{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025698524465174687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007332825043727856, 'mean_word_length': 5.2196652719665275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Method Proposal for Mapping the Patterns of Originality in Design

way to show its possible and numerous outcomes, this study can only suggest another perspective to benefit from these keywords that will also shift our mindsets around them. In this manner, it tries to reveal the patterns of keywords by visualizing Williams’ textual research into a visual narrative. Although this narrative is realized around the concept of originality, it is generatively adaptable to other concepts as well. The study ends with an extended version of Williams’ vocabulary, showing that this vocabulary can diversify, update and expand with descendent vocabularies inspired by Williams. As with all the history of concepts, it is never final nor fixed. As these paths extend, we will find new ways of connecting and understanding the concepts and their transforming history reflected in our ways of thinking today. One perspective is built on a myth of originality, a common idea of original being that there is a genius behind the work of art who is free from all the cultural and social conventions and contextual or intellectual conversations. This mythification appears as a continuum in history. Throughout history, the prevailing forces in architectural ideologies try to “naturalize” the cultural constructs of architecture to justify and rationalize it through mythification(Silvetti, 2000, 275). So, exposing these mythical constructions means cracking and resolving the meaningful readings that lie hidden in them. The second perspective is that architecture emerges from a discourse that builds on itself and its techniques; its resources are everywhere. Jorge Silvetti (2000) mentions in The Beauty of the Shadows that the idea that architecture is a language built upon itself, with the ability to transform itself through form, its materials, comment, and ‘criticism from within’. We refer to, allude, interpret, comment, criticize, remake, revise, collect, and curate existing projects. We use different forms of copying to transform our ideas into a language of architecture. Sometimes the copy itself can be an original as an Ise Grand Shrine. In some cases, the unbuilt works can greatly influence, such as OMA’s Parc de La Villette or Loos’s Baker House. Sometimes an anonymous work can be subject to originality. All we need is to find a fertile way to unveil the beauty of the shadows.

Originality is a relatively modern and controversial concept in design. Although it has been widely used in English since the end of the 18th century, its root 'origin' is an old word that has been in the language since the 14th century. Etymologically deriving from the root word 'origin, originem' (lt.) -source, rise, birth-, origin has an intrinsic retrospective meaning. 'Original,' on the other hand, keeps this retrospective meaning of source but also takes on additional definitions as 'new, unique and authentic' over time. Deriving from this secondary meaning of the original, the concept of 'originality' has described an idealized innovation and source of artistic expression. It has been theorized to signify value in creative industries. The fact that the word original can be attributed with different and opposing meanings; changes the way we deal with originality and related concepts in design, art, and aesthetics, making them open to discussion. Even though the definitions within the framework of the concept of originality take place in different discoursive areas, they create changing conditions and transform accordingly. Traces of these conditions and transformations show themselves on the meanings and definitions of words and form the hidden patterns of 'originality'. It is a challenge to visually represent these changes that occur in language and are reflected in our ways of thinking. This paper proposes a method to analyze and represent the evolving and changing definitions of all these concepts and the dynamic conditions that create them by bringing them together contextually, semantically, and interdisciplinary. Unlike traditional linguistic tools of defining and examining words and concepts, this study encourages the use of Raymond Williams ' (1985) inspiring work 'Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society' to map all the interdisciplinary relations of the keywords into a network, to visualize the changes in meaning, to selectively bring all the data around the keyword 'originality' and to reveal the patterns of the concepts of and around originality.

INTRODUCTION
In recent social and intellectual architectural environments, one much-debated issue over design is 'similarity beyond inspiration'. Through national and international scale projects, 'source hunting' is carried out over the resemblances, and the originality or authenticity of the designs under discussion. These discussions are not solely based on architectural form; the design approach, representation techniques, and material choices can also be subject to similar investigation. Any kind of imitation, resemblance, similarity, or copying is seen as opposed to originality, authenticity, or innovation. This situation is often seen as an ethical problem in architectural and creative environments. In architectural education and other practical areas of architecture, architects are expected to make a brand new design with their individual creative skills and imagination, and not repeat themselves. Today, while industrial producers try to perfect the copying processes and techniques, the copy is often seen as a devalued version of the original in the creative industries. However, in the past, copying was the only mode of production, not seen as the opposite of originality, and had a relatively positive attribute.
