3 9Te minologija | 2018 | 25
Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology1
PeeP Nem al s
Tallinn Uni e si y
Keywo ds: concep , designa o , ha monisa ion, e m, e ms ock, e minology, e minology
s anda d, ocabula y
InT oduCTIon
Mos e minologis s seem o ag ee ha all e minological wo k – e m
planning, managemen , ha monisa ion and s anda disa ion – should be
g ounded on a clea unde s anding o concep -based assessmen o any
e m and on he necessi y o manage any sys em o concep s in a way
whe e each concep is de ined as p ecisely as possible. Bea ing in mind
ha e e y concep e e s o a eal-wo ld en i y, his pape deals wi h he
designa i e ela ion be ween e ms as linguis ic uni s and concep s as
knowledge uni s. M. Te esa Cab é e al. (2007: 1) ha e s a ed “di e si y
o app oaches o he no ion o “ e m” is de e mined by he needs o
speci ic applica ions. Bu needs mus no lead o con usion abou he
na u e o e ms.” I belie e he na u e o ‘ e m’ as he concep is o be a
designa o o a (specialised) concep in some ield. Though his could be
any symbol, i is mos ly a lexical uni o a language. Whe he his desig-
na o consis s o one o mo e lexemes and has simple o mo e complex
mo phological o syn ac ic s uc u e does no change he na u e o e m.
The e o e, o he p oposed designa o s o ‘a designa o o a (specialised)
concep ’ han e m, such as uni o unde s anding (Temme man 2000) o
specialised knowledge uni (Cab é 2003), o e en e minological uni (Cab é
e al. 2007) do no make i clea e wha is he essence o he concep
designa ed by he e m e m.
1 This pape is based on he alk “The essence o e minology and wo k on Es onian e ms” a he 2nd
In e na ional Scien i ic Con e ence on Te minology in Vilnius 1–2 June 2017, he i s sho e sion o
his was p esen ed a he EAFT-EAT Summi 2016 in Luxembou g: “Wha is he p ope meaning o he
e m e minology?”. The s udy has been suppo ed by he Es onian Minis y o Educa ion and esea ch
h ough he Ees ikeelse e minoloogia p og amm 2013–2017.
4 0 Peep Nem al s | Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology
Being awa e o pas discussions on “ he e minology o e minology”
in ex books o he ield and elsewhe e, I do no hink i is necessa y o
e e o hese he e. My pu pose is o s i e owa ds cla i y o he concep-
ual sys em by using a e m sys em which is as unambiguous as possible.
The aim o his pape is o examine how he mos cen al e ms o e -
minology (like concep , designa ion, e m, e minology, ocabula y) ha e
been used and o discuss i he e is any eason o adjus he usage o hese
e ms hence o h. The desi e o unambiguousness holds ue o e e y
na ional language, including English. My s a ing poin is e m usage in
Es onian, bu as English is used bo h as lingua anca and is also he main
wo king language o e m s anda disa ion, my ocus will be on English
and I will sugges coinages in o de o sol e some ambigui y p oblems
ound in English e ms.
MonoSEMy AS MAJo p E EquISITE
Fo dISTInCT TE M SySTEMS
Wi hin any speciali y, i is desi able ha a consis en concep ual sys em
is mi o ed by an o de ly sys em o pu pose ully unc ional e ms, eme g-
ing om he language s uc u e. E e y language has i s own mo pho-
logical, syn ac ic and wo d o ma ional means. Howe e , one o he mos
essen ial ea u es o a unc ional e m in any specialised language is mon-
osemy (combined wi h a mono e e en ial ela ion be ween a concep and
eal-wo ld en i y). Wha e e language is used, e e y specialis should
unde s and wha is he concep and which e ms a e he mos app op ia e
o designa e he concep s o hei subjec ield. This is he only way o
ensu e ha ellow specialis s and o he in e es ed people unde s and wha
exac ly is mean in a ex .
use s o specialised language o en alk abou de ining e ms (o wo ds),
mis akenly conside ing he e ms concep and e m as synonyms. E.g.,
“The e o e i seems logical o u n o he de ini ion o his wo d in he
de ining dic iona ies wi h he aim o es ablishing he exac meanings o
his e m” (G iniewicz 2016: 7). S udying he usage o he Li huanian
e m są oka ‘concep ’ in academic Li huanian, As a Mi ke ičienė (2017:
125) has concluded ha he ea u es o a e m a e asc ibed o a concep .
