Dimensions of Terminology Work

Dimensions of Terminology Work ANITA NUOPPONEN University of Vaasa KEYWORDS: terminology work, normative terminology work, descriptive terminology work, dichotomies, translation-oriented terminology work, terminography, terminology management, standardization, concept-orientation, term-orientation 1. INTRODUCTION Normative/descriptive, systematic/ad hoc, mono-/bi-/multilingual, concept-/term-oriented are some of the dichotomies or trichotomies in the literature on terminological activities. In his paper Dichotomies: impossible and indispensable? Johan Myking (2007: 265) discusses in depth the most common di-/trichotomies concerning the theoretical basis of terminology field. He regards them as “important features of the metadiscourse of this discipline,” arguing that studying them might “contribute to a better understanding of the state-of-the-art within the field of terminology as well as current tensions and development trends”. These dichotomies are taken frequently also as departure points when motivating new theoretical approaches (see more e.g. in Myking 2001, 2007; Budin 2001; Antia 2001; Cabré 1999, 2003; Temmerman 2000). In this paper, dichotomies and trichotomies related to practical terminology work are taken as expressions for dimensions of terminology work. This paper is a contribution to the research into the state-of-the-art of terminology work. Tentative, multidimensional typology (concept system) of terminology work is outlined covering thirteen criteria of division, or “dimensions,” which are grouped into those related to target group, purpose, compiler, product, or method. In addition to some established di-/trichotomies in the literature, I have also looked for some new ones that can be detected when scrutinizing different ways of working with terminologies. They reveal criteria of division for different types of terminology work and borderlines between what could be regarded as terminology work and what belongs, for instance, to lexicography. In addition, some established dichotomies were reshuffled. 6 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work The sources include literature on the theory and practice of the field of terminology: journals, conference reports, field overviews, handbooks (e.g. Wright & Budin 1997a, b; Steurs & Kockaert 2014; Felber 1984), textbooks (e.g. Cabré 1999; Picht & Draskau 1985; Sager 1990), guidelines and standards (ISO 1087; ISO 704). In the following, the concept of terminology work and the designations utilized for it are discussed, and a framework for the analysis of the various dimensions and characteristics of terminology work is established. After that, each of them is explored more thoroughly. 2. TERMINOLOGY WORK The ISO standard 1087-1 (2000) defines terminology work as “work concerned with the systematic collection, description, processing and presentation of concepts and their designations”. The ISO 704 (2009: v) includes the following as the main activities of terminology work: — “identifying concepts and concept relations; — analysing and modelling concept systems on the basis of identified concepts and concept relations; — establishing representations of concept systems through concept diagrams; — defining concepts; — attributing designations (predominantly terms) to each concept in one or more languages; — recording and presenting terminological data, principally in print and electronic media (terminography).” I generally subscribe to the ISO 1087 (2000) definition for terminology work, but for the purposes of this study I would prefer to stretch it to some extent in order to be able to address, among other things, also “non-systematic” terminology related work and to explore a more varied practices. In the literature of the field, we find at least following alternative designations for terminology work: terminography, terminology management, terminology processing and terminology. The last one (terminology) appears frequently in the literature. For instance, Vesna Lušicky and Tanja Wisisik (2015: 8) define the activity as follows: “The goal of terminology is to record and organize the meaning and usage of specialised terms and to make those available in various terminological resources like (online) termbases, dictionaries, glossaries, and terminology standards, in order to use them in texts, translation, and specialised discourse.” Terminologija | 2018 | 25 7 However, I would rather avoid this polysemous usage of the term terminology since it is not always clear from the context which “terminology” the authors are talking about (research field, discipline, terminology work, set of terms, glossary of terms etc.). The term terminography, coined in analogy with lexicography, was suggested by Alain Rey for “applied descriptive terminology” in the seventies (Rey 1995: 23, 129). Terminography has found its way into international English usage alongside terminology work. It appears, for instance, in ISO 704 (2009) as seen above and in ISO 1087 (2000), but referring to a “part of terminology work concerned with the recording and presentation of terminological data”, which “may be presented in the form of term banks, glossaries, thesauri or other publications”. Instead of terminology work or terminography, Sue Ellen Wright and Gerhard Budin (1997a) use the term terminology management with the motivation that it would fit better in the English language usage and would be analogical with “information management” (ibid. 1997a: 2). According to them, terminology management consists of “structuring, storing, exchanging, disseminating and using terminological information for text production (including dictionaries, etc.)”