The history of western architecture is based on imitation, reproduction, remaking, adaptation, or replication of already existing notions of models, typologies, archetypes, or copies. In some cases, this can be the literal adaptation of entire buildings, while in other circumstances, it can be fragments of construction techniques or details. For example, in the historical canon of architecture, Villa Capra (Rotunda), designed by Andrea Palladio (in 1567), is an example of an architectural reference, which is both the result and the source of copying.
Inspired from the Classical Roman period and composed of many references from the Pantheon, it still inspires many residential buildings today (The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,1998). Similarly, the classical Greek building, Parthenon, is still replicated worldwide for different purposes. On the other hand, the building built in China in 1994 as a replica of the Ronchamp chapel, designed by Le Corbusier and completed in 1954, can be demolished and destroyed, but not copied due to copyright issues. Legally, copyrights protect buildings for approximately 75 years, so nowadays, we will be able to replicate the early decades of the modern era legally, but this will still be problematic.
Historically speaking, copying was how art or architecture became a language and was disseminated. But, nowadays, even the idea of the copy is such an anathema that it seems to signify the death of many things we value within the core of architecture, such as authorship, identity, authenticity, and invention (Jacob, 2014, 87). Emerging as a reflection of the semantic change of the concepts around originality and copy in different periods, this issue has become a subject of discussion in ethics and aesthetics. These concepts have been loaded with varying meanings regarding the spirit of the age and have been handled in various ways in art and design-related creative fields. Therefore, it is essential to embrace all these concepts together with their changing meanings and understand the conditions of changes in their definitions to discuss them today. Every word/concept we use in our daily life has a semantic history. Words are not static; the changes and transformations hidden in their past include contextual information about the current uses of these words. Therefore, it is crucial to analyse the contextual histories of these words and the different critical debates around them. In this regard, this study proposes a method to reveal and uncover the conditions that affect change in the meanings of originality and related concepts.
The history of transformation and the idealization of originality depends on some qualitative and quantitative changes. Traditionally, in production models, we see that the ultimate goal of any production is the transference from generation to generation; therefore, transferring the norms and rules is rather more important than their source or origin. There is a normative system of actions and patterns for the designers or artists, and these systems allow them not to start from scratch for any given situation (Tanyeli, 1997, 63-70). In the premodern period, originality was not considered an ideal, and copying existing patterns was common and acceptable. For this reason, in the traditional sense, 'copying' as a technique of reproduction and transference is loaded with different and opposed meanings from its modern definitions.
Similarly, in Samuel Johnson's (1755) famous 'Dictionary of the English Language', one of the meanings of the word original is 'first copy', meaning that it still has no meaning of the origin as we understood it today. Until the end of the 18th century, the positive connotations of 'copy' such as abundance, resourcefulness, and wealth continues. Later on, as originality becomes an ideal, the copy downgrades to a less valuable version of the original. This is a result of some qualitative and quantitative transformations in society that happened in the past.
The starting point of modern thought concerning the creator and the object created occurred in two stages (Moulin, 2014, 444). The first stage results from a qualitative transformation that happened during the Renaissance at the end of the 15th century, when a differentiation began between artists and artisans. Work produced by painters, sculptors, and architects acquired the prestigious title of "liberal arts". The artist was not a craftsman, but a creator, a kind of alter Deus; thus, the charismatic image of the artist merged with the aristocratic image of artwork as something unique and irreplaceable. This is the stage when art begins to differentiate itself from craft. The second phase resulted from a quantitative productive phase that started with the first Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. In this stage, artistic production began to define itself in opposition to industrial production and mechanical reproduction (Moulin, 2014, 445).