Acco ding o A i Ta as (2008: 38–39), a s udy o he p ess subco pus
o he Ta u uni e si y co pus o s anda d Es onian ea u ed he wo d
mõis e (“concep ”) in he meaning ‘knowledge uni ’ in 31% and in he
4 1Te minologija | 2018 | 25
meaning o a lexical uni (= e m) in 29% o ele an occu ences. In
2002–2004, he posed he ques ion “Mis on mõis e?” (“Wha is a con-
cep ?”) o Es onian MA s uden s o ansla ion s udies a he beginning
o hei e minology cou se. This su ey shows ha only 12% o espond-
en s iden i ied he Es onian wo d mõis e (“concep ”) as a knowledge uni ,
whe eas 46% conside ed i o be a lexical uni (Ta as 2008: 39–40).
di icul ies in inding good e ms appea s o be a majo issue o doc-
o al s uden s a all Es onian uni e si ies. In 2012 in collabo a ion wi h
some sociologis s o Tallinn uni e si y, we conduc ed a su ey o hei
opinions on using academic languages ( oosmaa e al. 2014)2. A web-
based ques ionnai e was answe ed by 240 esponden s, 92% o whom had
Es onian as hei i s language. The selec ion o phd s uden s was ep-
esen a i e o bo h he uni e si ies p esen and subjec s augh in Es onia.
Answe s o he ques ion “Wha is he mos di icul o you while w i ing
scien i ic ex s in Es onian?” con inced ha he bigges ouble is inding
app op ia e e ms. This di icul y was admi ed by 59% o phd s uden s
in na u al sciences and echnical disciplines, as well as by 44% o phd
s uden s in social sciences and humani ies. The use o e ms in Es onian
academic ex s was a p oblem o 70% o eade s among phd s uden s in
he ield o na u al and echnical sciences and o 58% in he ield o
social sciences and humani ies.
Mo e speci ically, di icul ies in inding app op ia e e ms while w i ing
Es onian specialised ex s we e equen o 57% and occasional o 37%
o phd s uden s in social sciences and humani ies. The same di icul ies
we e equen o 71% and occasional o 26% o phd s uden s o na u al
and echnical sciences.
While w i ing scien i ic ex s in English, di icul ies o inding an ap-
p op ia e e m we e equen o 22% o phd s uden s in social sciences
and humani ies and 21% o phd s uden s o na u al and echnical sci-
ences. These di icul ies we e occasional o 61% o phd s uden s in
social sciences and humani ies and 60% o phd s uden s o na u al and
echnical sciences.
Finding an app op ia e Es onian e m was ne e p oblema ic o only
3% o phd s uden s o na u al and echnical sciences and o 6% in social
sciences and humani ies. Finding an app op ia e English e m was ne e
2 The su ey was pa o he s udy Es onian as Language o Highe Educa ion and Science, suppo ed by Eu
h ough he P imus p og amme o Eu opean Social Fund.
4 2 Peep Nem al s | Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology
challenging o 19% o phd s uden s o na u al and echnical sciences
and o 17% in social sciences and humani ies. Sel -assessmen o hei
knowledge o academic languages esul ed in a e age3 as ollows: 4,0 o
academic Es onian and 3,2 o academic English among phd s uden s o
social sciences and humani ies and 3,7 o academic Es onian and 3,6 o
academic English among phd s uden s o na u al and echnical sciences.
