque or a transparent descriptor
term—have their advantages and disadvantages, which should be taken into
account when the visual representation methods and additional data or texts that
appear on the map are planned and realized.
Translation of the opaque (not understandable) nomenclature gives a different
view which is neither better nor worst than the Latin version. This conclusion
disproves the need for the translation of the Latin names in order to achieve a better
interpretation of a map showing an extraterrestrial surface. However, it sheds light
to those elements which need to be emphasized by other methods. This is true for
both cases. In the case of those cultures and languages, which use a writing system
...
Search WWH ::




Custom Search