In this sense, with the Renaissance, the artist's position started to rise to a more prestigious and honoured place and, unlike artisans, their produce became the originals, not copies. Along with the change in the intellectual structure during the Renaissance period, artists began to be glorified as 'creators'. With the industrial revolution, while artists created value with their unique and original arts, designers created value with their design, unlike the uniform copies of mechanical production or mass production. It can be said that the concept of the artist in the modern sense was born in the Renaissance, and the unique and honoured value of the work of art became intellectually widespread in the 18th century. Over time, while the production techniques changed the reproducibility of things quantitatively, quality issues have arose up for discussion. In the age of reproducibility, the meanings of originality, copy, and reproduction have transformed accordingly. As the production methods change and reproducibility, mechanical reproduction, and mass production become widespread, the originality of things becomes controversial. The value of things that can be easily copied and those that cannot be copied or transferred (such as authenticity) starts to differ. This differentiation shows itself intellectually in our modern mindsets. With the industrial revolution and the change in economic conditions, the rise of capitalism and mechanization brought counterreactions in two fields: the Romantics and the genius produce newness and uniqueness in their original arts, and the designers create original copies within massproduced designs.
To sum up, it can be said that the discussions around originality occur mainly in two areas of discursive. Originality is addressed as an ideal in aesthetic discourse, especially in the arts, design, and other creative fields. Whereas, in the economic discourse, the concept of originality is considered a value. Although these two discourse fields seem relationally disconnected as they handle the idea of originality in different contexts, they intrinsically bring productive conditions to each other. So, to better understand the notion of originality, we should consider it both from the aesthetic and economic angles. As the conditions change over time, both the product and its producer's change meanings. Said (1991, 134) mentions that changes associated with the ideals of originality form a dominant pattern, and the frameworks of this pattern are determined psychologically, economically, and intellectually. Foucault (1969) thinks it is crucial to analyse the conditions under which a word changes its meaning to what it signifies to us today. Therefore, it is essential to resolve how, when, and under what conditions these changes in definitions occurred and how the originality patterns were formed. This study proposes a method that will visually uncover these patterns and allow a relational textual reading through the concepts.
This study aims principally to research words and texts to reveal the patterns of originality. As briefly discussed above, many related and opposite concepts and terms should be considered on the axis of originality. To better understand the way we think about originality today, we should dig into the structure of the interlocking web of words, both from the aesthetic and economic fields. There are different approaches and linguistic methods to studying such words; concepts, their history, semantic changes, and origins. As an alternative conceptual reading method, Raymond Williams' Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society will be used in this study. In the words of Ben Highmore, 'within Cultural Studies, it is the work of Raymond Williams (RW) that is most associated with the analysis of a carefully chosen, interlocking vocabulary through which historical transitions can be glimpsed and a changing society mapped via a dynamic history of shifting meanings within this vocabulary' (Highmore, 2021, 2). His way of choosing the words, constructing a system intuitively and relationally, and drawing attention to the changing conditions of social and cultural events that also transform the words' definitions makes it unique. It offers the opportunity to adapt this system into a representative structure. The very first reason to select and analyse Williams' work as the content of this study, was that originality is also a keyword in his structural vocabulary.
RW's study will be used to read conceptual relationships from different discourses, and the mental mapping he proposed will be turned into a theoretical and textual representation method. Firstly, this article will briefly explain some linguistic tools and structures we use when analysing and researching words. Then, it will continue with evaluating and interpreting RW's structural approach to keywords. After mapping the interdisciplinary relations of the keywords into a network, it will selectively bring all the data around the paths of 'originality'. This study will outline a method to visualize the changes in definitions that allow seeing all the words and concepts together. It will end with a proposal that will broaden the content by adding two additional vocabularies that will articulate RW's study and extend the mappings and paths to do meaningful readings. This project aims neither to glorify originality nor advocate copy or plagiarism but to outline a way to discuss and redefine our understanding of the subject from a broader perspective.

