Coping with the Main Terms of Terminology

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]