The ac ha na i e Es onian s uden s ind i sligh ly less di icul o use
English e ms may indica e a less c i ical a i ude owa ds he e ms used
in English scien i ic ex s.
These widesp ead p oblems in choosing an app op ia e e m o a con-
cep in any specialised language could o en be caused by polysemy o ,
in some cases, by synonymy. Consequen ly, he e a e s ong easons why
e minology cou ses a e needed o e e y speciali y on all le els o high-
e educa ion. I is also necessa y o specialis s in any ield o keep on
ecei ing aining in e minology and o ake pa in p ac ical e m wo k.
The mos c ucial issue o cla i y is: wha is he essence o he concep
‘ e minology’ and how clea ly he meaning o he e m e minology is
in e p e ed. E e yone dealing wi h e ms o any ield should ask he ol-
lowing ques ions:
•Wha does he e m e minology designa e?
•Has e minology been used as a monosemic, unambiguous e m?
•How many di e en meanings his e m is supposed o ha e?
And las , bu no leas :
•Fo how many concep s is i app op ia e o use his e m as a des-
igna o ? o , o pu i ano he way: is i easonable o use he e m
e minology o designa ing se e al concep s?
I is also p e e able o a oid polysemy in deno ing closely ela ed con-
cep s. Howe e , he e m designa ion has been used bo h o he concep
o ‘dis inguishing name, sign, o i le’ and o he concep ‘ he ac o
designa ing, indica ing o iden i ying’. I p e e designa ion only o he
la e meaning, and sugges he e m designa o o be used solely o
‘dis inguishing name, sign (o a concep )’. un o una ely, he in e na-
ional e minology s anda d (ISo 1087-1:2002) inlcudes designa o me e-
ly as an admi ed e m (en y 3.4.1) and designa ion is p e e ed o he
concep ‘ ep esen a ion o a concep (3.2.1) by a sign which deno es i ’.
3 A e age on he scale o 1-5 whe e 5 = e y good, 1 = e y poo .
4 3Te minologija | 2018 | 25
The concep sys em would be clea e i he p ocess o designa ing o
labelling (designa ion) and he lexical label as a ool (designa o ) we e
consis en ly dis inguished. u e Cos a and Ch is ophe oche (2013) ha e
posed some ques ions abou designa ion as used in ISo 704 and ISo 1087,
including “Is a designa ion a ep esen a ion?” and “A e “designa ion” and
“ e m” synonyms? Some imes i looks like. Some imes i does no ”. The
ac ha such ques ions a ise, con i ms ha he e m designa ion is no
uni ocal. no is he e m e minology.
p o esso o economics uno Me es e was known o he la ge public as
a membe o he Es onian pa liamen and as an au ho o many a icles
on he usage o Es onian as a gene al language, as well as a legal language
and indeed as specialised language o his own subjec ield, economics.
He has coined se e al economy e ms in Es onian and has asse ed ha
he Es onian (e ) e m e minoloogia may deno e ou di e en concep s
(Me es e 1969): de ined ei he om he iewpoin o on ology o gnose-
ology, and ei he in a na owe o wide sense. u. Me es e’s able in-
cluded only Es onian examples, bu same kind o ambiguous usage can
be ound in se e al languages, including English (en), Finnish ( i) and
Swedish (s ), some imes e minology o i s coun e pa s in o he lan-
guages meaning ‘special(ised) ocabula y’, some imes ‘s udy o e ms’,
some imes ‘special(ised) language, LSp’, e c. (c . Table 1).