'WORDS' AND 'KEYWORDS'
There are various traditional linguistic tools (dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, etc..) to analyse and study words, concepts, and their meanings. The way these tools deal with words structurally and the narratives they represent differ. Etymology is the branch of linguistics that examines the origins of words, when and how they emerged into the language, and their transformations in phonetics and meaning. Dictionaries consist of individual expressions of a language and their different definitions; however, no semantic relationship is established. Encyclopedias are sources of information listed alphabetically and referenced for informational purposes. Yet, they do not have to include every word or concept in the language, nor do they provide different meanings like dictionaries. Still, they contain more detailed and organized information about the words in their content. Thesauruses are indexes of synonyms and antonyms for general use or specific areas and collections of controlled vocabularies for a broader use of words rather than explanatory purposes. Vocabularies are collections or lists of words with brief explanations of their meanings. Lexicons are vocabularies of a language, or vocabularies created by bringing together selected concepts under a particular subject or theme. Still, these concepts are not constructed with other concepts from different fields. Glossaries contain the words used in a specific area of knowledge and their descriptive definitions, so their primary purpose is to be illustrative and explanatory. Terminologies include special and technical terms used in any field and their meanings. So all these linguistic tools serve different purposes while defining and analysing words or phrases and can be used accordingly. Structurally, they represent different contents and provide diverse forms of knowledge (Fig.  1). This paper proposes using RW's Vocabulary of Culture and Society, as an alternative approach to analyse the words in-depth, map the semantic relations between words, and visually represent the histories of the concepts that will correspondingly reveal the patterns.
As mentioned above, vocabularies are collections of words or concepts within a language or brought together under specific themes. Raymond Williams, one of the founders of Cultural Studies, starts by analysing a single keywordculture -and later constructs a vocabulary with 130 others in his inspirational book Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. His choice of these keywords, his method of bringing them together, and the conceptual construction of the vocabulary, differentiate it from other dictionaries, encyclopedias, or any linguistic tools, and  (Durant, 2006, 5-6). Similarly, J.R.Firth (1935) analyzes sociologically essential words in her Technique of Semantics, showing how contextual studies can characterize a culture (Bondi, 2010, 2). Apart from the English language, linguistic studies of essential keywords for social and intellectual history continued throughout Europe. Examples of such studies on the use of Schlüsselwörter (=keywords) in the German language during the 1900s were Sclagwortforschung (= studies on phrases), Brisante Wörter (= controversial words), and Begriffsgeschichte (= history of concepts). There are similar studies in the French language as well. In the 1950s, Georges Matoré spoke of the importance of mots clés (=keywords) and argued that lexicography is a sociological discipline. Emile Benveniste, Lucien Febvre, and Michel Foucault also work on their favorite keywords such as civilization, labor, madness, and author (Bondi, 2010, 23).

'RAYMOND WILLIAMS' (RW) AND THE 'KEYWORDS'
The word 'keyword' itself enters the vocabulary in the middle of the 19th century. Its preliminary uses were mainly associated with science, knowledge, and encryption subjects. Although keywords were studied in different ways in different languages, it was first promoted to philosophical significance by Raymond Williams (Patterson, 2005, 66). Criticizing T.S. Eliot's work Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), Williams reconsidered the concept of 'culture' and its definitions and published his essay 'Idea Of Culture' in 1953. In the preface to his following book Culture and Society: 1780-1950 (1958), he mentions discovering that the idea of 'culture' and the general modern uses of this word entered British intellectual life during the Industrial Revolution, and with his work, he tries to show how and why this happened (Williams, 2016, 11).
Williams finds that the word 'culture' is one of the most challenging words in English and that to properly understand our use of it, and the issues it refers to, we must follow changes in late 18 th -century society in the context of thoughts and reactions and consider it together with other concepts related to society. Thus, 'culture' is an antecedent of Williams' keywords. Williams is regarded as one of the innovative founders of the British Cultural Studies movement and has been immensely influential as a cultural historian, critic, and materialist. His approach centers on the concept of 'culture' and how it intertwines with other fields of Culture and Society. His work starts with a single keyword and grows cumulatively with other 'great' ones from his intellectual understanding and evolves into Keywords: The Vocabulary of Culture andSociety (1976-ed.1983), in which he examines the philological development and history of the words' culturally, socially and politically changing meanings.