. Also for them, terminography is the activity of recording terminological information, and not the wider activity. Klaus-Dirk Schmitz (2009), in his turn, prefers the ISO 704 usage of terminology work but wants to use the term terminology management instead of terminography (see also Lušický & Wissik 2015: 8). Juan Sager (1990) uses the term terminology processing, which however has not spread as much as the others have. In this article, the term terminology work will be utilized for the wider activity related with terminologies while terminology management is – as K.-D. Schmitz (2009) sees it – the “part of terminology work concerned with the recording and presentation of terminological data”. In the terminological literature, various types of terminology work are described quite differently. There are many synonymous terms and cases of polysemy. In this study, however, I have been more interested in their elements of different types of terminology work and concentrate mostly on their characteristics. Various types of terminology work that are described in the literature are taken here as complements to each other. (Figure 1). The focus on characteristics of terminology work is also a theoretical effort towards a multifaceted and multidimensional theory of terminology that G. Budin (2001: 20) mentions. The classification is tentative and open for further discussion and development. In the following, 8 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work various characteristics of the different approaches will be separated and examined more or less as elements that could be put together in many different ways. Among several alternatives for grouping the different criteria of division I chose five main groups guided by the basic questions: to whom, why, by whom, which product, and how? (See Figure 1). Figure 1. Dimensions of terminology work Terminologija | 2018 | 25 9 3. T E R M I N O L O G Y W O R K T O W H O M? Target group. Terminology work has various target groups that have somewhat different needs. In addition, the questions “to whom” and “by whom” are intertwined and cannot always be separated from each other. Normative terminology work and terminological standardization were introduced to address communication hinders among the domain experts and to meet their terminology needs. Another large terminology user group are translators, and it has been frequently emphasized that their needs differ from those of the subject specialists (see Wright & Wright 1997: 148). Moreover, they also do terminology work themselves (more in chapter 5). Indeed, special attention has been paid to how to integrate terminology work as a part of translation work (translation-oriented terminology; e.g. Hohnhold 1990; Wright & Wright 1997). In addition to these two groups, terminology work can be targeted e.g. for internal (e.g. technical writers), or external users in organizations or companies (e.g. customers), students, laypersons, and general audience. Furthermore, not all users are humans but terminology work is done also for machine translation, machine-readable ontologies, and for the needs of various types of information systems. 4. W H Y T E R M I N O L O G Y W O R K? There is a myriad of reasons why terminology work is needed. However, I shall take up only two basic dichotomies that lie behind terminology work. The first one is the immediacy to the needs the user has: terminology work either anticipates the needs of the user or is performed at request. The second one has to do with the purpose of the work: terminology work has as its purpose either to influence or to describe the usage of terms and concepts on a field. Immediacy. From the point of view of immediacy to user needs, terminology work can be either proactive and just-in-time terminology work (LISE Guidelines 2013: 21–23), or something in between. For V. Lušicky and T. Wissik (2015: 9), who are focusing on translation-oriented terminology work, proactive terminology work is “text-based terminology work that is concerned with the collection, description, procession and presentation of concepts and their designations before the translation process.” However, LISE Guidelines (2013) use the term for a wider activity covering all types of terminology work that are “done by assessing probable 10 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work future needs concerning domains to be discussed, texts to be translated, legislation to be passed, etc. Terminologists try to anticipate future needs by working on entire domains and text-specific terminology that is not already present in the terminological resource of reference.” (LISE Guidelines 2013: 23) In this sense, proactive terminology work covers the activities required by