Table 1. Polysemic usage o es onian e minoloogia, designa ing ou concep s, by U. Me es e (1969). English,
Finnish and Swedish a e added by me in o de o explain he possible concep ual di e ences i hese would be made. I does
no mean ha all o hese wo ds a e ac i ely used as e ms in hose h ee languages.
e e minoloogia
i e minologia
s e minologi
en e minology
onToLoGy GnoSEoLoGy
na owe sense
e ‘oskussõna a a’
i ‘ e mis ö, oppisanas o’
s ‘ acko d (och -u yck)’
en ‘specialised ocabula y’
‘oskussõnaõpe us’
‘ e mioppi’
‘ e minologilä a, acko dlä a’
‘s udy o e ms’
WIdE SEnSE
e ‘oskuskeel, e ialakeel’
i ‘amma i-, e ikoiskieli’
s ‘ acksp åk’
en ‘specialised language’
‘oskuskeeleõpe us’
‘e ikoiskiel en u kimus’
‘ acksp åks o skning’
‘LSp heo y, esea ch o LSp’

4 4 Peep Nem al s | Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology
Es onian e minologis and lexicog aphe ein Kull (2000: 142) has
obse ed ha e minoloogia in Es onian, as well as i s equi alen s in Eng-
lish ( e minology), Ge man (Te minologie), F ench ( e minologie), and us-
sian (тepминoлoгия) ha e also been used o designa e he concep o
’specialised language’, ha is o say polysemous manne .
Language planne and e minologis Tiiu E el (2007: 12) conside s i
impossible o designa e he concep ‘specialised language’ by he e m
e minology and i s equi alen s in Es onian, Ge man, Finnish and ussian,
bu is sa is ied wi h he h ee o he concep s ha a e designa ed wi h his
e m (c . Table 2. Fo compa abili y easons, I ha e modi ied T. E el ’s
able o ma ch u. Me es e’s pa e n). The i le o he book, Te miniõpe us
(‘s udy o e ms’), is synonymous wi h oskussõnaõpe us in Es onian.
Table 2. Polysemic usage o es onian e minoloogia and i s equi alen s in Finnish, Ge man, english and
ussian, designa ing h ee concep s, by T. e el (2007)
e e minoloogia
i e minologia
de Te minologie
en e minology
u терминология
(onToLoGy) (GnoSEoLoGy)
nA oWE
SEnSE
e ‘oskussõna a a’
i ‘ e mis ö’
de ‘Fachwo scha z’
en ‘specialized ocabula y’
u ‘терминология
‘oskussõnaõpe us, e miniõpe us’
‘oppi e meis ä’
‘Te minologieleh e, Fachwo leh e’
‘ e minology science,’
‘терминоведение’
WIdE SEnSE
e ‘oskuskeel, e ialakeel’
i ‘amma i-, e ikoiskieli’
de ‘Fachschp ache’
en ‘specialised language’
u ‘язык науки и техники’
‘oskuskeeleõpe us’
‘oppi e ikoiskielis ä’
‘Te minologieleh e, Fachschp achleh e’
‘ e minology science, LSp heo y’
‘терминология’
Likewise, M. T. Cab é Cas ell í (1999: 32) has no ed: “The wo d e min-
ology e e s o a leas h ee di e en concep s:
a. The p inciples and concep ual bases ha go e n he s udy o e ms
b. The guidelines used in e minog aphic wo k
c. The se o e ms o a pa icula special subjec
The i s concep e e s o he whole ield, he second, o i s me hod-
ology, and he hi d o he se s o e ms on a speci ic opic.”
4 5Te minologija | 2018 | 25
Some o he compa able e ms always a e monosemic. When we need o
designa e he concep ‘a sum o s ock o wo ds employed by a language,
g oup, o indi idual, (o wo k o in a ield o knowledge)’, we can use des-
igna o s ocabula y o lexis o wo ds ock – and hese a e monosemes (c . Fig-
u e 1), he same way as he Es onian equi alen s sõna a a o leksika. Likewise,
a monosemic ela ion is undoub edly ue be ween he concep ‘s udy o
wo ds’ and he e m lexicology (en), leksikoloogia o sõna a aõpe us (e ) – no-
body ies o claim ha he in ensions o he concep s ‘s udy, science o
lexis,’ and ‘language’ coincide o ha he e ms lexicology and ocabula y bo h
designa e he same concep – ha o ‘a sum o s ock o se o wo ds’.