Williams starts his vocabulary with 110 keywords in the first edition (1976) and adds 21 new keywords to the second edition (1983). With these keywords, he aims to show that some critical social, cultural, and historical processes occur in the development of language and that the problems of meaning and relationship complement each other (Williams, 1983, 30). These important words, create different interactions, and their relationally changing meanings reflect not only a historical but also a social process. Ward comments on Keywords in his monograph that "The words are seen to be quietly energized, and to move, if very slowly and gently, through history, not having constant meanings, still less 'correct' ones, but yet not arbitrary either, for they have a logical and understandable continuity which, even with internal surprises, can be traced" (Eldridge, 1981, 13). Williams adds new meanings to all these concepts by reuniting some vague conceptual terms (such as creativity, culture, society, individual, originality) and material facts (such as education, media, drama, and literature) with social and historical relationships. Williams put forward the theory that language itself is causative and that active meanings and values in language have formative social effects (Patterson, 2005, 67). Hence, it is challenging and an alternative way to trace these changes through his keywords and vocabulary and try to represent this structure of Williams' 'brain map' visually.
The keywords Williams chose are 'single and powerful' words on their own, but above all, they are words with complex histories (Higgins, 1999, 69). As mentioned before, Williams uses various linguistic tools to define these powerful keywords. Bondi and Scott (2010, 23-24) summarize four characteristic features of the keywords: (1) First, Williams identifies words intuitively based on his extensive scholarship. He then uses the OED as empirical evidence that his keywords have undergone historical shifts in meaning, leading to complex layers of meanings in contemporary English.
(2) Second, only some of his keywords are in widespread use (e.g., country, expert, family, genius), whereas many are from intellectual discourse. (3) Third, Williams assumes that keywords do not just label but help create conceptual categories. He talks of "significant, indicative words in certain forms of thought" (Williams 1983: 15). Work on keywords necessarily implies a constructivist perspective. (4) Fourth, Williams' particular interest is a Marxistsocialist analysis of the social order.
To methodize Williams' structural approach to these powerful and characteristic keywords and represent his way of building a vocabulary, we first need to resolve the critical element of his study: a keyword. He thinks that even though every word is a part of a more systematic social process of language, it can still be useful to pick out certain words of an especially problematic kind and consider their internal developments and structures (Williams, 1983, 22). If we analyse the construction of a keyword entry, we can outline it in the following order: First, each keyword is listed alphabetically. Generally, it starts with an opening line that characterizes the keyword with an adjective -such as 'one of the most difficult words', 'a very curious word', 'a very complicated word'-then continue with an etymological background. The origin of the keyword is introduced, and its derivatives are included throughout the text within their historical occurrence. The main body of an entry is highly descriptive, and the primary source is the OED (Oxford New English Dictionary on Historical Principles) 1 . Williams uses OED because, firstly, he finds it primarily philological and etymological, so it is much better on range and variation than connection and interaction. Secondly, for anyone who works on the structures and developments of meaning in English words, he thinks that it has an extraordinary advantage because it is not so purely scholarly or free of active social and political values (Williams, 1983, 18-19). He also includes a thesaurus description of the words (similar meanings, synonyms, and antonyms). While historically pointing out the changes in definitions of the words, he supports them with quotes from significant people. He mentions the keywords' current and various uses in different areas and shows how the meanings of the keywords can evolve in time. Finally, he recommends a relational reading with other keywords forming a semantic and complex structure within his vocabulary. This relational mapping enriches the meaningful readings of the entries from an individual narrative into a contextual network (Fig. 2).
As seen in Figure 2, his way of narrating a keyword is a hybrid structure of different linguistic tools. Another critical aspect of Williams' vocabulary is that he does not collect concepts from one field or two complementary fields. He collects and connects keywords from different epistemological areas so that their interactions are generally unexpected and genuine. Williams's guide in selecting words appears to have been that each keyword should be a complex, culturally defining word that serves as a record of historical argument and a resource through which we organize discussion and shape future action. Each keyword, Williams says, at some time virtually forced itself on him in the course of an argument it was being used to promote or rebut. Hence, it is a vocabulary rather than a dictionary. By calling Keywords a 'vocabulary of culture and society', Williams also ensured that the book is suspended somewhere between a general vocabulary of words concerned with culture and society and a more specialized vocabulary of words that had shown themselves to be important in the tradition of writers discussed in Culture and Society (Durant, 2008, 3).