terminology planning, such as assessing the present and future needs of organization, enterprise, subject field, language, country, etc. For instance, the EU has made far-reaching terminology planning strategies that define the terminology work to be done (see e.g. Fischer 2010). In addition, standardization of terminology is proactive as well as the terminology work at companies. Kara Warburton (1997: 677) emphasizes that companies need “to identify their terminology needs and plan a course of action to meet those needs early in order to reduce work in the future”. While proactive terminology work anticipates the needs well ahead, at the other end of the continuum lies terminology work that is done at the moment of the need. It is often called ad-hoc terminology (work) but also the terms just-in time, on demand, express, or occasional terminology (work) could describe well its character (see e.g. Ghallchobhair 2008; LISE Report 2013). The term ad-hoc terminology (work) is utilized by different authors for different concepts, for example, as opposite to “systematic terminology work” that I will return later on to. Ad-hoc or just-in time terminology work is done either by the user (“DIY terminology work”) or by various types of terminology services and centres, or in-house terminologists (“terminology on demand”). Claudia Dobrina (2010: 82) describes the latter case as “terminological emergency ward”, which “has emerged to meet urgent and not too vast terminological needs”. It is needed when single or a set of terminological problems must be solved in a short time (LISE Guidelines 2013: 23; Cabré 1999: 152). Needs. Furthermore, a distinction between domain-oriented and text-oriented terminology work can be done (e.g. Schmitz 2009). The need for the first one comes from the field, and its knowledge is taken as its point of departure. Comprehensive material is collected including various types of relevant documents as well as field experts interviewed and consulted (Wright & Wright 1997: 148). An example of text-oriented terminology work is the preparatory work that translators do when solving terminological problems found in texts they translate. They do this by con- Terminologija | 2018 | 25 11 sulting other texts for translation equivalents and other terminological data prior translating the text. Instead of systematic subject field study, the translators rather create their own terminology resources “presented with random extracts from a domain” (Wright & Wright 1997: 148). Systematic terminology work (management) has been described also as “subject-field-driven” while translator-oriented ad-hoc terminology as “text-driven” (Wright & Wright 1997: 147; Faber 1999: 98). Purpose. The main purpose and task for terminology work from the very beginning has been to facilitate the mutual understanding inside the special fields and over the language and other boundaries. In order to do this, two approaches can be taken: descriptive or normative (prescriptive) terminology work. Descriptive terminology work ideally would result in terminological products (vocabularies, term bases, etc.) that cover all the terminological and conceptual variation of the target field and comment the relationships between the variants leaving the selection of the most suitable one to the user. The purpose of the normative or prescriptive terminology work is to make “the target audience to adopt the preferred term and avoid rejected ones” (Karsch 2014: 294), such as terminology concerning a product or service of a company, legal system, etc. Same methods can be utilized for most of the work processes because descriptive work constitutes the first part of the normative work process (see Cabré 1999: 132). In addition to these two types of terminology work, Helmut Felber (1984: 189) reminds us that there is also the type of terminography “used by scientific communities which is based on the idea that scientific concepts are in a constant flux. For them scientific terminology can only be recommended but not prescribed.” 5. BY WHOM? Expertise. Those who work with terminologies in one way or another, could be roughly divided into three overlapping categories: “creators,” “compilers & mediators” and “users”. The first ones are domain experts (syn. subject specialists, subject matter experts, SME) who create and use concepts and terms of their field in the first place (Sager 1990: 197; Cabré 1999: 121). They create concept systems, define concepts and agree on shared terminology – or promote their own. The results of this kind of terminology work are documented either explicitly or implicitly in stand- 12 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work ards, handbooks, articles, textbooks, technical documents, etc. Terminological methods, ISO standards and guidebooks have been targeted for this group. The work of these terminology “creators” could be treated as “primary” when opposed to what terminologists and others involved do when collecting and analyzing terminological data, and producing and disseminating terminological products (“secondary”). The third group, “users,” are those who need terms and concepts in their work, such as translators, technical writers, teachers, information