In con as , di e en meanings o e minology o en occu in he same
ex by he same au ho . While in some occasions he p ecise meaning o
his e m (i.e. he designa ed concep ) can be guessed om he con ex ,
i is no always clea enough in o he ins ances. Such ambigui y may cause
con usion as o wha concep exac ly is mean , and in wo s cases, he
eade o lis ene misin e p e s he e m used. In some con ex s, he au ho
is o ced o use double designa o s in o de o ensu e p ope meaning, like
e ms and e minology by Isabel du án-Muñoz (2014: 84): “… i wo ks a
he le el o e ms ( e minology), ha is, he domains sha e he same con-
cep s bu name hem di e en ly.”.
ToWA dS SySTEMATIC TE M HA MonISATIon
And TE MSToCK pLAnnInG
one o he mos basic documen s o e minologis s and e e yone deal-
ing wi h he e ms o any speciali y is he in e na ional e minology s and-
a d (ISo 1087-1:2002)4 whe e hose in oduc o y s a emen s a e ound:
4 He e I e e o he publica ion o he s anda d which consis s o he English ex o he In e na ional
S anda d ISo 1087-1:2000 Te minology wo k – Vocabula y – pa 1. Theo y and applica ion and an iden i-
cal Es onian ansla ion o he English ex .
Figu e 1. Monosemic designa i e usage o lexicology and he e ms designa ing he objec o s udy in lexicology
4 6 Peep Nem al s | Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology
[1] “The main pu pose o his in e na ional e minology s anda d is
o p o ide a sys emic desc ip ion o he concep s in he ield o
e minology and o cla i y he use o he e ms in his ield.”
(ISo 1087-1:2002: V)
[2] “This In e na ional S anda d es ablishes a basic ocabula y o
he heo y and applica ion o e minology wo k.” (ISo 1087-
1:2002: VII)
He e, se e al cen al e ms a e used: concep , e m, e minology, – bu
also – ocabula y [2]. Te ms like e minology planning, e minology wo k
and e minology s anda d, as used in [3] do no help o p o ide a sys-
emic desc ip ion, because he wo d e minology in hese e ms is no
monosemic.5 Tha is why i is no qui e app op ia e in a con ex like
his. please no e ha ocabula y as used in [3 en] below is clea ly a
monosemic e m and o de ining he scope o his S anda d: “This In-
e na ional S anda d es ablishes a basic ocabula y o he heo y and
applica ion o e minology wo k.” (ISo 1087-1:2002: 1) Howe e , using
ocabula y (en y 3.7.2) as designa o o a subdi ision o e minological
dic iona y (en y 3.7.1) does no seem necessa y. Vocabula y (o a subjec
ield) can be p esen ed in dic iona ies and glossa ies.
[3 en] “3.6.4
e minology planning
ac i i ies aimed a de eloping, imp o ing, implemen ing and dissemina ing
he e mino logy (3.5.1) o a subjec ield (3.1.2)
noTE Te minology planning in ol es all aspec s o e minology wo k
(3.6.1) and has among o he objec i es he objec i e o achie ing ocabula y
con ol h ough such no ma i e documen s as hesau i and e minology
s anda ds.” (ISo 1087-1:2002: 14)
The co esponding e m en y 3.6.4 in he Es onian ansla ion o he
S anda d, c . [3 e ], does no make he use o he wo d e minoloogia,
ins ead he p ecise designa o e min (en e m) occu s, esul ing in a com-
pound noun e miniko as us. Howe e , he ph ase “ he e mino logy
(3.5.1) o a subjec ield (3.1.2)” in he English e sion o he S anda d
co esponds o “mingi aldkonna (3.1.2) e mino loogia (3.5.1)“ in he
Es onian ansla ion.
5 Su ely, polysemy is a eason why he wo d e minology e u ned 13 300 hi s on ISo web pages, as Hå a d
Hjuls ad poin ed ou in his alk a he EAFT-EAT Summi 2016 in Luxembou g.