Williams is interested in words that have the effect of shaping our understanding and provide material that can be analyzed and shift our way of thinking. For this reason, he made choices from both general and technical fields (such as political, philosophical, and aesthetic) with different contexts regarding its value and consequences (Durant, 2008, 5). Figure 3 below shows the various fields of the keywords and their distribution. These divisions are not strict, and we can always subdivide and specialize these areas, yet it indicates that Williams brings words from different vocabularies and tries to connect them meaningfully. He describes its vocabulary as "significantly not the specialized vocabulary of a specialized discipline, but a general vocabulary ranging from strong, difficult, and persuasive words in everyday usage to words which, beginning in particular specialized contexts, have become quite common in descriptions of wider areas of thought and experience." (Williams, 1983, 14).
The importance of his work for this article is that 'originality' was also a 'keyword' in his vocabulary, meaning that he found originality as another powerful keyword, having many layers of contextual meaning to be uncovered. This study aims to understand the idealization and valuation narratives of originality from a broader perspective. Thus, we can benefit from the cultural, contextual, and relational readings he made to understand the concept of 'originality' differently. Therefore, Williams' narrative is an alternative method to look at 'originality' as a 'keyword', not only from the frameworks of dictionaries or encyclopedic narratives but also through Williams' hybrid structure. It will also allow us to see and fictionalize 'originality' not from a specialized perspective but also from a more profound and unexpected dimension. The next chapter will visually analyse and methodize his vocabulary structure and bring together all the relational keywords within his 'brain map' around the concept of originality, using it as an alternative source of semantic representation.

'KEYWORDS' AND THE RELATIONAL NETWORK
Even though 'keywords' are intellectually selected words essential for Culture and Society, they are not sufficient individually to describe the whole. For this reason, Williams presents a conceptual network by constructing the interdependent relations of these keywords. He also mentions that these relations become more complex the more he considers (Williams, 1983, 13). These social links, constantly changing and articulated and systematized by Williams, enable us to understand the ties that bind both the past and the present. In this way, by attaching more general and specific concepts from different disciplines and constructing their relations, he brings them together in an Williams has built up a vocabulary with the keywords he chooses in the fields of culture and society. Still, he does not include all the words in these epistemological areas and does not explain them all. His way of approaching these keywords one by one and bringing them together is unique. He thinks even though the words do not stand on their own, since they are the elements of the social process of language, they depend on complex and variable systematic properties of language itself (Williams, 1983, 22). Accordingly, Williams created systematic internal relations through words in his book. Therefore, the meaning of each word alone becomes deeper when read together with other words that Williams systematically describes with relational connections. As seen in Figure 4 below, we can see the keywords of his vocabulary, illustrate the semantic relationships that he suggested and visualize them in a circular network. Eldridge (1994, 41) suggests that these connections meant several things: -Identifying relations between words and their changing usage; -Connecting usage with context; -Connecting past usage and variations with recent usages; -Making intellectual connections across disciplines since it was the problem, not the discipline which mattered; -Making analytical connections between discrete parts of social life through reflection on common vocabulary; -Recognizing the connection between specialist vocabularies and the general language of discourse.
Williams' essential keywords in culture and society are complex and controversial. Although they may seem incomprehensible at first, they become more reasonable with Williams' compilation. The interaction between these keywords chosen from different fields of thought and discussion can address different purposes. In this sense, to better understand a keyword, we need to read it in its complex relationship with other keywords. To manage that, Williams connects his 131 keywords with 630 relational strings. Besides his structure for individual keywords, how he connects all the keywords into a network also tells us a narrative. Mapping this network and following the paths Williams built within will allow us to defragment all the content around specific keywords and interpret these narratives relationally.

'KEYWORDS' AND THE PATHS
Williams says that the keywords are patterns themselves. He thinks that any valuable analysis of culture begins with the discovery of patterns of a characteristic kind. Sometimes it

UOU scientific journal #03 REPRESENTATION
can be the discovery of similarities in concepts that have been treated as separate activities, or sometimes we discover unexpected discontinuities that a more general cultural analysis is concerned with (Williams, 1963 65). In this way, we can reveal their relationship to other patterns. His relational network also helps to show another pattern hidden in-between the keywords that will deepen their meaningful readings. Searching for the target keyword in the network and following the paths provide the opportunity to bring related keywords and their fragmented patterns together intertextually. While the smallscale shifts in the use of the words cause the meaning to change, this change can be observed as a pattern (Durant, 2006, 20). By analysing 20 th -century intellectual culture through words, language and ideologies, Williams tried to obtain evidence about how culture could be expressed as lexical patterns (Bondi, Scott, 2010, 43).