and documentation specialists, laymen and students as well as those who work in the field. The terminology related work the “users” do consists e.g. of searching for relevant terms, concepts, definitions, and equivalents (“tertiary”). The difference between the groups that do terminology related job could be said to lie in their relationship to the object of terminology work and their degree of expertise in the subject matter. At one end of the continuum, there are the domain experts who “own” the terminology, i.e. they know the terminology of their field and have a say in, which terms to select and how to define concepts. They have a decisive role in terminology project groups, and terminologists need to consult them (see e.g. Picht & Draskau 1985: 167; Cabré 1999: 121) and documents written by them. At the other end of the continuum, there are those, who do terminology work or search terminology without being field specialists. In between these two ends is the type of terminology work that is done as cooperation between terminologists and domain experts (see below). It must be noted that an expert is also a “user” and, for instance, a terminologist or translator could be also an expert and a “creator” (more on expertise e.g. in Karsch 2014: 295–296). Collaboration. As to the organization of the work, we could identify a difference between terminology work according to the degree of collaboration, whether it is an individual, intra- or interorganizational effort. In addition, the dimension of national and international cooperation has been present from the very beginning. At its best, terminology work is a collaborative effort, and different types of collaborative models have been suggested in the literature (Felber 1984: 29; Picht & Draskau 1985; Karsch 2014) the basic model requiring collaboration at least between a terminologist and a domain expert. Heribert Picht & Jennifer Draskau (1985: 167) even point out that “Terminologists [–] who imagine that their work can succeed without expert advice [–] have misunderstood some of the Terminologija | 2018 | 25 13 basic principles of their profession”. The latest developments are crowdsourcing efforts enabled by web-based platforms and cloud services (Karsch 2014). Continuity. Terminology work can be a freestanding onetime or recurrent effort, or it can be continuous practice integrated in the processes of an organization or e.g. in the work of a translator. Some projects are carried out only once but sometimes projects are repeated – as it is done e.g. in standardization. This is because subject fields are not static but changes occur, which also influence concepts, concept systems and terms. Terminology projects can reach from extensive to more restricted undertakings starting with establishing a project group, planning and budget making, etc. and finally ending e.g. with a finished product in a form of a vocabulary or a set of entries in a terminological database. Terminological literature quite often describes terminology work as a project, even though it is not always possible or even necessary to go to such lengths. In many cases, a small-scale terminology work would do, such as for ad-hoc work, query answering, or terminology database maintenance in order to research for missing entries, equivalents or subfield terminologies. As mentioned above, terminology work is also done as a continuous process, e.g. in a company or an organization. This kind of terminology work is something for which the term terminology management would be suited for, especially when a terminology management system is utilized. For instance, Cristina Valentini (2016: 35) describes the terminology management of Patent Cooperation Treaty Termbase (PCT) in the following way: “Concepts and terms are contributed daily by PCT staff terminologists, translators, and short-term terminology trainees. Contributions may involve creation of new records for concepts not existing in the PCT Termbase or completion of existing records by adding missing languages.” 6. W H I C H P R O D U C T? Product. Depending on the product, terminology work processes differ from each other – at least in the final steps, when the results are compiled and presented. One end of the “product continuum” consists of a single term, definition, or equivalents, e.g. when processing terminology queries, or adding entries in a term bank. At the other end lies an extensive terminological vocabulary in a form of e.g. print, e-book, pdf, webpages, a set of entries in a term bank or a whole term bank. Another 14 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work type of products can be found in, for instance, terminology work included or integrated in an information or knowledge system, or as part of ontology work. Language. According to the language(s) selected for the product, terminology work can be mono-, bi- or multilingual. In terminological textbooks and handbooks, terminology work process is often presented from the monolingual point of view, because the idea is to repeat the same steps for each language before bringing the results together (see e.g. Cabré 1999: 151). This procedure reveals the similarities and/or differences between the concepts in both