4 7Te minologija | 2018 | 25
[3 e ] “3.6.4
e miniko as us
oskuskeeleko aldus
ege used mingi aldkonna (3.1.2) e mino loogia (3.5.1) a endamiseks,
äius amiseks, kasu usele õ uks ja le i amiseks” (EVS-ISo 1087-1:2002)
The second e m oskuskeeleko aldus shown as a synonym in [3 e ]
is misleading, because he p ope meaning o oskuskeel is ‘special lan-
guage, LSp’.
Wha a e we planning when we plan e minology? And wha is e min-
ology wo k exac ly? I sugges ha ins ead o such polysemic e minology
(en) and e minoloogia (e ) monosemic e ms would be used, like in [3.1].
[3.1. en] 3.6.4
e ms ock planning
ac i i ies aimed a de eloping, imp o ing, implemen ing and dissemina ing
he e ms ~ e ms ock (3.5.1) o a subjec ield (3.1.2)
noTE Te ms ock planning in ol es all aspec s o e m(inological)
wo k (3.6.1) and has among o he objec i es he objec i e o achie ing oca-
bula y con ol h ough such no ma i e documen s as hesau i and e m
s anda ds.
[3.1. e ] “3.6.4
e miniko as us
ege used mingi aldkonna (3.1.2) e mini a a (3.5.1) a endamiseks …
Jus like he concep o ‘a sum, s ock o se o wo ds’ is bes designa ed
by a uni ocal English e m as wo ds ock (c . ig. 1), i would be he bes
solu ion o designa e he concep o ‘a sum, s ock o se o e ms’ wi h
an analogous coinage e ms ock (c . ig. 2). This could be a sho e un-
ambiguous e m in compa ison o specialised ocabula y. Simila kind o
pa allel e m o ma ion can be ound, o example, in Es onian and Finn-
ish (c . able 3). In Es onian bo h e ms a e compounds, whe eas in Finn-
ish hese a e de i a i es.
Table 3. simila concep s designa ed by simila ly o med e ms in h ee languages
en wo ds ock e ms ock
e sõna a a e mni a a
i sanas o e mis ö
‘a sum, s ock o se o wo ds’ ‘a sum, s ock o se o e ms’
5 4 Peep Nem al s | Coping wi h he Main Te ms o Te minology
uni e si e ų dok o an ų apklausos, inkamo e mino adimas – iena iš pag indinių
p oblemų. Sunkumą pa ink i inkamus es iškus i angliškus e minus dažnai lemia
daugia eikšmiškumas. Kiek iena kalba u i ik jai būdingas mo ologines, sin aksines i
da ybines p iemones, ačiau ienas iš s a biausių be ku ioje specialiojoje kalboje in-
kamai unkcionuojančio e mino b uožų y a iena eikšmiškumas. Nepaisan o, pa s
pag indinis e minas e minology žymi ke u ias są okas. Ne e minologijos s anda e
ISo 1087-1 išski os d i e minology eikšmės. S aipsnio au o ius mano, kad angliškas
e minas e minology bei jo a i ikmenys ki omis kalbomis u ė ų bū i nuosekliai i iena-
eikšmiškai a ojami ik ienai są okai – ‘mokslui apie e minus’ – žymė i i siūlo a o-
i da inį e ms ock ie oj s anda e e minijos eikšme a ojamo e mino e minology.
Kai ku ie ki i e minai – e minology planning, e minology wo k, e minology science
i designa ion – ap a iami a siž elgian į jų iena eikšmiškumą i a ojimo nuoseklu-
mą są okų sis emoje. Sis emiškas e minų da ninimas i e minijos plana imas y a
bū inas kuo didesniam iena eikšmiškumui be ku ioje žinių s i yje, įskai an e mi
nologiją, pasiek i.
Gau a 2018-07-28
peep nem al s
Tallinn uni e si y
School o Humani ies, Cen e o Academic Es onian
na a mn 25, 10120 Tallinn, Es onia
peep.nem [email p o ec ed]