Combining the histories of words with their current meanings, Williams also changes the reader's relationship with language. This describes semantic processes in the history of language and helps develop new ways of thinking. In this manner, the vocabulary consists of patterns on the keyword scale and multiple paths regarding the relational network. Therefore, it can be a generative linguistic tool considering both keywords as individuals and the vocabularies as collections. It is possible to expose paths with different focus keywords, analyse them structurally, and combine all the fragments with other target keywords.
In Figure 5A, we can see possible paths created with varying focus keywords. These different paths show the infinite and generative possibilities to zoom in and comprehend the keywords from another perspective. In Figure  5B, we see originality as the focus keyword. This selection helps us diminish the vocabulary into an index regarding Williams's 'brain map'. This index shows us the affinitive concepts we need to consider to better understand the concept of originality.

'KEYWORDS' AND SEMANTIC ANALYSIS
How a 'keyword' content is handled by Williams and how it  the 'keywords' in the 'originality' index semantically and do a content reading that can identify the patterns Williams mentioned. Going back to a 'keyword' entry, we can see that Williams uses several linguistic tools to pinpoint each keyword. These pinpoints can underline a date when the meaning of the keyword changed, the dates when new definitions were added, the various usages of the word in different periods, or important points of view with multiple quotations. Therefore, placing them historically on the same timeline makes it possible to make semantic inferences from each input. In Figure 6 below, a semantic reading is shown, and all the fragments of pinpoints are highlighted.
These highlighted pinpoints are the turning points of the definition of the words. They are the pieces of evidence that Williams found through his research. Using many linguistic tools, he tries to highlight his findings. He takes his narrative beyond two pages. While telling the history of a word, he encourages us to go further in his structure with his relational strings. He tells us his narrative and wants us to follow his storyline. So if we collect all the evidence from the narrowed index, semantically read and defragment the pinpoints of each keyword of the index and turn them into a timeline, we start building up the pattern and the narrative of originality (Fig. 7). We can understand how and when these words changed, transformed each other, and shifted our mindset.
relates to other concepts, have been discussed in previous chapters. It has been mentioned that with additional vocabularies, new connections were defined through the extended relational mapping, forming new paths. These paths allow us to generate numerous links between focus and target keywords. When we narrow down this expansive network of relations and focus on 'originality,' we can obtain a selected network of strings and a reduced index of keywords (Fig. 5B). Therefore, every new point the network of relations extends offers new possibilities for creating a meaningful scope. To transform this relational and contextual index into a semantic pattern, it is necessary to return to each keyword again. To do this, we need to look at

NEW 'KEYWORDS' AND EXTENDED RELATIONAL NETWORK
While the list of 'keywords' seems to be fixed with the date of its publication, this list is never set nor final. Every word has a history, and history is not static. As social life changes, words keep up with it. While some words lose importance in describing the social order, we sometimes need new words. In this sense, Williams' vocabulary is not a collection of fixed keywords; instead, it is a living body of words that have the ability to adapt to socially changing and shifting history. It has been used in other studies at different times with the way it approaches keywords. Williams is not the originator for the studies of keywords or vocabularies, as mentioned earlier. Still, it can be said that his way of selecting keywords, using hybrid linguistic tools, and the structural network within his vocabulary is unique.
As his study is a model for understanding socially changing words, it is not a coincidence that his work preceded other studies. These three studies also reflect three timelines for different periods of social and cultural life, connecting the past and the contemporary while building new connections that enrich the readings of semantic continuity of the concepts.Previously, we had visualized the hidden network within Williams' vocabulary into a relational mapping. With the help of the two subsequent studies, it is possible to articulate, extend and update Williams' network.