concept systems and helps to assess the equivalence or the degree of equivalence between the terms representing these concepts. This is an ideal procedure, and is not or cannot be always followed, as e.g. C. Valentini, Geoffrey Westgate and Philippe Rouquet (2016: 179) note (see also Tamás, Papp and Petz 2016). Especially when the field is large, it is quite an effort to perform an equally extensive analysis of material in all languages which are to be included in the glossary or terminology database. Therefore, it is usual to concentrate on the main language/languages of the project and apply systematic methods on it/them while equivalents in other languages are compiled in a more or less ad hoc manner. In institutional terminology databases, it is often translators who do terminology work, and instead of performing a more thorough systematic investigation, they are “adding terms they encounter while translating” in ad hoc manner as C. Valentini et al. (2016: 179) point out. 7. HOW TERMINOLOGY WORK IS DONE? Material. The choice of representative material is a key factor in terminology work, and as Picht & Draskau (1985: 167) point out “the results of a terminology project can only ever be as good as the raw material upon which it was based.” Therefore, terminology work should be based on original sources of the field, which the handbooks also emphasize. In addition to various documents, interviews and consultations of domain experts are also used, as mentioned earlier. The source material makes up a corpus that is utilized to extract terminological data (Sager 1990: 130; Cabré 1999: 121). J. Sager (1990: 130) describes systematic terminology compilation as corpus-based when comparing it to the earlier lexicographic practices where words were “extracted from previous lists or by Terminologija | 2018 | 25 15 individual searches”. Nowadays, corpus mostly refers to a digitally stored structured collection of texts, which can be analyzed with special software, such as corpus analysis tools (Ahmad & Rogers 1997b: 726; Bowker et al. 2002: 1). A more traditional corpus may consist of various types of non-machine-readable material too. Various types of electronic resources – especially on the Internet – such as aligned corpora, parallel and bi-texts, as well as translation memories make it possible to extract equivalent candidates in two or more languages. However, not every language has yet as well developed NLP tools as English, for instance. A further problem here is that the results are as good as, for example, the translations in the corpora are. Tool. At one end of the “tool continuum”, there is manual terminology work, while there is fully automated work at the end. In between there are various combinations of utilizing computers to assist in terminology work (computer-aided terminology). Terminologists were quite fast to adapt computers for storing term entries and other terminological data and making them digitally available to the users (one of the earliest mentions: Wüster 1969: 5). Today, in many organizations, terminology work equals with terminology database management. New entries are added either systematically or on ad hoc basis. Terminology databases may also be integrated with computer-aided translation tools in order to serve translators better (see e.g. Valentini et al. 2016: 173). Furthermore, considerable research and development work is done with the help of methods and tools from, for instance, corpus linguistics, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence in order to create various types of software for automatic or semi-automatic term acquisition as well as for extraction of information on concept relations. To recognize terms and other relevant data is a skill of a trained and experienced terminologist, and it is a challenge to do it automatically. As challenges for computational terminology that require “new insights from both theoretical and practical viewpoints”, Didier Bourigault et al. (2001: ix) list “automatic identification of terminological units in running text”, regrouping variants (synonyms, or morpho-syntactic variants) in order to give users an accurate picture of the content of a document”, and finding “semantic and conceptual information on terms or to represent conceptual relationships between terms.” Here terminology researchers get help from computational linguists and computer scientists who have also dis- 16 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work covered the importance of terminology when building, for instance, machine and computer-aided translation and abstracting and text generation applications (Bourigault et al. 2001: ix). Even with the automatic working methods, manual terminology work is still needed in verifying a list of candidate terms for accuracy, for instance. This is why Lynne Bowker (2002: 165) would like to describe the process “computer-aided” or “semi-automatic” rather than “fully automatic”. Concept analysis and structuring concept system analysis as well as definition writing remain largely undertakings for a terminologist even though tools for them are under development. Orientation. The much quoted distinction between terminology work and lexicography is that the former is concept-oriented while lexicography is word-oriented. The difference is also described as onomasiological vs. semasiological approach. This distinction has become topical again now that, at least in the research, advanced methods of lexicography and language technology have come to embrace also LSP and terminologies for various purposes. Also terminologists are experimenting, developing and adopting tools and methods that can make it easier to, for instance, extract terminological data from larger or bilingual corpora automatically (see Bourigault et al. 2001; Steurs & Kockaert 2014). In this sense, we could contrast concept- and term-oriented terminology work. However, terms have always had a central role in identifying and locating field specific concepts in texts and discourse. In practice, the terminologist is looking for the key concepts and concept systems of the field with the help of their linguistic designations, i.e. terms, and other expressions. When word/term-oriented methods are utilized in terminology work, there is also a need to establish concept systems for further term extraction and presentation of the data. This is still under research and is often done manually according to the studies. Systematicity. Terminological literature usually distinguishes between systematic terminology work and “non systematic” or ad hoc or punctual terminology work. As cited earlier, ISO 1087 defines terminology work as “work concerned with the systematic collection, description, processing and presentation of concepts and their designations” and considers systematicity as a basic feature of terminology work. Systematicity is explicitly or implicitly connected with at least with three elements of Terminologija | 2018 | 25 17 terminology work: 1) systematic way of working, i.e. following a method as opposed to punctual/ad hoc search; 2) concept-orientation involving elaboration of concept system for the basis of further analysis as opposed to word-orientation in lexicography; and, 3) organizing and presenting the results systematically as opposed to an alphabetical order. LISE Guidelines describes systematic terminology work as “a domain-specific activity” which “is usually done within the framework of a project” and “is time-consuming, but allows terminologists to concentrate on one domain or a set of related themes. This enhances their domain knowledge, allows a more efficient collection of documentation and encompasses the creation of concept systems”. (LISE Guidelines 2013: 23–24) There are no established methods for ad hoc work, but Kaisa Kuhmonen (1999: 155) from the Finnish Centre for Terminology argues that even though a terminological problem to be solved does not concern whole concept systems but isolated term problems, the method they use at query service does not basically differ from the one used in terminological projects. They focus on the concept and concept relations to find out an answer. Systematic terminology work in such a case does not have to involve a whole project but also a very restricted version of the method can be utilized. 8. C O N C L U S I O N S Terminology work is an activity with many dimensions. The first analysis of its dimensions was made by Eugen Wüster 1969 in his presentation “Die vier Dimensionen der Terminologiearbeit” in a journal for interpreters and translators. He described terminology work by distinguishing four dimensions: subject field (various fields), language (various languages), approach (purpose: co-ordination of terminology work, use of terminology, systematic terminology work), and abstraction level (case study, work on principles) (Wüster: 1969 1–6; see also Felber 1984: 3–12). The results of his analysis form a faceted classification of the characteristics, which he illustrates with a “Kommodenbau” (chest of drawers) model (Wüster 1969: 2). Since Wüster’s time, the field of terminology has matured and taken many forms, and for instance, the ubiquitous digitalization is now shaping the field of terminology in multiple ways. This has also widened the sphere of those interested in terminological research, and those who are developing methods for terminology work, for instance automated meth- 18 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work ods for term extraction, compiling corpuses, and glossaries, etc. Terminology work has also proved to be useful for many other activities involving conceptual and linguistic organization and clarity, and some of its elements have been integrated for instance in the work with ontologies, information systems, archives, etc. For this paper, explicit and implicit dichotomies and trichotomies in later literature have been scrutinized to find out the characteristics and typologies of terminology work today. The dimensions distinguished are target group (experts, translators, other stakeholders, general audience, machine, etc.), immediacy to the need (proactive, just-in-time), various needs (domain- or text-oriented), purpose (normative, recommending, descriptive), expertise (primary, secondary...), collaboration (collaborative, individual), continuity (freestanding, continuous), product (vocabulary, database,..), language (mono-, bi-, multilingual), material, tool (manual, computer-aided, computational), orientation (concept-, term-oriented) and systematicity (systematic, punctual). Di/trichotomies (or even bigger series of alternatives) often overlap and different characteristics can make several combinations. For instance, terminology work can be a freestanding onetime effort or a recurrent activity, where a terminological vocabulary in the form of print, e-book, pdf, webpages, or a set of entries in a term bank is produced. On the other hand, for companies and organizations, it is more appropriate to manage their terminology by integrating terminology work as a continuous practice in their processes. For them, terminology work may equal with terminology database management. Terminology work may be an organized effort by a project group, team, department, or a professional terminologist, and with a purpose to unify or harmonize the usage of terms and concepts, or it may be a part of translator’s or technical writer’s work performed either continuously or whenever needed. The main task for terminology work has been to facilitate mutual understanding inside special fields and over the language and other boundaries. Therefore, normative terminology work has been emphasized in standards and manuals. Its purpose is to guide the users to adopt preferred terms and definitions and to avoid rejected ones. Terminology work may also be descriptive and may be done in order to inform language users on various alternative terms, concepts and concept systems that exist. In Terminologija | 2018 | 25 19 addition, terminology work is often presented from the point of view of terminology projects, data base management, monolingual terminology work, or systematic terminology work. However, ad hoc or just-in-time terminology work needs its own adaptation of terminological methods. To sum up, the paper is an effort to explore the possible ways of organizing the characteristics and types of terminology work. Many possibilities for subdivisions may still be added in the model. Dichotomies and trichotomies have offered a fruitful approach. J. Myking (2007: 281) states that dichotomies “are important because they enable identification of the object of study as well as theoretical and methodological tenets. The price, however, is (over-)simplification.” Presenting them as total opposites is didactic, illustrative, or rhetorical tactics utilized by standards, manuals, textbooks, or research papers. In reality, the various types of terminology work are not always discrete categories and their concrete instances are situated rather on a continuum. REFERENCES Ahmad K., Rogers M. 1997: Corpus Linguistics and terminology extraction. – Wright, Budin 1997b, Vol. 2, 725–760. Antia B. 2001: Metadiscourse in terminology: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. – IITF Journal 12, No. 1–2, 65–84. Bourigault et al. 2001: Recent Advances in Computational Terminology. Bourigault D., Jacquemin C., L’Homme M.-C. (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bowker L. & Pearson J. 2002: Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora, London: Routledge. Budin G. 2001: A critical evaluation of the state-of-the-art of terminology theory. – IITF Journal 12, No. 1–2, 7–23. Cabré M. T. 2003: Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation. – Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 9, Issue 2, 163–199. Cabré Castellví M. T. 1999: Terminology: Theory, methods and applications, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dobrina C. 2010: Terminology on demand. Maintaining a terminological query service. – Terminology in Everyday Life. M. Thelen, and F. Steurs (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 81–95. Faber P. 1999: Conceptual analysis and knowledge acquisition in scientific translation. – Terminologie et Traduction 2, 97–120. Felber H. 1984: Terminology Manual, Paris: Unesco, Infoterm. Fischer M. 2010: Language (policy), translation and terminology in the European Union. – Terminology in Everyday Life. M. Thelen & F. Steurs (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 21–33. Galinski C., Budin G. 1993: New Trends in Translation-Oriented Terminology Management. – Scientific and Technical Translation. S. E. Wright, L. D. Wright (eds.), Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 209–216. Ghallchobhair F. N. 2008: Term Watch. The influence of translation on terminology and language. Slides. Available at: http://www.eaft-aet.net/fileadmin/files/SOMMET_2008/FN_Ghallchobhair_presentation.pdf. Hohnhold I. 1990: Übersetzungsorientierte Terminologiearbeit, Stuttgart: InTra. 20 Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work ISO 1087-1 2000 Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1. Theory and application, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 704 2009 Terminology work – Principles and methods, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. Karsch B. 2014: Terminology work and crowdsourcing. Coming to terms with the crowd. – Handbook of Terminology. F. Steurs, H. Kockaert (eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 291–303. Kuhmonen K. 1999: Kurkistus termipalvelun kulissien taakse. – Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin. K. Kuhmonen (ed.), Helsinki: Tekniikan Sanastokeskus, 154–158. Laurén C., Myking J., Picht H. 1997: Terminologi som vetenskapsgren, Lund: Studentlitteratur. LISE Guidelines 2013: Chiocchetti E., Heinisch-Obermoser B., Löckinger G., Lušicky V., Ralli N., Stanizzi I. & Wissik T. Guidelines for collaborative legal/administrative terminology work, Bolzano: EURAC Research. Lušicky V., Wissik T. 2015: Procedural Manual on Terminology. Translation-Oriented Terminology Work. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.8552&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Myking J. 2001: Socioterminology, terminology planning and standardization. – IITF Journal 12, No. 1–2, 49–64. Myking J. 2007: Dichotomies: impossible and indispensable? – Evidence-based LSP – Translation, text and terminology. Ahmad K., Rogers M. (eds.), 265–283. Also at: http://www.computing.surrey.ac.uk/lsp2003/LSP PROCEEDINGS.pdf. Picht H., Draskau J., 1985: Terminology: An Introduction, Surrey: University of Surrey. Pointer Report POINTER – Proposals for an operational Infrastructure for terminology in Europe. 1996. At: http://www.computing.surry.ac.uk/ai/pointer/report/intro.html. Rey A. 1995: Essays on Terminology. Translated and edited by J.C. Sager, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sager J. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schmitz K.-D. 2009: Applied Principles of Terminology Work. Slides. Terminology Summer School, 06–10 July 2009, Cologne. Available at: http://www.termnet.org/downloads/english/events/tss2009/TSS2009_KDS_TerminologyWork.pdf. Steurs F., Kockaert H. 2014: Handbook of Terminology 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tamás D., Papp M. E., Petz A. 2016: Translator as Terminologist. – The Modern Translator and Interpreter. Ildikó Horváth (ed.), Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, 57–78. Available: http://www.eltereader.hu/media/2016/04/HorvathTheModernTranslator.pdf. Temmerman R. 2000: Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The sociocognitive approach, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Valentini C. 2016: Quality Control in Terminology Management. – Term Bases and Linguistic Linked Open Data. H. Erdman Thomsen, A. Pareja-Lora, B. Nistrup Madsen (eds.), Copenhagen Business School, 34–43. Available at: http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/9323. Valentini C., Westgate G., Rouquet P. 2016: The PCT Termbase of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Designing a database for multilingual patent terminology. – Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 22, Issue 2, 171–200. Warburton K. 1997: Globalization and terminology management. – Handbook of Terminology Management: Application-oriented terminology 2. Compiled by S. E. Wright, G. Budin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 677–696. Wright S. E., Budin G. 1997a: Handbook of Terminology Management: Basic aspects of terminology 1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wright S. E., Budin G. 1997b: Handbook of Terminology Management: Application-oriented terminology 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wright S. E., Wright L. D. 1997: Terminology Management for Technical Translation. – Handbook of Terminology Management 1: Basic aspects of terminology. Compiled by S. E. Wright, G. Budin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 147–159. Wüster E. 1969: Die vier Dimensionen der Terminologiearbeit. – Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 2/15 (März), 1–6. Terminologija | 2018 | 25 2 1 TERMINOLOGIJOS DARBO ASPEKTAI Straipsnyje aptariami įvairūs terminologijos darbo aspektai. Nagrinėjama terminologijos literatūra, ieškant aiškių ir numanomų dichotomijų ir trichotomijų, susijusių su tikslinė grupė, poreikio tenkinimo skuba, įvairiais poreikiais, tikslu, ekspertize, bendradarbiavimu, tęstinumu, produktu, kalba, medžiaga, priemone, orientacija ir sistemiškumu. Kaip tyrimo rezultatas pateikta daugiaaspektė terminologijos darbo tipologija (sąvokų sistema), kurios kategorijos gali būti įvairiai derinamos. Pavyzdžiui, terminologijos darbas gali būti savarankiška vienkartinė ar pasikartojanti veikla, kurios produktas – spausdintas, el. knygos ar pdf formatu parengtas, tinklalapyje pateiktas ar kaip terminų straipsnių rinkinys terminų banke įdėtas terminų žodynas. Be to, terminologijos darbas gali būti organizuota, bendradarbiavimu paremta veikla, kurios imasi projekto grupė, organizacijos padalinys ar profesionalus terminologas, jis gali būti vertėjo ar specialiųjų tekstų rengėjo darbo dalis, atliekama nuolat ar pagal poreikį. Šiuolaikinis terminologijos darbas labai įvairus. Jam reikia tokių metodų ir principų, žinynų ir vadovėlių, kurie galėtų aprėpti įvairius poreikius ir suteiktų tinkamą pagrindą skirtingų tipų terminologijos darbui: terminologijos planavimui, greitai atliktinam terminologijos darbui, įvairioms tikslinėms grupėms numatytai veiklai, įskaitant kompiuterijos sprendimus, projektus, tęstinę terminologijos tvarkybą ir kt. Gauta 2018-07-03 Anita Nuopponen University of Vaasa P.O. Box 700 65101 Vaasa Finland 22  Anita Nuopponen | Dimensions of Terminology Work