The keywords in each new vocabulary can be added to the existing words in the network, preserving their relationships defined by the three authors. Thus, an extensive network of relations can be created with the current and added keywords. This enables us to stretch out the paths and make new connections. Figure 8A above shows the overall network with all the three Vocabularies and their connections, Figure 9A shows the relational paths and Figure  9B shows the extended Index for the keyword 'originality', with the revised, updated, and profound connections with other keywords.
The Keywords study, which Raymond Williams has brought together and compiled over 20 years, is a fundamental study. As a foundational analysis for Cultural Studies, it gives us many possibilities to observe and analyse words in an intellectual environment. It is an unfinished study because it is a growing collection of living keywords that help to describe our culture and society. It is generative to discover all the possible relationships and intertextual connections. It is timeless yet contemporary because we will always need words, use words, and adapt words according to the shifting realities of our society. These paths and patterns will continue to expand with new studies as we adapt to the culture's new order, allowing us to follow these paths and reveal possible readings of these patterns. This research proposes Raymond Williams' book Keywords: A Vocabulary for Culture and Society as its primary source for researching keywords and their historical patterns. It was chosen because Williams approaches keywords as the deciphering tools for culture and society. He shows an alternative way of combining many linguistic tools to describe his selected concepts from different areas of discourse. He builds a relational structure to indicate that all these concepts are related and intertwined in the vocabulary of culture and society, set within an intellectual and critical perspective. Collecting

CONCLUSION
This paper chases the idea of originality. The history of the concept of originality is a narrative that we need to uncover to understand how we approach it today. Originality is a relatively modern concept, yet it has too many controversies. From the perspectives of art and design, it is considered in the sense of being a novel and perhaps an ideal way in relation to creative expressions. Deriving from a root word with a static and retrospective meaning, originality takes on opposite meanings making it a controversial concept. This transformation results from many qualitative and quantitative changes that have occurred in cultural, social, and intellectual life and not only in art and aesthetics but also in the economic fields. Like many words, the concept of originality has a history of changes, and to better understand what it means today, this study proposes a method that will narrate its history. This narration also includes research on other concepts that have the effect of altering or transforming originality. In this sense, the concepts that shift and reconstruct each other form a pattern, and it is critical to uncover these patterns and represent them visually. the fragments of information throughout the intertwined structure of Williams' vocabulary and defragmenting it in an abstract way to show its possible and numerous outcomes, this study can only suggest another perspective to benefit from these keywords that will also shift our mindsets around them. In this manner, it tries to reveal the patterns of keywords by visualizing Williams' textual research into a visual narrative. Although this narrative is realized around the concept of originality, it is generatively adaptable to other concepts as well. The study ends with an extended version of Williams' vocabulary, showing that this vocabulary can diversify, update and expand with descendent vocabularies inspired by Williams. As with all the history of concepts, it is never final nor fixed. As these paths extend, we will find new ways of connecting and understanding the concepts and their transforming history reflected in our ways of thinking today.
One perspective is built on a myth of originality, a common idea of original being that there is a genius behind the work of art who is free from all the cultural and social conventions and contextual or intellectual conversations. This mythification appears as a continuum in history. Throughout history, the prevailing forces in architectural ideologies try to "naturalize" the cultural constructs of architecture to justify and rationalize it through mythification (Silvetti, 2000, 275). So, exposing these mythical constructions means cracking and resolving the meaningful readings that lie hidden in them.
The second perspective is that architecture emerges from a discourse that builds on itself and its techniques; its resources are everywhere. Jorge Silvetti (2000) mentions in The Beauty of the Shadows that the idea that architecture is a language built upon itself, with the ability to transform itself through form, its materials, comment, and 'criticism from within'. We refer to, allude, interpret, comment, criticize, remake, revise, collect, and curate existing projects.
We use different forms of copying to transform our ideas into a language of architecture. Sometimes the copy itself can be an original as an Ise Grand Shrine. In some cases, the unbuilt works can greatly influence, such as OMA's Parc de La Villette or Loos's Baker House. Sometimes an anonymous work can be subject to originality. All we need is to find a fertile way to unveil the beauty of the shadows.